Hamlet,

There is a particular place under my shower, about one meter from the drain, that gets blocked again and again, mostly with accumulating soap.

To clear this blockage, you need to pass a "snake" through it, which is essentially a piece of flexible wire that can twist and turn inside the drains. Snakes usually reach 8 meters, but I actually only need to use more or less the first meter of it.

I admit that I have no experience in installing new bath-tubs and toilets, I have never attempted fixing and welding water pipes myself, I have never taken a course in digging flood-drains and I sometimes fail to fix even a simple leak in a tap, but I do claim with confidence that with the right tool I could easily fix my little blockage in 5 minutes.

The government, however, made it illegal for a shop-keeper to hire me a "snake" without a certificate of professional expertise in all the above. Their excuse is that with the "snake" I could penetrate and damage my neighbour's drain, this is despite the fact that I will only be exposing one meter of it (totally under my foundation concrete) and that I already know (from my plumber) that in my particular case, the setup of my drains is such that they have absolutely no connection with the neighbours.

Under this government, it seems easier to obtain (heaven forbid) heroin and guns than a useful home-tool.

The fundamental trouble is that the government would not trust and respect its citizens. They prefer to always assume the worst case, just so that they cannot be accused of "negligence" in their office.

Living one's life by the worst scenario is a miserable condition, bereft of joy. It actually tends to invite worst scenarios and it also has a name: paranoia.

Pegasus, Ludwig, I am afraid there will be no meeting of minds on this issue! But I’m not aggressive, I regard driving as a skill, an art, one I enjoy exercising; and I’m often thanked for my courtesy to other drivers.

One day recently while driving around 50-60 in 60 zones, I twice had to take evasive action. In both cases, the other driver didn’t signal and must have been unaware of my presence. The first driver was parked on the left and swung out to do a U-turn as I approached. The second pulled into the parking lane on the left ahead of me and then did a U-turn from that lane. Perhaps neither of them ever exceed the speed limit, but I’d rather share the road with drivers like me than drivers like them.

Perhaps if I took you both for a ride you’ld share my view. :-)

Yuyutsu refers to “those who are willing and able to be responsible for their own lives and actions and those who are not.” I’m an intelligent and perceptive human being, and I prefer to apply my capacities in all situations rather than “do it by the book.

“This evil and stupidity of punishing and humiliating everyone for the irresponsibility of the few, makes me sometimes start thinking that perhaps the idea of the law being equal to everyone has failed and we have no other recourse, but to re-establish classes, of those who are willing and able to be responsible for their own lives and actions and those who are not.”

Yuyutsu, it is grossly overstated that everyone gets punished or humiliated by way of laws that are designed to curtail the antics of the irresponsible minority.

Secondly, as I explained above regarding the beer-at-the-cricket example, most laws work for the benefit of the majority, despite perhaps imposing some level of inconvenience.

Thirdly, as I have also explained in the road-safety example, the law is not equal for everyone until the policing or regulatory regime is sufficiently strong enough to place the law-abiding person and the aggressive law-only-applies-to-others person under the same restrictions.

We are actually seeing different subclasses as a result of grossly inadequate policing. We would see much stronger classes or castes if there was no law and order. We would see the least caste divisions with a strong regulatory approach, an essential element of which is strong policing.

Too many people cry foul over what they perceive to be too many regulations or too much police intervention. Quite frankly, they are wrong. Given human nature, we had better be very thankful that we have a reasonably decent regulatory system, because without it the aggressive, unscrupulous, rip-off merchants would win the day.

Alright, so you might have gripes about a few restrictions, but how about considering all the rules that you can think of and then placing the small number of examples that you listed in that context. You will find that the vast majority of rules are fair and reasonable.

Ludwig,

The fact that I consider classes - and I did not mean de-facto classes, but rather official/legal ones (in fact, there are such classes already - the jailed, the bankrupt and those with suspended driving licenses), is not because I like inequality (I hate it), but out of sheer desperation. The de-facto classes that you mention are quite the opposite to what I refer to - they reward the cruel instead of the inherently righteous.

