A few things that piss me off
So after my regular morning ritual of reading the news and checking some other websites, I have been reminded of a few things that I really don't like much.
1) Americans that spell the country of Colombia as "Columbia".
2) Newspapers that misquote or deliberately misrepresent a politician in order to make a headline sound more sensational.
3) Politicians that are too stupid and disrespectful to have the jobs that they do.
4) Censorship that goes too far.
5) Workplace managers having the authority to monitor staff's emails and internet usage, and to be able to dismiss staff for what they deem as inappropriate, even when no laws have been broken.
And, one additional thing that doesn't piss me off as such, but does get me thinking, is this, and is related to the issue of personal liberty and civic responsibility:
A guy in Western Australia wants a few days to himself, away from the world and his regular life. So he decides to go walking. Having been reported as missing by someone else, the police and State Emergency Services begin a coslty and resource-intensive search for him. A few days later a family friend recognises him in a shopping mall and notifies police, whereby our protagonist is then told there was a huge search for him. He apologises for all the fuss.
There are now some people saying that this guy should pay for the cost of the search if he is able to.
This is what gets me thinking. The guy broke no laws, never asked for the search to happen, and was simply choosing to be master of his own actions. So should he be responsible for the resources used up in the subsequent search?
This reminds me of something I was thinking about last week. In today's explored world, people generally can't choose to be stateless. The vast majority of people are born a citizen of somewhere, and while this does afford you the use of certain government services, it also forces you to meet obligations to that government (taxes, adhering to laws etc) or face consequences of liberty. And the only way to choose to end this is to go become a citizen of another sovereign nation which comes with its own set of rights and responsibilities (and some people don't even get that choice). Nowhere is it possible to officially "drop off the system", sustain yourself on your own bit of land, and give up all responsibilities and adherence to any government (and of course giving up the benefits that come from being a citizen of that government's nation too). All land on earth has a claim already laid to it that is recognised by the international community. Of course, there are some groups of people around the world (various independence movements) that are fighting for this very same self-autonomy and their claim to a bit of land right now, but even then the only way they can get it is by figthing force, which is beyond the means of an individual and may be beyond their morals too.
There are indeed limits to personal liberty.
1) Americans that spell the country of Colombia as "Columbia".
2) Newspapers that misquote or deliberately misrepresent a politician in order to make a headline sound more sensational.
3) Politicians that are too stupid and disrespectful to have the jobs that they do.
4) Censorship that goes too far.
5) Workplace managers having the authority to monitor staff's emails and internet usage, and to be able to dismiss staff for what they deem as inappropriate, even when no laws have been broken.
And, one additional thing that doesn't piss me off as such, but does get me thinking, is this, and is related to the issue of personal liberty and civic responsibility:
A guy in Western Australia wants a few days to himself, away from the world and his regular life. So he decides to go walking. Having been reported as missing by someone else, the police and State Emergency Services begin a coslty and resource-intensive search for him. A few days later a family friend recognises him in a shopping mall and notifies police, whereby our protagonist is then told there was a huge search for him. He apologises for all the fuss.
There are now some people saying that this guy should pay for the cost of the search if he is able to.
This is what gets me thinking. The guy broke no laws, never asked for the search to happen, and was simply choosing to be master of his own actions. So should he be responsible for the resources used up in the subsequent search?
This reminds me of something I was thinking about last week. In today's explored world, people generally can't choose to be stateless. The vast majority of people are born a citizen of somewhere, and while this does afford you the use of certain government services, it also forces you to meet obligations to that government (taxes, adhering to laws etc) or face consequences of liberty. And the only way to choose to end this is to go become a citizen of another sovereign nation which comes with its own set of rights and responsibilities (and some people don't even get that choice). Nowhere is it possible to officially "drop off the system", sustain yourself on your own bit of land, and give up all responsibilities and adherence to any government (and of course giving up the benefits that come from being a citizen of that government's nation too). All land on earth has a claim already laid to it that is recognised by the international community. Of course, there are some groups of people around the world (various independence movements) that are fighting for this very same self-autonomy and their claim to a bit of land right now, but even then the only way they can get it is by figthing force, which is beyond the means of an individual and may be beyond their morals too.
There are indeed limits to personal liberty.