Quote:
Originally Posted by CleverClothe
It is still a power trip, whether they truely believe in what they are doing or not. They are trying to grab power that they should not have.
|
Who should and should not have power is one of the more interesting questions in political philosophy. In the modern context, it is based on the idea that we all have rights, some of which are ceded, wholely or in part, to the state in order to protect other rights.
The problem is, that the rights that remain always must be balanced against each other. My right to free speech can legitimately be curtailed when that speech can be seen to be do harm to others. Hence, I can't yell fire in a movie house, nor can I create or use child pornography and I generally can't provide pornography to minors. In other words, the state has a legitimate case to restrict access to those materials that might be deemed harmful to minors. The problem develops when there is a disagreement over what is and is not harmful to minors.
Like the rest of you, I don't think Harry Potter should be considered harmful, but to certain Christian groups do. When there tax dollars are being spent to provide copies of the work to public libraries or school libraries, I think they have a legitimate right to complain (though not necessarily win). And I wonder how many people would criticize a group if they tried to keep Mein Kampf out of the public schools?
I also disagree that they are on a power trip (which is exercising power purely to exercise power). I honestly think that they are fighting for what they believe in. Whether they should have such power or not, does not make the exercise of the power a power trip, only the motivation for the exercise of that power.