[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [at-l] FYI - Live Free or Die

In a way, I wish you hadn't done this - I didn't intend to continue 
this thread, but there's a literal flood of thoughts on the subject and 
I think some of them need to be said. So those who don't care 
might want to hit the Delete key now. 

Saunterer wrote: 
> 
>I learned 1) there are limits to freedom that shouldn't be ignored, 2) 
>freedom is a state of mind not an absence of rules. 

Up to a point you're right - but that logic breaks down on a macro 
level when you live in a society that imposes up to 60,000 pages 
of new regulations on itself -- every year. We are - without 
exception - the most regulated and legalistic society in history. And 
that regulation/legalism is spreading to the backcountry. In some 
respects, I've seen more real "freedom" in Third World countries. 
At least there nobody would put you in jail for using free enterprise 
and ingenuity to survive. In this country today there are few places 
where a homeless person who tried to sell pencils or apples or shoes 
wouldn't be jailed unless they had the "proper" licenses and permits. 
It's all right for them to beg (terrify the tourists) -- or to "work the 
system" (be dependent on welfare), but God forbid that they make a 
buck without giving the government a cut. If they had the money 
for the licenses/permits they probably wouldn't need to be selling 
anything on the street. Of course, jail might not be that bad a deal 
in some respects. At least they're fed - and some of the people in 
those other countries were starving. There's no freedom in either 
jail or starvation. Or in welfare. 

> I understand the reasoning behind the 
>proposed "backpack tax" but I think that particular proposal is an 
>inappropriate solution. 

There are a LOT of "inappropriate solutions" in this country . For 
example, recent proposals to increase the level of personal protection 
(Kevlar chaps, steel-toe high-top boots, etc) required to be used by 
trail maintenance volunteers who use chainsaws (and their helpers) 
came out of an unfounded and unsupported bureaucratic fear of 
accidents among the volunteers. But there's no evidence that the 
level of protection they're demanding is either necessary or justified - 
and it will drive a lot of volunteers away from the trails. It's another 
government solution in search of a problem. There's no freedom in that. 

>We live every day with limits to our freedom. Some are universal (gravity), 
>some are personal (size, strength, intellect) and some are social. In the 
>good ol' US we are raised to be individuals and we tend to complain about 
>the social limits especially when we are the one's being limited, but they 
>are necessary to social order. 

Sometimes - take the lists, for example. On at-l there are the "rules" 
that we've basically set for ourselves - respect for others, courtesy, 
common decency and tolerance of differences. On atml the rules are 
different and if you make a mistake, the rules will be "enforced"
according to the interpretation of the list-admin. It's the Big Brother
approach. 

Which one works better? I think they work equally well for different 
people. Some people are willing to live with the more restrictive 
rules, some aren't. Which one better represents "freedom? I don't 
think I'll answer that - I know what my opinion is, but you have to 
decide for yourself. 

>The question is 'does this restriction on my 
>(our) freedom achieve the social goal for which it is intended?'. 

Ahhh - but who determines the "social goal"? Through much of history 
the social goals were determined by kings, emporers, dictators, etc. - 
very often to the detriment of those who had to do the "dirty work" to 
accomplish those "social goals". How many of you would care to die 
"for the Glory of the Empire" (i.e.- the ego of the Emporer)??? 

There are those in this country today who believe they're more qualified 
to decide "social goals" than the people whose lives those goals affect. 
They think they're smarter than "the masses" and that they have the 
"God-given right" to make decisions for us - to save us from ourselves - 
to control us. And they're perfectly willing to impose their will on the 
"masses". As the Attorney General of Maryland once put it while speaking 
to the Maryland State Legislature - "We can pass any legislation we want
- and no one can stop us". Again -- whose goals? Too often it's not
yours. 

Want an example? How about the guy who's trying to get access to 
the AT with pack animals by suing under the ADA. That's a misuse 
of the ADA - a perversion of the intent of the Act. Any bets on whether 
he's successful? Any comments on whether it would be in keeping 
with the intent of the AT? The "social goal" most of us believe in is 
"reasonable access" for the handicapped. But there are those whose 
"social goal" is TOTAL access regardless of reason. And they have 
no interest or intent to be reasonable. It kinda makes the debate 
about "speed records" pale in comparison, doesn't it? How fast 
can you run a 4 lane asphalt AT? Where's the indignation about 
this idea? 

>When we establish the right limits for the right reasons everyone 
>can be 'free'within the rules. 

That's why I asked for help with the "horse problem" in Pennsylvania. 
A lot of the Pennsylvania trails are light duty trails built for hikers. 
A single horse will damage them - a group of horses will destroy them. 
And there is no effective way to enforce the present rules. Allowing 
the horses to use those trails will simply destroy them and make them 
unavailable for either hikers or horses. And there's no freedom in 
that either. There are trails that can be shared - but not ALL of them. 
As you said - the right limits for the right reasons. 

>If you believe that the proposed tax is a bad idea, write your 
>representatives and tell them so. Explain WHY you think it is a bad idea. 
>If you agree that there is a problem that needs to be addressed, offer 
>alternative suggestions that you believe would be better. 

Thank you - because I think that's exactly the right idea. But remember
to use as big a "club" as possible. What I mean is that something like - 
"I volunteered 100 hours of personal time to trail maintenance last
year" carries more weight than the most logical arguments you can
conceive. I've more than once used something like - "I cannot in good
conscience vote for someone who will support the destruction of fragile
hiking trails by allowing horses to use them." Of course, that doesn't
work if you're writing to an appointed or unelected official. Or if
you're from out-of-state and can't vote for them anyway. :-) 

> Cynicism is popular but accomplishes nothing. 

Don't discount cynicism. Cynicism and realism are often the same. 

One other thing to understand is that while I'm talking about horses and 
trails here, the same words and concepts can be applied to a thousand 
other issues and ideas. 

Walk softly, 
Jim


* From the Appalachian Trail Mailing List | For info http://www.hack.net/lists *

==============================================================================