Thin

I'm pretty low on material now that The Daily Cal is on break. (Its website is, too) I'm down to The SF Examiner, and columnist Ken Garcia. Garcia usually complains about the stupid things that the SF Board of Supervisors does (and there's rarely a shortage of material for him), and is one of the more sensible folks. Today, though, his dictatorial tendencies are showing.

For those of you unfamiliar, San Francisco's attorney filed for a civil injunction against a gang prohibiting them from "congregating" and such, essentially saying "Hey, you can't do illegal stuff, or even hang out in your territory."

A person with dictatorial tendencies won't mind the issue of rights, because the result is good:

And only a myopic advocacy group could possibly object to curtailing the gang's behavior — unless you think that reducing criminal activity shouldn't be The City's key priorities.

Right. Well, this is one of the few cases where I agree with the ACLU. (i.e. this is different from their views on religion, where the presence of a religious symbol on government property is the END OF RELIGIOUS FREEDOM!!!) Giving these folks freedom is bad for the city, probably, but to put such a standard on it completely misses the point of rights.

If we say "you have rights, but they are only valid when your exercise of them doesn't hurt society," are we really talking about rights, or just allowances? This formulation of rights suggests that once those rights become harmful, they no longer apply. And, of course, it's the government which gets to decide when they become harmful. So here, the government is once again the final arbiter of what people can and cannot do, and supporting this view is pretty dictatorial.

I've made the point before, though, and I guess it's a minority view in most places.

posted by Beetle Aurora Drake 12/12/2006 12:38:00 PM #
Comments (0)

. . .