..and when the sun rises again tomorrow, we'll see how far we've come ...

..and when the sun rises again tomorrow, we'll see how far we've come ...

... just to remind myself why I'm doing this ...

Depending on our personalities, the world can be a crowded place or a very lonely one. For those who seek comfort in numbers, there is no shortage of hangers on, but for those who avoid that circus, keeping thier own counsel can leave them feeling quite alone and disengaged from the mad place we call home. Life is a trade off and most of us choose how we live it.

For me, I'd rather work things out as best I can, using my own thoughts and feelings to sort things out. Following the crowd has never been a temptation to me, but that has its price, one that I'm totally comfortable with every day I get to stand up and be the person I aspire to be. When I sometimes lose track of who that is, I come here to remember, to reconnect and to resume my quest.

These posts are a reflection of some of what matters to me and it's a privilege to have the opportunity to collect these thoughts as they form in my head, as they prepare the way for my life, as it evolves from one day to the next. They re-inspire me when things seem to be floating about, with no particular aim or purpose, and it does happen from time to time.

So, today I had these thoughts that I think are worth writing down for the future me to look back on when I need to ...

Wednesday, May 27, 2009

We have laws for good reasons but ...

... that doesn't make them all good laws. However, just because we don't like a law doesn't mean we should necessarily change it.

It seems to me that laws set out limits to guide human behaviour that is usually self-centred and very self-serving. Laws tell us what we cannot do rather than try to spell out all that we can do. Being creatures prone to independent action we sometimes (often) take exception to being told what we can't do, particularly when we are under the notion that freedom is paramount. That puts most laws in the category of 'unpopular' and qualifies them for some sort of change or elimination altogether.

Here's the thing; by restricting freedoms in one place we actually protect freedoms in another. I think it's safe to say that freedoms can clash and give rise to extreme conflict and if those freedoms are left unfettered, those conflicts would eventually oppress some of those conflicting freedoms but at great cost, something that can be avoided by the creation of laws that protect all the ideologies behind those freedoms. Of course, that also means someone is not going to like those lawful limitations and will probably resist or try to change them, but that doesn't mean it should be changed.

Laws protect majorities as well as minorities, ideally at the appropriate amount of expense to both. While times change, human nature is far less volatile and actually quite predictable, making the need for changes in laws that guide it much less than what we would like in many cases.

The hot potato of the day is local waterfront access over private property. While there are laws to lay out the rules, not everyone likes those rules, especially the technical trespassers. As with any rules, interpretation is the key and the most subjective element in such conflicts. Therefore it's obvious why a higher level of government is reviewing these rules and may well make some changes to the laws that set out those rules.

Back to human behaviour. It seems that because of political expediency, the most local and least competent level of 'government' will make a foray into the conflict, even though its objectivity is extremely compromised thus rendering any decision as highly suspect. These guys are also human and their behaviour is subject to the same weaknesses as the parties in conflict. The really troublesome aspect of this is that these guys will cite "public good or interest" as the driving aspect of their decisions, ostensibly trying to appear something more dispassionate than the bully that they will become. For all intents and purposes, any decision that compromises the lawful rights of the property owners is simply nothing less than outright bullying and that's just not acceptable anymore. There are new laws being created to deal with that specifically because the world has changed in its views on bullying everywhere.

Just because the 'public' doesn't like the rules in effect doesn't give them the right to change them by default. However the public does have the right to initiate the process by which those rules are reviewed and perhaps changed as a result of full and comprehensive discussions of the merits and demerits of the existing rules. After all, it was the same process that arrived at the present rules that apply now and considered them to be the proper way to deal with this very question at that time.

It seems we just want to make and remake the rules whenever it suits as we go along. Giving in to those whims would be disastrous for society on the whole.

Dictionary