biostem wrote:They may need to institute some sort of "threshold system" for who must register, (or face a penalty) vs who is simply encouraged to do so - a person who can do mach 1 on the ground, by just running, could pose a huge threat, while someone who can "merely" do 50 mph on foot isn't that dangerous.
It would be too complicated to define a "threshold system" for the arsenal of superpowers that exist (which is why A and B listing and so on is so debated in comic books).
In fact, even defining "superpower" is going to be hard, about the best I can come up with is "innate personal capability that confers the ability to perform tasks, feats, or drastically beyond those possible for the general population, obtained through means other than training and education." And that's not perfect.
Formless wrote:Simon_Jester wrote:1) Secure the backing of donors and interest groups of our own. A political battle has two sides and both sides can fight.
Why should it be a fight? The whole point of the webcomic example is that in that universe, they wouldn't need an organization to fight for their rights to begin with if a man hadn't been literally kidnapped and dissected so that the authorities could find out how his powers worked. I compared it to the Tuskeegee experiment for a reason-- it was completely unethical, yet somehow unsurprising for the government to do. Likewise, in the example we're talking about, creating the registry in the first place is where the fight starts. The way to avoid the fight is to
not create a registry. Because a registry implies that society doesn't trust them and won't respect their right to privacy like it would a normal person.
You largely canceled out your own argument. You're saying "what if there is legal opposition to passing such a law?" My response is "well then, oppose the opposition, legally." You reply to that "well, there wouldn't be an opposition if it weren't for unethical government experiments!"
My reply to
that is "okay, don't do unethical experiments." Seems simple to me. I mean,
YOU are the one making this new assumption that in the 'backstory' of our hypothetical setting, the government has done massively unethical things to metahumans that make them wary and defensive and resistant to a common-sense legal measure intended to maintain the public safety without unduly penalizing or even seriously inconveniencing any person. It's entirely possible that
car ownership would be less of a pain in the ass than dealing with this law, if this law is sanely designed.
How many people staged mass protests when they started making people get their cars inspected for emission certification? Not many, because it would be stupid to oppose such a sensible measure that imposes such a small burden.
2) Make the registration system relatively unobjectionable, and not something grossly out of line with other, analogous laws, such as (in the US)...
-The Selective Service Act
Starting off on the wrong foot there, Simon. I object to the very existence of the draft and the use of conscription, ergo why would I accept the Selective Service act as a model for this?
I give zero shits whether you object to the draft, and am not psychic so I do not know in advance of you actually saying anything how you feel about it, because it's not like I keep a notebook of your random opinions updated over years of time.
Bluntly, whether you approve of it or not, the Selective Service Act is
legal, and on the whole people comply with it without politically significant protest. Protest might arise if the draft were instated for frivolous or unworthy reasons, sure, but that's not actually happening. As a rule, people protest government
actions, or laws that they expect to directly harm them in consequential ways. Making sure this law doesn't fall under either category is just a matter of being better at writing laws than, oh, a random strawman political idiot in a comic book.
-Laws restricting the operation of heavy machinery
-Laws requiring thorough understanding and regulation of the hazards of powerful machines, chemicals, or other physical substances and mechanisms.
Not analogous. Those laws restrict who can operate heavy machinery based on objective measures of who would endanger people if they operated heavy machinery or chemicals, and are based on the principle of equality. In other words, those laws single you out for lacking the qualifications or license or for being somehow impaired, not for some hypothetical. In contrast the registration of supers is based on the bullshit reasoning that supers may
possibly break the law. Reasoning which would necessitate profiling and investigating Fred Rogers, for chrissakes, because having superpowers is not necessary and sufficient for being a potential criminal. Being a human being is sufficient, because that's what is true in reality. Not fiction.
There are numerous other reasons to register metahumans which have nothing to do with "they might commit crimes." You just weren't paying attention when we were talking about them, and went direct to freakout mode without passing Go.
Moreover, laws regulating dangerous equipment are based on the premise that this equipment is
dangerous to the public if used improperly. Not "criminally," just "improperly." A badly trained man operating a forklift is dangerous even if he has no criminal intent whatsoever, for instance. And the key point here is that it is the state, not individual members of the public, who decide which organisms, chemicals, and machinery are dangerous. I don't get to decide that this new car I just built for myself is "perfectly safe" so that it doesn't need licensing, safety inspections, or the like. I don't get to decide that this new chemical I just invented is "perfectly safe" so that I can just release it into the air willy-nilly.
Why should superpowers be any different? Given the large number of superpowers with unknown side effects, and that any given person in their own 'origin story' phase probably knows very little about their own powers, why would it suddenly become the decision of private individuals whether their powers pose a danger to the public if used improperly?
And if there
is a danger to the public, then some reasonable degree of training and accountability is in order.
-Licensing for armed security guards
Again, a law based on whether one meets certain qualifications, not on the premise that for no other reason than you are exceptional, thus you must necessarily be more dangerous than average.