There are far too many laws and regulations for good, honest people, and never enough for the crooked. How much more should good people suffer in the holy name of PC equity? Why should honest people be persecuted twice - by both the criminals, then by the government on its attempt to curb them?

Relating to minor crimes, such as commercial rip-offs, it gets to a point where it becomes preferrable to be cheated from time to time (and I have not escaped it either, despite all regulations), than to bear the constant burden of big-brother intervention. While big-brother's hand is not heavy on shrewd criminals, even his finger is too heavy on the meek, like smacking someone's face to kill a mosquito. For a government that fails to bring real criminals to justice, this is the easy way out to demonstrate "achievements".

I have nothing against effective policing of just laws, especially when it comes to serious crimes. The fact that there is not enough police to enforce the laws is also a side effect of the fact that the laws are too many, and it will remain this way until the politicians become concerned about their citizens rather than their attempt to cover each and every theoretical loophole.

How about this: I am even willing to risk the occasional beer-bottle thrown at me so that you (I personally don't drink) are not deprived of your right for a real-beer-in-a-bottle. The one who throwed the bottle, will of course, bear serious consequences and it will take many years until he has access to another bottle of beer.

“There are far too many laws and regulations for good, honest people, and never enough for the crooked.”

But Yuyutsu, laws are for everyone. They are to the benefit of most of us. If laws only apply to good honest people and not crooks, then it is the policing regime that is at fault. Clearly the laws are in place to prevent the crooks from being crooks.

“How much more should good people suffer in the holy name of PC equity? Why should honest people be persecuted twice - by both the criminals, then by the government on its attempt to curb them?”

People are not suffering twice. They are being protected from the suffering that they may well face if the laws weren’t implemented. It seems to me that you are thinking about this in entirely the wrong manner.

It is true that up to a fairly substantial extent the more regulations that we have, along with good policing, the freeer and safer we all are. There is a point where too many laws tip the balance, but I think we are a long way short of that.

Governments don’t implement and administer laws equitably. They generally try but full equality and fairness are never going to be possible. But despite the fact that some will be more adversely affected than others, a lawless or poorly administered legal system would be much less fair.

“I am even willing to risk the occasional beer-bottle thrown at me so that you are not deprived of your right for a real-beer-in-a-bottle. The one who throwed the bottle, will of course, bear serious consequences”

You might be willing until you or your child or partner actually gets a bottle in the head. The one who threw the bottle might get penalised if the authorities can determine who it was. More to the point, once that sort of yobboish behaviour starts in a crowd, there are often many brainless dregs that join in. I think you should seriously rethink your position on this example

"But Yuyutsu, laws are for everyone"

It is here that I cannot agree with you: some individuals need more laws - some less.

If any, the only moral justification in the first place, for anyone to impose anything on another, is in self-defence or defence of others - and authorities are no exception to this rule. It is totally unjust to impose laws on someone who would otherwise not hurt others.

You may argue that it is practically too difficult for justice to be carried out unless the same laws are streamlined to apply to everyone, so my point is that enough-is-enough, too much oppression is applied to honest citizens due to the dishonest minority, so it is time to revisit this assumption and investigate the option of dropping the requirement of equality. This by the way, will allow more police to be present where they are actually needed.

Although it would make some shudder, to some extent legal classes are already a fact: jailed prisoners and the bankrupt have many more laws imposed on them than the average person. Those extra laws are there because these people cannot be trusted. Would you not agree with me that imposing similar laws on the average citizen would be draconian and unjust?

The next logical extension is that apart from the punished classes, good citizens (which are the majority) who can prove to be responsible, of good-will and posing no risk to others in society, should be rewarded by being admitted to a privilleged class, where natural justice prevails with much fewer formal laws (I could carry that thought even further, so in the extreme, saints should have no laws whatsoever imposed on them).

In the beer example, it is unlikely that such hooligans will be able in the first place to get admitted to the privilleged class, hence there is no way they will be allowed to bring any alcohol to the game (if even allowed to sit near you at all), while yourself, an honest, responsible and harmless citizen, should have no restrictions to drink your real-beer from a glass.