[PEN-L:11026] Lines in the sand

[msb@xxxxxxxxxx (Mark S. Bilk)]

[I'm quoting a significant amount of the original article for
xpnews-l readers, who did not receive it.]

>Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 10:30:48 -0400
>From: Wojtek Sokolowski <sokol@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: Lines in the sand
>To: psn-cafe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, msb@xxxxxxxxxx, demsoc-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,
>        pen-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Message-id: <1.5.4.32.19970625143048.008aa16c@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
>Superiority of the abstract over the real is a sign of degeneration.
...

>The preoccupation with formalities and abstractions over the material is
>also present in postmodern capitalist societies, especially the US.
...

>Another, much less frequently mentioned aspect of this tendency is the
>grwoing pre-occupation of law enforcement and administrative authorities
>with behaviour that is _potentially_ harmful over the actually harmful
>behaviour.  A good example is traffic law enforcement that is almost
>exclusively devoted to punishing people for crossing imaginary lines drawn
>by government bureaucrats, rather than dealing with actually harmful behaviour.
>
>Suppose I run a red light and hit another car.  Since my behaviour caused
>harm to another motorist, the fact that I broke the law that, had I obeyed
>it, would have prevented me from causing the said harm, is a substantial
>factor determining my responsibility for the harm my behaviour caused.
>
>Now suppose I run a red light and nothing happens, except that a pig sees it
>and gives me a ticket, and the kangaroo traffic court (ooperating in clear
>violation of the constitutional right to a jury trial) finds me guilty.

Did this actually happen, Wojtek?

>Guilty of what?  Even though I engaged in a potentiallty harmful behaviour
>-- no actual harm resulted from it.  Since traffic signals are devices whose
>sole purpose is to facilitate traffic and make it more safe -- disobeying
>that signal per se does not create any harm.  I might have been just lucky,
>or I might have carefully evaluated the situation and decided that crossing
>the intersection is safe -- but the fact is that I did not create any
>material harm to anyone.  Yet the kangaroo traffic court finds me guilty,
>and that suggest that material facts do not count anymore.  What I am being
>held responsible for is not some material, tangible consequences of my
>behaviour, but disobeying signals sent by some authority figures.
>
>Of course, law enforcement types will start blabbering about endangerment of
>public safety -- but that is simply hogwash that rests on an untennable
>assumption -- that my behaviour created a potential for harm to occur.

Every week, there are several stories on the local news here about
people being killed by someone who went through a red light or a
stop sign.

In fact, yesterday *I* was nearly hit, on the left front side of my
car, i.e., the driver's seat which I was sitting in, by a car that
went through a stop sign.  When I opened my window and said to the
driver, "You didn't stop at the stop sign!", he just screamed at
me twice, "Get the fuck out of the way!".  (No, there was no preg-
nant woman having a baby in his car.)

This piece of shit shaped like a person almost killed me.

In most cases, it is not possible to see what cross-traffic is
coming, in time to be *sure* you can stop for it, unless you stop
your own car before entering the intersection.  That's why inter-
sections have 2- or 4-way stop signs, or traffic lights--to make
cars on at least one of the streets have to stop for cars on the
other street.

And there is no way that I know of to make sure people obey these
signs or lights other than punishing them if they don't.

Regardless of the abstractions that you use to describe this sit-
uation, the *fact* is that if these laws are not enforced, a lot
of people will be injured and killed that would not have been.

Prosecuting only those who disobey and hit somebody would only
be effective if there were, say, a ten year minimum mandatory
sentence.  Otherwise, they would selfishly take the chance of
not stopping; most people are not very conscious.

There are some situations in which preemptive action is the only
effective means to protect people from the selfish acts of others.
Anti-pollution laws are another example.

>The funniest part is that the libertarians who loudly denounce affirmative
>action or taxex as unnaceptable government intervention remain curiously
>silent when it comes to blatant violations of our constitutional rights by
>the so-called traffic law "enforcement" or by arbitrary "punsihement" meted
>out by one group of private citizens (banks, corporations) against another.
>It seems that those self-styled defenders of individual freedom are more
>outraged by the possibility that some black guy or a woman might get a
>favourable treatment, that by the actual and scandalous rip-off of virtually
>every citizen in this country.

Actually, some Libertarians do object to traffic laws, such as
the "Republic of Texas" loonies who were captured recently after
a series of fraudulent and violent activities.

>This is yet another example that abstractions (potential) has become more
>important than  reality.

Abstractions (concepts that encompass multiple real and potential
objects and situations) are the foremost tools that humans use in
applying rational thinking, in order to deal with the world
around them.  Without them, we'd still be limited to hunting and
gathering, and we wouldn't even be very good at that.

>wojtek sokolowski
>institute for policy studies
>johns hopkins university
>baltimore, md 21218
>sokol@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>voice: (410) 516-4056
>fax:   (410) 516-8233

  Mark Bilk
  msb@xxxxxxxxxx