Got to go, don't you know?

Boredom.



That has nothing to do with today. Today, I don't work, and thus, I have the opportunity to conquer the universe. Ha, yeah. Anyway, today I'm wondering about something--- legality. And by that, the assignment of what I would consider random numbers to strict regulations that stiff law officials loves to enforce.

What am I talking about? Speed limits. Age limits. Limits in general. Who can possibly say that a person, when they have been alive for x-number of years, is automatically of the maturity to do whatever that age allows? So, when a person is 17 and 364 days old, they are, somehow, of vastly inferior maturity than they are the very next day? Or, perhaps, that, say, 65 mph, 85 kph, or whatever, is a logial speed limit, any more than 66 or 64?

Perhaps, on a median basis, one can suppose that these are fair numbers, but for the governing body of a country (which, by the way, is supposed to represent the interests of all of its citizens) to create rigid laws based on the median is, at best, unfair. At worse, it is an idication of progression towards totalitarianism. The law, in the illustration of an 18-year-old limit for whatever privilage you'd like to name, gives utterly no regard for the immature 20 year old, or the mature 16 year old. The 16 year old, in this case, ought to be permitted the rights he is able to handle, but is not, while the 20 year old is permitted rights he is old enough to handle, but cannot. In this case, the enforcement of law overwhelms the justice it attempts to serve.

So, while the extremes may illistrate an element of imperfection in the law, consider another angle--- the lesser deviates from the median. That is, the 17-years and 364-day-old versus the person a day over 18. Is there really any notable difference between them? Perhaps, from a legal standpoint, but lets take away legality--- if no one knew their age, could you tell any wildly notable difference (assuming, of course, that this person lived out there life in the normal manner that they had been doing over the course of the said 3-day period)? Obviously not. Or, using the illustration of going 66 mph or 64 mph... Is there a marked natural difference? Does a person in an accident going 66 suffer any more injuries than if that exact accident had occured at 64 mph? No, I would guess that the difference is not notable--- however, to be fair, I'd like to say that I've never conducted an experiment to prove this. I'll add that to the To-Do list.

So, what is my point? If there is, indeed, no real difference between these minute specifics, what about the next degree over? What about 67 versus 63? Or 68 versus 62? Who, then, could say exactly where the logical limit should be? Where do you draw the line? As far as the government is concerned, I feel that it is not their job to make this distinction.

I feel that arbitrary assignment of regulations on the lives of people is not necessary function of government--- the responsibility for such things ought to be on the individual. The governing body, then, should not be such a regulation-weilding tyrant; they should not be permitted to control its citizens; it's citizens ought to control it! (I'd like to note that as similar as this statement is to a tagline for the Wachoski Bros.'s latest film, I do not mean to imply support for all the specific political aims it voiced. Regardless, that particular tagline "People shouldn't fear the government. The government should fear its people," was well phrased.)

The end of this line of argument ends with the conclusion--- regulations must not be rigid, because in the case that they are, justice is too easily obstructed. Law may be blind--justice is not.

"Despite the number which names my age, I am much older than I look..."

What spurred this line of thought? I dunno... maybe it was dinner. Today, I grilled a London Broil, using a handfull of seasonings and an orange, and enjoyed it with a secret glass of Merlot, which I carefully hid behind my moniter, because heaven-forbid I enjoy a fine meal in its completion.

Was this wrong? Drinking a glass of wine? I didn't get drunk, I didn't drink any more than the one glass, and yet the meal was delightfully enhanced by its flavor's influence. Not a person knew I drank it, and I didn't drive once done (if, indeed, one glass really does effect driving).

(Of note to this line of reasoning, is this fact: in the country I live in, I am not of the legal drinking age, which is yet another limit which I feel is arbitrarily stupid. However, also of note, in EVERY OTHER COUNTRY IN THE WORLD, I am legal. Now, I can understand the mature nature of such a drink, and the government's desire to see it enjoyed by an only mature audience, but to have both the world's oldest drinking age and to lead most of the world in drinking problems strikes me as at least a little ironic.)

So, in the end, I dunno.

TO-DO:

64. Experiment with crashing cars.
65. Revise the above theories.
66. Found a new country.
67. Draft an ideal government.
68. Research other ideal governments--- (The Greek Three, Locke, Stalin, etc.)
69. Smoke the hooka.
70. Buy a giant box of gumballs.
71. Infiltrate a high-security building unnoticed, take a picture to prove it, then leave, unnoticed.
72. Make two other blogs --- one for this To-Do list, another for my periodical writings, leaving this cite for journaling/fuming/whatever.