Stupid Laws

I got a ticket for not wearing my seatbelt today. Which makes me think, there seem to be three types of laws.

1. Direct laws against doing something (murder, rape etc).
2. Laws to protect people from themselves. Seat belts, drugs etc
3. Laws that stop people from doing things that could make them do something that's already illegal under type 1 - public drinking, guns etc

I say it's encumbent upon people to act responsibility, and if they don't they'll either hurt themselves or break an already existing law which deals with that act. I say scrap everything that falls into category 2 or 3 - I'm sick of being treated like a child. Because one moron lights a firework in his face fireworks are banned - how about assuming most people will act responsibly, and that those who don't deserve the consequences of their retardation? Natural selection seems to have done a pretty good job thus far.

It's getting to the point where living in the west, particularly the US and UK, the two places I've lived about half my life equally, government has become a parent.

[TheWillMo]

If I get into an accident with a guy and I'm at fault, I might have to pay his medical bills. I'd be upset if I realized I was paying ten to fifty times more than necessary because he didn't take the two seconds to put his seatbelt on.

[henrikrh]

You should obey even stupid laws, it's all society asks in return for keeping you safe.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
You should obey even stupid laws, it's all society asks in return for keeping you safe.

[/ QUOTE ]

How do you feel about marijuana laws? According to recent TV commercials, marijuana laws keep me from getting mauled by vicious guard dogs and sticking my fist in my mouth.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

[ QUOTE ]
You should obey even stupid laws, it's all society asks in return for keeping you safe.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll assume this was meant as a joke, otherwise, I'll go ballistic and not get any work done. /images/graemlins/cool.gif

TheWill: That's the perfect example of a society that's way over-litigious, one stupid law to cover another one. You shouldn't have to pay for someone else's stupidity, cap the expenses.

henrik: Not sure if you're joking or not, but I don't want society to save me from myself, that's the point.

hmk: Sure you're joking /images/graemlins/laugh.gif I regard marijuana laws exactly the same way. I don't smoke weed, but if I did it'd be my personal choice and I don't need protected from myself. And if I did do something harmful to others as a result, there are already laws against that.

I should also say for the record that I do normally wear my seatbelt, I just forgot today, think I'd taken it off to rummage around looking for something. I wear my seatbelt because I don't want to die in a car wreck, that's the choice I make - I shouldn't have to wear it to avoid getting fined.

[ QUOTE ]
I got a ticket for not wearing my seatbelt today. Which makes me think, there seem to be three types of laws.

1. Direct laws against doing something (murder, rape etc).
2. Laws to protect people from themselves. Seat belts, drugs etc
3. Laws that stop people from doing things that could make them do something that's already illegal under type 1 - public drinking, guns etc

...

It's getting to the point where ... government has become a parent.

[/ QUOTE ]

Those #2 laws are called "paternal laws". I hate them too.

[ QUOTE ]
I say scrap everything that falls into category 2 or 3 - I'm sick of being treated like a child.

[/ QUOTE ]

#3 laws are for protecting people from other people -- and I like them very much. I want it to be illegal for YOU to get drunk & drive & significantly increase the risk that you will kill me & my family. I want it to be illegal for you to bring a loaded gun on a plane, where who knows what you might do with it.

But, as for #2 laws, I think everyone should have the right to hurt themselves (after a certain age).

[ QUOTE ]
If I get into an accident with a guy and I'm at fault, I might have to pay his medical bills. I'd be upset if I realized I was paying ten to fifty times more than necessary because he didn't take the two seconds to put his seatbelt on.

[/ QUOTE ]

The law should/could be written, then, so that you only pay the portion of the damage that you are responsible for (had the other person been acting responsibly). So, he should be able to not wear his seatbelt, realizing that he will be responsible for any increase in damages that result by not wearing one.

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If I get into an accident with a guy and I'm at fault, I might have to pay his medical bills. I'd be upset if I realized I was paying ten to fifty times more than necessary because he didn't take the two seconds to put his seatbelt on.

[/ QUOTE ]

The law should/could be written, then, so that you only pay the portion of the damage that you are responsible for (had the other person been acting responsibly). So, he should be able to not wear his seatbelt, realizing that he will be responsible for any increase in damages that result by not wearing one.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is the concept in law called contributory negligence. I am not sure if it would kick in under this exact example or not. But, basically that is what contributory negligence deals with. Whether there are actual laws or only has to do when figuring damages/settlements in lawsuits I do not know. There are a few lawyers on board who might address this.

[peritonlogon]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't need protected from myself.

[/ QUOTE ]

I do... definitely. BTW, get yourself to New Hampshire, no seatbelt laws for those who are of age, no helmet laws and, since I'm going on, no state income or sales tax. Just don't get into an accident.

