Parent Control

In some kingdom, in some state ...

However, once there was no kingdom-state. There was a territory, people lived on it, most of which, among other features of character (mentality-in a scientific one), was this: they loved that someone cared for them. Why? In general, this is not my question - why. My question is what is happening? Well, for the sake of lovers of "why" we can assume natural conditions, genetic, religious and other ethno -forming factors. There are many scientific works on this subject (or pseudo-scientists, since some scientists constantly accuse others of the fact that they are not scientists at all ... But again this is not my question).

So, most of the inhabitants of this territory all the time strove to hook more cares about themselves to someone else. Naturally, those who agreed to take care of someone was a minority. But they were. Thus, hunters and artisans appeared, guards and servants, healers and midwives, the leaders of the tribes, princes, spiritual priests ... And then the kings and, accordingly, what we started, is some kingdom-state.

The world, which included this kingdom, went forward along the axis of time. Technologies and philosophy developed. In a relatively recent (several centuries ago) time the concept of "freedom" in its current form began to arise (before that, any non -slave was considered free). And in our time, the question of the contradiction between care and freedom acquires increasingly acute forms.

Confidence of concern is always a restriction of freedom. For example, most of us trust doctors and nurses to treat ourselves: to stab some syringes, immerse in deep anesthesia and cut ... We have pragmatic grounds for such a solution: we have not spent many years in a medical exercise, on a medical practitioner, we do not have sufficient qualifications to treat ourselves. Freedom is self -medication. And there are people who use this freedom, but their minority. The vast majority, including in countries that officially consider each other free, voluntarily conjure the care of themselves to someone. This is their choice.

Gradually expanding the example with medicine, we will include all types of social care in it. It is not necessarily state-owned, there are private institutions of social assistance, although in most developed countries of the world, it is the state that the state does this concern (= restriction of freedom) or it tightly controls private organizations.

Let us recall the oldest form of delegation of care - protection: this is the police, the army, the judicial system. Let us recall the rules of the road with the relevant road police officers and tow trucks. Let us recall the censorship.

I conducted a survey among fifty respondents. Of course, I do not pretend to science for science, you cannot name a representative sample. But for my personal opinion and journalism is enough. Twenty of them are my friends, I asked for more than thirty phones in the family medical center - these are families in which there are children from five to twelve years old. Questions concerned television programs, undesirable, according to parents, to view their children. Everyone said that such programs exist. 80% of respondents believe that someone should limit such programs. Well, not everyone used the word "state" of them.

There are several technical subtleties. Only 5% of respondents use the Parent Contol function - parental control: the ability to close the password of undesirable channels, and only 35% generally knew what it was. I reported the rest in the process of the survey. But this function allows you to block only the entire channel (several channels). If those and these programs go along the channel, then somewhere in the corner of the screen there should be marks. TVs that recognize these marks are very rare, cost crazy money and in fact realize this function crookedly even with skillful setting, which setting up requires high qualifications: in fact, a full -fledged computer is built into this TV. As for such sophistications as displaying TV transmission to a household TV through a PC (via TV-tuner + a video card with a TV output + corresponding software (such exists) + a TV itself with an appropriate entrance), even the computer specialists who have children do not want to start with this grider. Together with most respondents, they said that “someone” should sort non-child’s programs into separate channels. In free and democratic France, this has already been done.

This survey, of course, is a small stroke. So, turned up ...

The word "care" at the request of the reader can be replaced by various gross expressions. Which is happening.

Quote 1: "... as far as I managed to notice, the number of people who dream of foiling their unnecessary freedom in someone's" reliable "hands, simply amazing. Not many people know what to do with themselves."

Quote 2: "Most people in today's Russia want in a stall! Under the Soviet regime, we all were in the corral, fed us badly and koya from time to time for a massacre, but, in general, they fed. And then they let us on free grazing, but we need to fuss and look around, since no one has been canceled. And many people seem to get a lot of regular rations from a stolen A semi -drunk cattle, because you do not have to think for yourself.

The reader can easily find many thousands of similar statements both on the network and in real life. Two quoted people belong to people whom I personally know well (not to virtuals), both of them are Muscovites, have good work, housing and other attributes of the Top-Middle class, including medical and other insurance. (Any insurance is a fee for care. It is voluntary, but it happens, in many countries of the world, and mandatory.) They do not go to protests and do not participate in the activities of any minorities. They just think, say or write on the Internet. They use sharp expressions, we have a different attitude to the phenomenon with them, but the very fact of the presence of this phenomenon does not cause disagreements. They indicate the very notorious "Putin majority" with these expressions.

So, "those who wish in the stall" establish their state with the appropriate domestic policy. So the main question is: do they have the right to do so?

I am replying the answer to lawyers and philosophers. But regardless of the answer, it has been practically many times in history and is happening.

