From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Thu Mar 27 2003 - 18:55:21 MST
Greg writes (should we change this thread to "Redefining Force"? ;-)
> [Lee writes]
> > Do you maintain that billboards on private
> > property that happen to be within sight of highways
> > (just as distant mountains are within sight), should
> > be restricted in what appears on them?
> >
> > (I'm *not* yet taking a stance here. I just want you
> > to clarify your position by considering a *perhaps*
> > parallel question.)
> >
> > Why is one forced to look at people one considers ugly
> > and is not forced (I guess!?) to look at unappealing
> > billboards?
>
> My point so far is merely to point out that an economic
> activity such as putting up a billboard is an act of force
> - it forces me (and others) to see it.
This is quite a claim, pregnant with implications.
To pursue my fanciful analogy a bit, then I am to
understand that I am being forced to look at ugly
or crippled people as well? After all, they walk
down the street and "intrude" on my visual space
much as billboards do.
Now I will admit that backyard astronomers are forced
to look through city lights and bad air to see the
stars, if they don't want to drive somewhere, and I
must admit that city dwellers are forced to breathe
the same polluted air if they don't want to move
elsewhere.
(But note that there are two big "if's" in my examples.)
I think that you should reconsider your very broad
usage of "force" (and, I'm guessing "violence" in the
main thread). After all, where do you stop? No
matter what kind of an effect one kind of matter
has on another, according to your usage, it seems
the former is using force on the latter.
Now while that might be okay for physics ;-) it
still sounds like a bad idea for law or philosophy.
It would mean, for example, that since you are
forcing me to read your email subject lines, and
your name to the left of them, then perhaps whatever
force I use to stop you from doing this is in the
same basic category. And *you* were the one who
started using force after all!
> Like I said, whether a particular exercise of force
> is good or bad is an aesthetic judgment.
Yes, I understood. And you're right; but I'd say
instead that it depends on one's value system.
However, I think that we are saying the same thing.
> It may depend upon the characteristics of the billboard.
> Here in Florida billboards are almost everywhere - huge
> and loud. I personally don't usually like them, and
> enough people who think similarly have exerted THEIR
> force to pass laws against them, thus forcing advertisers
> to seek some new medium.
Yes. As it stands, local communities still have the
legal right to pass ordinances against a great many
things---anything (in the U.S., that is) at least that
does not violate the Constitution, the supreme law of
the land. If I had my way, they could pass laws against
*whatever* they pleased that did not strictly violate
the constitution, including, for example, abortion, or
other laws favoring infanticide. But few agree with me
there: the honest ones will disagree by claiming that
a kind of utilitarianism supports their position that
the federal government should disallow such local freedom,
the dishonest ones will twist the constitution until it
says whatever they want.
> If the advertisers had put up enough well-designed
> billboards *supporting* billboards, maybe they could
> have forced enough people to agree to prevent the
> law from being passed. :)
Yes. 8^D They should have used their ammunition
wisely while they still had it!
But more seriously, note your egregious use of the word
"force" yet again; no one really forces anyone else to
agree with them in a free country.
Lee
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Mar 27 2003 - 18:57:51 MST