[theweatherman]

Many of these "paternal laws" are in place because they help the society, at least in theory. Keeping citizens from dieing in droves trough seatbelt laws keep insurence rates lower, and keeps the productive elements of society in motion.

This is not a big problem in America but in africa, where there are very easy ways to die young (AIDS), the workforce is abrubtly truncated around age 40. This is a teriible situation forthese small nations. While this is very extreme it is not altogether implausibile.

Of course the real reason is to increase revenues through many more tickets given, as well as give the cops a reason to pull you over etc.

[ QUOTE ]
#3 laws are for protecting people from other people -- and I like them very much. I want it to be illegal for YOU to get drunk & drive & significantly increase the risk that you will kill me & my family. I want it to be illegal for you to bring a loaded gun on a plane, where who knows what you might do with it

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, fair point, I may well have overstated the objection to type 3 laws in my initial rant. I think the judge here is utility. There is no valid utilty in attaching a rocket launcher to your truck, even though someone could potentially do so and never cause any detriment to society. I have no problem with that being illegal because there's both a lack of valid utility and a potential for harm. Both of those things apply to drunk driving and carrying guns on planes also.

But there are a whole host of laws for which there is valid utility, just the potential for harm bit. Gun ownership is one of these, and though I hate guns and would never own one, murder is already illegal and guns have a valid utility, thats enough.

I can use my hands to beat the crap out of someone, or at least I could if I wasn't a wuss - are they going to introduce a law which dictates I have to wear oversized novelty wool mittens when leaving the house?

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
#3 laws are for protecting people from other people -- and I like them very much. I want it to be illegal for YOU to get drunk & drive & significantly increase the risk that you will kill me & my family. I want it to be illegal for you to bring a loaded gun on a plane, where who knows what you might do with it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why should you get to decide who can bring a gun on a plane? Shouldn't the owner of the plane be able to make that decision?

Ditto for roads - the owner of the road should set the rules for their use. I just don't believe that the government should be in the road-owning business.

Personally, I'd feel safer if you were never allowed out of your house, because geez, who knows what you might do if you got out. You could beat someone up, or run over somebody with your dangerous automobile.

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
2. Laws to protect people from themselves. Seat belts, drugs etc

[/ QUOTE ] These laws are almost always an tit-for-tat between the US government and large corporations.

I believe that where I live in New Jersey, not wearing a seatbelt is a secondary offense so u can't be pulled over for it. but i have problems with saying anything anit-Nader so I'm going to plead the fifth...

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
#3 laws are for protecting people from other people -- and I like them very much. I want it to be illegal for YOU to get drunk & drive & significantly increase the risk that you will kill me & my family. I want it to be illegal for you to bring a loaded gun on a plane, where who knows what you might do with it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why should you get to decide who can bring a gun on a plane? Shouldn't the owner of the plane be able to make that decision?

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, society gets to make that decision. Just like society makes the decision that you can't own a nuclear weapon, on a smaller scale, they decide that you can't bring a gun onto an airplane. There is a significant risk with you bringing a gun onto a plane, as well as drinking & driving. Significant enough so that the case can (and has) been made that the utility you get by doing those things does not outweigh the utility everyone else gets by prohibiting you from doing them.

[The Don]

[ QUOTE ]
Actually, society gets to make that decision.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am confused as to how it is possible for 'society' to make a decision. Please enlighten me.

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Actually, society gets to make that decision.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am confused as to how it is possible for 'society' to make a decision. Please enlighten me.

[/ QUOTE ]

By metonymy.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Actually, society gets to make that decision.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am confused as to how it is possible for 'society' to make a decision. Please enlighten me.

[/ QUOTE ]

By metonymy.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd say metaphor rather than metonymy. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Actually, society gets to make that decision.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am confused as to how it is possible for 'society' to make a decision. Please enlighten me.

[/ QUOTE ]

By metonymy.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd say metaphor rather than metonymy. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought perhaps personification? /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
Actually, society gets to make that decision. Just like society makes the decision that you can't own a nuclear weapon, on a smaller scale, they decide that you can't bring a gun onto an airplane.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why does "society" care what happens on private property? Even if "society" does care, what gives "society" a right to dictate what happens on private property?

Do you see any difference between a nuclear weapon and a gun? It's not just a matter of scale. Firearms can be pinpointed to direct force at individual aggressors. Nuclear weapons cannot.