Naturally, the rights of the minority are violated. But also vice versa. If 80% of citizens do not want to entrust any part of their freedom to anyone and, accordingly, their state does not limit freedoms, then the rights of those 20% are violated, which dream of "applying unnecessary freedom to someone." For example, taking care of their safety - so in the West there are very massive social movements that advocate for restricting the free trade in weapons, tightening punishments for the spread of pornography, drugs, etc.

It also happens that it is forbidden for someone to enforce their freedom by laws of the state. This is easier to explain on the example of an artistic image. Watch the Spanish film "Stiko" (1) . The action takes place today. A poor professor, a specialist in Roman law, comes to his rich former student and asks to take him into slaves. The student helps in Christianly: gives him Sinecura, Shelter and a table in his house. And ... not that he agrees with his oddities, but considers them for crazy, a form of wretchedness, and he helps wretched. And the professor ordered and put on his collar and tells everyone that he is now a slave. The neighbors and acquaintances learn about this, the philanthropist falls into a difficult position, because slavery is prohibited by law ... In the film, it all ends with a happy end.

The issue of minority rights exists even in very free states. It is very desirable to observe some balance, but it will always be a compromise, an inferior solution.

I would divide the minorities into two unequal category in terms of quantity and quality.

Most minorities require the expansion of some freedoms for themselves. Even if the content of their requirements is unpleasant for us, this category is not the most unpleasant part.

The minority of minorities, most often very small, units, or even fractions of the percentage of the population, but they are the most active, requires to remove the most greater care that the vast majority wishes. They require cancellation of care for others. In my system of concepts, this is called this: they try not to cancel, but to replace someone's care - the best, in their opinion, and thereby limit them to the recognized fact of the choice of the majority. I believe that such requirements must be ignored. It is from such, if they give free rein to them, those who "drive humanity to happiness with an iron hand." But we must try in the order of compromise and this minority to provide at least part of the opportunity to live in its own way. They will still be unhappy, as they want to make happy, get rid of custody not only themselves, but also others. You can’t do anything with this ... But, for example, you do not have to interfere with their opinion. Considering that there are few of them, they are unlikely to find money to pay airtime in the prime time. (The question of the minority of the population with most money will be considered separately, somehow another time, otherwise we will bind out in a completely different topic.) Let them stick leaflets, go through the porches and campaigning, like communists and national bonds (I mean social technology, methods for realizing freedom of speech, and not the ideology of these parties).

If you dream in this direction further, then let these people, for the sake of realizing the rights of their minority, be exempted from part of the taxes that go to the work of the police and special services - they can be isolated from the general taxes on the budget. But let the police do not come on their challenges. It seems absurd, but technically realized. It would be more difficult with the army and customs specifically for minorities. But the technology is developing, perhaps, and this will become possible.

In the meantime, there is an ancient and universal way: emigration. And there are peoples and states with completely different degrees of freedom. But there is no correlation between the degree of freedom and the standard of living, culture, education, the number of victims from unnatural causes. (And from natural ones too: their decrease is facilitated by the development of medicine, pure water and food, etc.) happens like this, but it happens that way. If someone tells you that the relationship between freedom (democracy) is life, then this is ordinary hypocritical and impudent democratic lies. To see the absence of this connection, it is enough instead of waving slogans to search for published (in their democratic sources) data. For example, compare the Oon HDI life parameters with Freedom House Freedom Tables or with the "American magazine" Economist "Index of Democracy ". Another time I will take care of their detailed analysis, but for now a couple of small strokes. According to the parameters of the life of the Cuba, it takes a fiftieth place in the world (from 177 countries), and in democracy - the 124th. Rwanda, the one in which 800,000 Tutsi recently exterminated, takes a position ten points higher in the democracy rating than Belarus. And Russia has a low position in these lists. Analyzing this data to remember that the “one free country” is not equal to “one free person”, since one Norway (world leader in life parameters) is not equal to one China. The United States, of course, is in the upper part of the lists and by freedom and in the standard of living. But this is only ~ 5% of the population of the planet. And among them there are protest minorities - both for increasing freedom and against. For example, against restrictions on freedom in connection with a "patriotic act" and other measures of the new American state security system. "Who would ten years ago think that we will have our own KGB?" - One liberal American told me bitterly. I don’t know which of the many new power structures he specifically had in mind. The fact that he is not alone, but the opinion of his like -minded people practically does not affect the country's domestic policy.

The Americans, to whom I treat with great respect, first of all, for being able to create a state that takes care of their people (it would be nice that they take care of us less), after September 11, seem to recognize the somewhat outdated aphorism of Benjamen Franklin: "A country that sacrifices freedom for security does not deserve either one or the other."

Notes:

1. "Stiko". The director and co -author of the script is Haime de Arminian, the second scenario co -author and the leading actor - Fernando Fernano Gomez. The nomination "Best Director" and the Prize "Silver Bear" at the Berlin Film Festival in 1985.