Select groups

There are a few stories on slashdot today that seemed thematic to me. One is about a group of people who are given special privileges. So is another. In fact, they all are. But in these stories, one is clearly wrong, while two others are less objectionable. Now, I'm going to talk about why I think that is. You have been warned.

By the by, I have a little complaint about my Mac here. I'm writing this post while installing some updates, and it's a major lag. I'm about midway through this paragraph, and every so often, I glance up and check how it's coming. The cursor is now writing the word 'post'. It's eerie- like having a ghost editor. It's actually fun, in a way, but more fun is having a computer which does what I tell it when I tell it.

(Put another way, I finished the last paragraph, set my laptop down, threw my laundry in the dryer, fed the cat, walked back to my computer, and watched the end of said paragraph appear on the screen. True story.)

Back to business. My first instinct was to say that any power given to the group in the first story is wrong, because they're freaks. Then I decided I didn't want to get sued. Which is, incidentally, why I'm not using their real name. So I need a more rational delimiter on the subject. They are a category of people. The same could be said, though, of students, or citizens of the US who have internet access. Clearly, not enough. So let's change that to "The group in question is a religion." So are the Jews. No big deal. How about, "In this instance, a religion has been given the right to interfere with commercial transactions between people who may not even subscribe to that religion"? Sounds good, doesn't it? But it's missing something. I want certain commercial transactions interfered with (e.g., slave trading and illegal weapons sales). I don't care if the person interfering has a religious affiliation or not.

So where's the line? Here: "In this instance, a religious group is interfering with lawful commercial transactions." The fact that I'll let a devout person stop a slave trade doesn't mean I'll accept their piety as a source of authority; I would still want a secular law or set of laws on the books that allows that sort of thing. It doesn't look, on the face of it, like any law is being broken by these deals, so why should anyone kowtow to their pressure?

Also, in the other two stories, the product is being freely distributed to users, while the first story is an instance of prevention of distribution. And I'm all for the distribution of goods. Especially to me. Give me your stuff!

(Little update update: My computer finished updating about three paragraphs back. The rest of the post flowed smoothly, like molasses. Well, molasses in comparison to wrought iron at 12 degrees Celsius. Anyway, it went smoothly.)