[ QUOTE ]
There is a significant risk with you bringing a gun onto a plane, as well as drinking & driving. Significant enough so that the case can (and has) been made that the utility you get by doing those things does not outweigh the utility everyone else gets by prohibiting you from doing them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Utility? My neighbor has a car in his garage that he never drives. He doesn't even like it. I would drive it every day. Therefore, it must be right and justifiable for me to take the car from him.

A big gang of thugs finds pleasure in lynching redheads. A LOT of pleasure. In fact, they get the most pleasure when they do so to really old redheads, and when they do so in a painless manner. It's so much pleasure for such a large group, they surely get more utility out of the lynchings than the redhead loses.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Actually, society gets to make that decision.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am confused as to how it is possible for 'society' to make a decision. Please enlighten me.

[/ QUOTE ]

By metonymy.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd say metaphor rather than metonymy. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought perhaps personification? /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

It is quite a stretch of imagination to think a group of people can make "a decision". /images/graemlins/laugh.gif The neurons in my brain have a pretty hard time, too, but they manage. Most of the time. LOL.

There are valid answers to all of your concerns... but I doubt your seriousness in this discussion, so I'll let someone else explain it to you if they are so inclined. Good day sir.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I am confused as to how it is possible for 'society' to make a decision. Please enlighten me.

[/ QUOTE ]

By metonymy.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd say metaphor rather than metonymy. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought perhaps personification? /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Personification's a type of metaphor. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[Lestat]

The problem comes in when I have to go to jail for violating #1, because under your system someone invoked their legal right to engage in #2 or #3, but proved to be an irresponsible moron and killed one of my loved ones.

[The Don]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Actually, society gets to make that decision.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am confused as to how it is possible for 'society' to make a decision. Please enlighten me.

[/ QUOTE ]

By metonymy.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd say metaphor rather than metonymy. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought perhaps personification? /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

It is quite a stretch of imagination to think a group of people can make "a decision". /images/graemlins/laugh.gif The neurons in my brain have a pretty hard time, too, but they manage. Most of the time. LOL.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am part of society, yet I disagree with the decision. How is it possible for society to make a decision based on the fact that not everyone agrees with it or has a part in making it?

What you call "society," I call a "mob". In mobs, people make decisions for other people. That is what you are referring to sir.

Oh yeah, the right answer was "if 100% of individuals agree." Your argument is akin to asserting that when a mother and father say, "We are going to take a family trip to the Opera" (the children dissent obviously), that the family, not the parents, made this decision.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Actually, society gets to make that decision.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am confused as to how it is possible for 'society' to make a decision. Please enlighten me.

[/ QUOTE ]

By metonymy.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd say metaphor rather than metonymy. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought perhaps personification? /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

It is quite a stretch of imagination to think a group of people can make "a decision". /images/graemlins/laugh.gif The neurons in my brain have a pretty hard time, too, but they manage. Most of the time. LOL.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am part of society, yet I disagree with the decision. How is it possible for society to make a decision based on the fact that not everyone agrees with it or has a part in making it?

What you call "society," I call a "mob". In mobs, people make decisions for other people. That is what you are referring to sir.

Oh yeah, the right answer was "if 100% of individuals agree." Your argument is akin to asserting that when a mother and father say, "We are going to take a family trip to the Opera" (the children dissent obviously), that the family, not the parents, made this decision.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's called democracy... and voting. Ours is a republic, so you vote for representatives.

I sometimes make decisions about which I am conflicted. Part of me doesn't want to do it... but the bigger part of me ends up deciding it's best. How can I make a decision if I'm not 100% sure that's the best thing to do?

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't need protected from myself.

[/ QUOTE ]

I do... definitely. BTW, get yourself to New Hampshire, no seatbelt laws for those who are of age, no helmet laws and, since I'm going on, no state income or sales tax. Just don't get into an accident.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sounds like a sweet deal except for the fact that you have to live in New Hampshire :-P

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
It's called democracy... and voting. Ours is a republic, so you vote for representatives.

[/ QUOTE ]

So really, what you meant to say is that a big group of people gets together and tells a smaller group of people what to do.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's called democracy... and voting. Ours is a republic, so you vote for representatives.

[/ QUOTE ]

So really, what you meant to say is that a big group of people gets together and tells a smaller group of people what to do.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you want to argue whether democracy is legitimate, or if our republic is a good type of democracy, then you should start another thread. Actually, in our democracy, a very large group (almost everyone) votes for a small group, who then get together and tell the large group what to do. If we don't like it, we can vote to change it or the people in the small group.

[tylerdurden]

I know how it works. You're handwaving around the issue. Whether the big group of people tells the small group directly or funnels their wishes through some sort of committee is not really important. Why does *anyone*, big group or individual, have any right to impose upon others? What magical pixie dust differentiates a group of voters from a mob with pitchforks and torches?

