Ora abbiamo il nuovo codice della strada. Tutti ne parlano, o almeno parlano details. I have not heard (and I would have, possibly by the readers) of legal and political context underlying principles of the road and many other "codes" that plague our civil life and which in fact are many small coups.
When democracy was abolished, the state is "stretched", takes many liberties, and will retain the right to enter into the private lives of citizens to regulate: decide if and when you can gather, such ideas are "right" and may move, such as newspapers can be sold, what ideals should be enhanced in schools and so on. The state makes decisions on other things: the uniforms of the table, the "Roman salute" disseminating "official truth", demonstrations of "fidelity" under which you can make a career in government offices.
long, without taking note of a coup in itself, we have become accustomed to submit to rules that apply to all laid down by the "competent", which does not concern only matters on which rules may apply to all prevent injustice and chaos. Few brief examples will suffice to make us reflect on the many issues that you can not list.
The technical department of the municipality not only has the power to decide whether the case is to build a shed on what che era un terreno agricolo, ma ha il potere di decidere se a casa mia posso o non posso aprire una porta o una finestra in un muro. Fra i due problemi non c’è una differenza “quantitativa”, ma si può individuare una differenza qualitativa: il primo provvedimento ha “il sapore” di una specifica disposizione comunale, mentre il secondo ha il sapore di un arbitrario intervento nella vita privata di un cittadino.
La persecuzione dei fumatori in atto da anni non ha alcun valore di tutela della salute, ma è semplicemente un arbitrio. Se una persona fuma una sigaretta in un cinema non fa morire nessuno di cancro, ma può disturbare. Può però disturbare anche una donna con un profumo scadente o un uomo with plenty of after-shave or the "bad sweating". It is a matter of education and organization and is not a health issue. Also because, unfortunately, it is forbidden to smoke in cinemas, is set up in the cinema halls for smokers. Just as the train is forbidden to smoke or use a carriage reserved for smokers. So the legislation is a violation of the personal dimension and not the expression of protection of citizens. Does not prevent abuse, but "bad habits". See on the following websites:
http://www.forcesitaly.org/Portale_News/news_viewer.php?id=1124
http://www.forcesitaly.org/Portale_News/news_viewer.php ? id = 1146
same problem for the helmet. An account is established by law that if a motorcyclist in an accident without a helmet died is not entitled to the same compensation would be entitled if he had brought a helmet, and an account is established that the bikers are to move with a helmet on his head.
Same for many other areas where the state has long been more pronounced and increasingly has taken the right to regulate people's habits rather than defining their actual responsibilities. The Highway Code has become the litmus test of this shift of the role of the state, as guarantor of the social life of the regulator privacy. E 'entirely reasonable that driving while intoxicated constitutes an aggravating factor if an accident occurs. It is not reasonable, rather than people who do not make any incident should be "searched inside" (the "test balloon") if they are just driving, or having sanctions if they drank two beers. Current law is absurd, because there are people with half a bottle of brandy are bright and people with half a glass of sparkling wine drunk, but I do not care so much the absurdity as the violence and arrogance of this legislation: what and how much you drink is a personal matter and not social and it is likely actually remain with these rules even if the incidents were reduced to nine tenths, in which case that would reduce the suffering due to accidents and would increase the suffering caused by the leaden thrown by the state on all of the drivers?
I will not even touch the issue of speed limits. There are studies according to which accidents fall if you put signs: see these two web pages:
http://www.fastandsafe.org.nz/Pages/Media/Monderman.htm
http: / / www.tio.ch/aa_pagine_comuni/articolo_print.asp?idarticolo=359213 ).
In any case, it seems reasonable that in the event of an accident are taken into This also kept the speed alleged by the drivers involved (as well as tire wear and brakes, etc..), but is simply insane to establish that a given stretch of road is appropriate to a given speed (regardless of traffic conditions , weather conditions, type of car used, etc..): the state is responsible for how the streets and does not like to guide people and therefore can not decide for them in areas where the skills are all imponderables, the health, emotional balance. An elderly man driving frightened by traffic is a loose cannon, but it would be absurd to do the "test of nerve 'with a new" psycho-balloon. " Even a guy a little 'drunk is dangerous, but it is an adult and is responsible for the consequences of his actions, while the state can not take responsibility for what may be (how?) Plan as a possible outcome of his actions.
The problem in question is of unprecedented gravity and is only the surface of the disaster: the silence of all the political forces that declare themselves democratic, progressive or even left. These "forces" (which in reality are "organized weaknesses) are shocked (and rightly so) if a government official becomes corrupt, leaving the villa, but not shocked at all if a government with public money sneaks into the private lives of millions of people to upset. The principles count for something and I say this regardless of my ways (in fact I am a smoker but I am also a teetotaler): the balloon makes me angry because the ban on smoking a cigarette at the bar, perhaps in a special room for smokers. The regulation of privacy would be absurd even if the smokers in Italy were one hundred thousand. E 'is even more absurd given that there are millions. After all, we can say is that they deserve it: they're all shut up and let themselves be represented by parties who are shut up and fight about everything except about these things. Same thing for drivers: maybe you will become irritable with their children after a cameras, but they pick their party's heart. Government and opposition to discuss the details of 10 km / h more or less, one point more or less than the license and banality of this kind.
Among other things, the blood has left the idea of \u200b\u200b"public control" where the last left-wing government was still in charge we could not buy any good in cash for amounts in excess of 100 € (while traveling with a few clicks tangents in the world, the wealth of organized crime, wealth accumulated evading "seriously" the IRS). This point against the left is obviously not a point in favor of the right. But it must be said that if la filosofia del manganello è almeno coerente con le tradizioni più conservatrici, la filosofia del controllo è una vergogna per la sinistra.
Viviamo in una società capitalistica e irrimediabilmente “globalizzata” in cui il 10% della popolazione dispone della metà delle ricchezze. E’ gravissimo, ma almeno se ne parla e a qualcuno sembra ingiusto. Viviamo in una società in cui si rischia di non poter più leggere il giornale. E’ gravissimo, ma almeno se ne parla e molti protestano per le varie leggi già approvate e i vari bavagli in programma che costituiscono un “colpo di stato strisciante”. Viviamo però anche in una società in cui tanti piccoli colpi di stato consistenti authoritarian rules in the privacy of citizens have been implemented between the indifference and complacency of all forces which claim to democratic ideals, liberals and socialists. This is unacceptable, but also scary.
Gianfranco