[PREV - REGES]    [TOP]

SNITCH

Rough of an unsent posting to su.etc, back when a somewhat
inane argument was being held on the subject of "snitching".
      
The term "snitching" is not usually applied to informers
concerning a serious matter.  I think it implies turning
someone in on a trivial offense.  
      
While the majority of Stanford professors chose not to stand by
Stuart Reges...
               
But how would they feel about a colleague
ratting on another colleague for smoking grass? 
               
If you don't think someone should be turned in for a
particular crime, maybe it's an indication that you really
feel it shouldn't be illegal?  
               
Certainly I tend to think the laws should be simpler --
fewer things should be illegal -- but this is an alleged
case of contract violation, and it would seem that contracts
can be arbitrarily complicated.  
               
Though maybe there's a similar argument that a good contract
should be a simple contract.  It sounds to me like a worthy
goal for consumer boycotts.
               
Perhaps something like this has already happened with
microcomputer software: Jerry Pournelle used to campaign
against the complex, incomprehensible legal agreements that
used to come with software.  I think it's gotten a little
better because of this.                                 
                                                        
In general things would be better with more competition in
the airline business.  I'd go with the libertarian line that
the trouble is that airports need to be deregulated, as well
as airlines.  

(One way of looking at the Bill of Rights: a document
to protect lawbreakers, designed by a group of people who
were rebels at heart.) 

--------
[NEXT - MANNERS]