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
I know how it works. You're handwaving around the issue. Whether the big group of people tells the small group directly or funnels their wishes through some sort of committee is not really important. Why does *anyone*, big group or individual, have any right to impose upon others? What magical pixie dust differentiates a group of voters from a mob with pitchforks and torches?

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreement. The power comes from getting the masses to believe it exists. You gradually structure a situation where they punish each other for doing a certain thing, and then you control that thing.

[Piz0wn0reD!!!!!!]

not wearing a seat belt is also pretty stupid.

[ QUOTE ]
I know how it works. You're handwaving around the issue. Whether the big group of people tells the small group directly or funnels their wishes through some sort of committee is not really important. Why does *anyone*, big group or individual, have any right to impose upon others? What magical pixie dust differentiates a group of voters from a mob with pitchforks and torches?

[/ QUOTE ]

The weilder of the pitchforks and torches [or military and police, in the relevant case]. The fact that government can enforce their decisions through coercion makes them the powerful force. The fact that the decisions of the government are, at least theoretically, governed by the will of the people provides them with legitimacy. The fact that they have legitimacy makes it unnecessary for them to use their force en masse... much.

Most of the people in this forum seem to be advocating anarchy. Good luck with that. I guess we'll see whether Reasseau or Hobbes was right.

--

On another note, I think that the most reasonable argument for 'paternal' laws is that they're avoiding mass-devastation. The human race is compulsive, weak, and self-destructive. Especially considering the way in which our consumer economy has evolved, it would be extraordinarily dangerous to allow people, en masse, to consume whatever self-destructive products they desire. Alcohol is bad enough, but is relatively limited in its detriment to users and its addictive properties. If heroine, NMDA, Cocaine, etc. were broadly marketed and available in stores, I can only imagine the droves of addicts.

This would have devastating effects for the economy, and potentially the so-called 'moral fabric' of society. Most people are interconnected in one way or another, and to let a large portion of the population disintegrate into rampant drug use because you'd like to 'do whatever you want' is irresponsible and probably ultimately self-defeating.

I agree that seatbelt and other similar laws are unreasonable violations of personal freedom. That said, I wonder if an exception should be made for single parents. If a parent is the sole provider of a child, the government may have to provide care for the child in the event of the parent's death. Thus, it does not seem necessarily unreasonable to me to require such people to wear seatbelts, as minimizing their chance of death would minimize the cost to taxpayers.

Now, I do find it ridiculous that taxpayers ever have to foot the bill for orphaned children, but assuming that that is never going to change, it seems like single parents have a bigger obligation to minimize their chances of dying than people with no dependents.

But other than this possible exception, I do think seat belt laws are ludicrous.

The problem with this dogr - is you can take any single action and rightly link it to an impact on other people, since nobody lives in a vacuum. Getting a bad haircut, masturbation, consuming fast food etc. And I'm not suggesting these links aren't real. But if we legislate based on secondary, tertiary etc consequence, we have reasonable grounds to outlaw anything we find distasteful, anything that has political utility to a particular legislator, anything at all, and this is happening. We have to draw the line at 'direct' consequences.

Marko: I just fundamentally disagree with you. I'm not convinced your assessment on the impact of legalising drugs is anything close to correct, but even if it is, so be it, civil liberties are infinitely more important to me. That's the consequence of having a government that treats it's citizens as adults, these issues should not be the domain of legislative bodies. Many people are stupid, or make bad choices, on issues that only harm themselves, or only 'maybe possibly' harm others through a complex series of degrees of seperation. Not hindering that process is the essence of of a free society.

I agree 100%. #2 and #3 irritate me to no end. Usually they are ineffective as well as patronizing (see gun control, "war on drugs," etc.).

[CORed]

[ QUOTE ]
If I get into an accident with a guy and I'm at fault, I might have to pay his medical bills. I'd be upset if I realized I was paying ten to fifty times more than necessary because he didn't take the two seconds to put his seatbelt on.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think a better solution to that problem than imposing a fine for not using a seat belt would be to make the other driver pay some percentage of medical bills if he wasn't using a seat belt.

Somehow I find the increased risk of death or serious injury should I have an accident a much stronger incentive to use a seatbelt than the $50 or $100 fine I will have to pay if the cops catch me without it.

[DrButch]

"Parental" laws are important because a large body of people do not have the knowledge, experience, or research to appropriately conclude that specific behaviors may not only harm themselves but others as well.

Seat belt laws and helmet laws save people huge amounts of money in reduced unpaid hospital bills and reduced utilization of medical facilities.

