Second, are you seriously proposing that the protection of civil liberties can ever be against the public interest?
Hillct, perhaps you don't understand the concept of "not buying" something.
For example, I don't buy that we're all God's little children that must abstain from sex till marriage, or that it is okay to pick on someone who's skin is a different color.
Hold on! I'll get to relevance of this in a minute, you're jumping on my back before I finish. I understand that it would be ludicrous to believe the above.
But that's precisely what previous generations have done! There *was* a time when abstaining from sex till marriage was not only par, it was done by a supramajority of the world. Of course, marriages happened when couples were still in their teens, but it still happened. There weren't laws, just a series of strict religious persecutions that one would have to endure had they been caught.
So basically, I "don't buy" the term "public interest's". I don't believe in a collective mind that includes me. It sounds almost like a fucking religion! I don't want some divine authority of majority will to determine what I can and cannot do with my life, personal *or* economic.
And racial relations? We don't even have to go back that horribly far to see that hatred has existed for centuries. And ironically, despite what you may think, public interests *can* go bad, even after they have made so much progress.
I suggest heading to here, here, or here. Amazing stuff eh? That racial profiling can be advocated by majorities of Americans, even larger majorities amongst blacks in favor, is downright shocking.
But you don't hear this stuff, it doesn't make it into your thick skull cause you think civil liberties will always win out. Well, surprise, surprise, when it comes to a spin game, the anti-terrorism crusade is going to best the "throw a fit at anything" ACLU any day.
It's *not* fair. You're right if you believe so. But it is what we have to put up with. I suggest doing the following: NEVER, EVER, use the term "societie's interests" or "public interests" unless you are willing to read up on Bentham and Mill and become a full utilitarian. There is *no* advantage in saying that majority will rules, because time and time again, we've seen that majority opinon *can* be easily manipulated.
Also, I have no problem with Microsoft being held legally accountable for their actions if fraud really happened. But asking, yea telling, companies to bundle their browser with their OS or stating they will not sell is not illegal. The companies should have simply said, "No, fuck you, I'll sell my machines with Linux." or agreed, or made a deal and seen if Microsoft could actually sue them for modifying the OS after the fact.
There is a lot MS has done that is questionable, and there is at least one or two things that were downright fraudulent, but bringing an anti-trust against them was premature and completely unsuccessful in making even the slightest dent in them.
It sounds almost un-democratic for me to stand on an imaginary podium and demand that we steer clear of "public interest". But I truly feel that by defining a "collective mind" we succumb to what it eventually becomes no matter how perverse, and have no recourse when it doesn't go our way.
[ Parent ]