The law is based on the fact that people who willingly go around trying to act as law enforcement have to be
trained. This is a specific subset of why we would need registration, applying to a specific subset of people, which you would already know if you were actually reading my arguments instead of listening to what the magical mystery voices tell me I think about the issue, or however you come to conclusions about other people's opinions.
Well yes. The point is to have SOME kind of legal framework within which these issues can be resolved, that permits society to function while maintaining the basic principle that the government has a preeminent right to use force on territory over which it is sovereign. Independent entities capable of using physical force (or other, analogous mechanisms like mind control) have to be doing so within a legal framework created by the state. Otherwise, there is anarchy.
And how is the existing laws of the united states insufficient? Remember, the Second Amendment doesn't just cover guns. It covers
all kinds of weapons, and arguably covers the right to learn martial arts if you want to...
Your right to
keep arms is related to your right to
bear arms, which is in turn related to (potential) organized, orderly participation in a coordinated fighting force. And to orderly participation in the state's system for regulating the use of force.
All states have their roots in the monopoly of force, including democratic ones that have a legally recognized right to self defense. That's a specific exception to the general principle, which the state can make
precisely because of its own basic, generally recognized power to decide when it is and isn't okay to use force on people. The entire reason we try to restrict government is because we have
already granted it this monopoly of force by default, and need other ways to keep it from getting out of control without resorting to open rebellion.
The problem is that in a society where metahuman powers are actually common, the monopoly on force breaks down to a point where anarchy is a likely outcome.
Some new legal framework is likely to be required to deal with this, just like we needed new laws to regulate the security of cars or airplanes or the Internet when those things were invented.
We have the right to self defense in this country-- how is it any different if the person used telekinesis to defend their person instead of judo throwing their attacker with their bare hands? Learning how to weaponize one's natural abilities isn't wrong or somehow in violation of legal or political principles.
The difference is that I can use my own martial arts training to neutralize yours, if you decide to abuse yours somehow...
And that you taking martial arts training won't cause you to accidentally leak dangerous radiation or cause other unexpected side effects.
And that martial arts training, while useful, isn't useful enough to represent a major national resource* on par with, oh, the college diplomas of the nation's people.
You'll note that we DO regulate college diplomas in certain ways, precisely because they are valuable. You can only get them from accredited organizations because letting random people decide when you are entitled to claim that you have an education in a field does not work.
*In the sense that
everything a nation has is a resource for the people of that country, in the sense that 'determination' might be a resource for an oppressed people, a valuable asset. NOT in the sense that the powers or whatever are property.
Sure, you can justify having the FBI watch the Justice League like any other militia outfit, but that is completely different from having the NSA snoop into Clark Kent's personal life after Superman tells the government point blank that they have no right to know his civilian identity. And I know that that is a flawed example because Supes is in fact a vigilante, but I hope that people on a web forum where pseudonyms are the norm can understand and appreciate the logical underpinning of this distinction.
There's no reason why this law should empower the NSA to snoop into anyone's affairs.
But if Clark Kent can be required to take driver's ed, it should be possible to require him to take "picking up buses safely" ed. At least, if he is now or
might reasonably in the future wind up picking up a bus. And not just because he's a vigilante on a day to day basis, but because random or unforeseen events have a high likelihood of giving him some compelling reason to use his powers.
Frankly, it may prove difficult if not impossible to consistently enforce registration. However, if registration is both mandatory and not onerous, most law-abiding people will agree to it. The minority will then consist mainly of criminals and paranoid wackos, and a measured, appropriate response to their noncompliance can be found. This might require working on a case by case basis.
First, did you not read my argument that a registry which is shared with local law enforcement is necessarily odious and an invasion of privacy? And that such an invasion of privacy hurts more than just the individual super?
For someone who responds to a lot of posts, you certainly don't do a lot of reading. There are good reasons that a perfectly sane and law abiding citizen with super powers would refuse to give up their personal information to the government. Again, I stress that both of us and over 99% of users of this forum use a pseudonym.
Which we do because neither of us wants to be doxxed on the Internet by random strangers, and which does not give us a right to refuse to tell the government who we are.
If one of us committed a crime on this website, our anonymity would evaporate
really fast... precisely because the government already has lists of information on the identity and addresses of its citizens. And that is exactly how it should be.
Second, I dare you to come up with a "measured, appropriate response to noncompliance" that wouldn't get the ACLU to hemorrhage lawyers from every pore and orifice.
That's a task for a large team of lawyers. The broad outline of it is straightforward, though:
-Significant grace periods and regularly schedule amnesties for those who did not previously register
to register.
-Minimal ongoing burden placed upon registrees once they have filled out a few forms and shown up for a visit to an appropriately trained doctor or something.
-No requirement of training beyond reasonable minimums required to ensure that people know how to use their own powers for whatever purposes they intend without needlessly endangering the public.
And here, finally, we get to the heart of the problem. Why do you assume that this would cause social chaos? Just because comic books depict it that way?
Because
every major innovation that drastically alters what people can and cannot do causes upheaval, and the advent of superpowers is like having dozens of such innovations occurring
all at once.