It's one thing to say "dumb people who don't use helmets deserve what they get". If that were the only reason to have helmet laws, then it essentially is a limitation of a person's rights. However it's another thing to say that *I* have to pay for their stupidity. Suddenly it becomes a societal issue and the laws deserve to be on the books.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

"Parental" laws are important because a large body of people do not have the knowledge, experience, or research to appropriately conclude that specific behaviors may not only harm themselves but others as well.


This post is so offensive I have to go somewhere and vomit.

[Sifmole]

[ QUOTE ]
Now, I do find it ridiculous that taxpayers ever have to foot the bill for orphaned children,

[/ QUOTE ]

Should we just burn the orphaned children like firewood then?

Sorry kids your parents, and only known living relatives, died in a horrible accident. There is apparently about $35 in a savings account to hold you over. Here's a 50 cent cardboard box, it should hold all three of you -- I mean how big is a 4 year old?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Now, I do find it ridiculous that taxpayers ever have to foot the bill for orphaned children,

[/ QUOTE ]

Should we just burn the orphaned children like firewood then?


[/ QUOTE ]

No. I just don't think other people should be forced to pay for their care through taxation. If a parent doesn't have a friend or relative that can raise their children if necessary, they should buy life insurance. If that is not an option, hopefully they can live in a private orphanage. If someone has absolutely no means for a contingency plan, perhaps that person should not be having children.

[ QUOTE ]
"Parental" laws are important because a large body of people do not have the knowledge, experience, or research to appropriately conclude that specific behaviors may not only harm themselves but others as well.

Seat belt laws and helmet laws save people huge amounts of money in reduced unpaid hospital bills and reduced utilization of medical facilities.

It's one thing to say "dumb people who don't use helmets deserve what they get". If that were the only reason to have helmet laws, then it essentially is a limitation of a person's rights. However it's another thing to say that *I* have to pay for their stupidity. Suddenly it becomes a societal issue and the laws deserve to be on the books.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll refer you to what I said in my last post about secondary consequences. And, if you're going to use the money/healthcare argument you have grounds to ban fast food, DIY, swimming, driving tired, hell driving at all. I also agree that it's offensive what you said about people being too stupid to look after themselves - some may be but it's our perogative as free autonomous human beings to make that choice.

And as an aside (because even if you're right all that still applies), do you actually know that seat belt laws are saving people money on healthcare bills or are you just guessing? You got any figures? Or is it another second-hand smoke, where somehow it's the biggest killer out there but nobody knows a goddamn single person who's died as a result of it.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I know how it works. You're handwaving around the issue. Whether the big group of people tells the small group directly or funnels their wishes through some sort of committee is not really important. Why does *anyone*, big group or individual, have any right to impose upon others? What magical pixie dust differentiates a group of voters from a mob with pitchforks and torches?

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreement. The power comes from getting the masses to believe it exists. You gradually structure a situation where they punish each other for doing a certain thing, and then you control that thing.

[/ QUOTE ]

I just wanted to agree with you... and express my enjoyment that pvn also agrees with you (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=4237273&page=0&vc=1#Post 4237273). He said it was "voluntarily cooperating", but that's pretty much the same thing. So, we agree to what our "rights" are, and voluntarily cooperate in coming up with rules to protect those rights. This can range anywhere from "I own my body, and have the right to do with it as I want, so long as I'm not infringing on other's" to "We agree that we do not have the right to bring loaded weapons onto airplanes." If we disagree with the agreements, then we can try to persuade people to change the agreement, not follow it (and reap the potential consequences enforced by those who do agree), or move to a place that has different agreements.

I'm not sure if any rights are "inalienable" -- but maybe that's a topic for another thread? Not that I've been very good at not combining streams of thought into different threads lately. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[benkahuna]

[ QUOTE ]


It is quite a stretch of imagination to think a group of people can make "a decision". /images/graemlins/laugh.gif The neurons in my brain have a pretty hard time, too, but they manage. Most of the time. LOL.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know you're just trying to be funny, but you've gone the opposite direction (in terms of increasingly complex levels of organization) from the level of organization at which conscious decisions are made.

cells/tissues/organ (brain)/consciousness/society.

Consciousness is where it occurs...

If you want to get Jungian, then you can discuss the collective unconscious and talk about a group mind...

[mostsmooth]

[ QUOTE ]
I believe that where I live in New Jersey, not wearing a seatbelt is a secondary offense so u can't be pulled over for it. but i have problems with saying anything anit-Nader so I'm going to plead the fifth...

[/ QUOTE ]
i got pulled over for no seatbelt during the clickitorticket campaign. i think they can pull you over just for seatbelts now because i dont think they could have pulled me for it during the campaign otherwise