> More generally, I have the right to self-expression as
> long as the exercise of that right does not infringe
> on other people's right to peace and quiet. This
> seems like a common sense universal principle that
> applies to a variety situations, including the one
> that started this discussion. Most civilised people
> understand that principle and try to abide by it
> voluntarily in everyday life situations. However,
> Amerika is anything but civilised and the concept of
> self-restraint and respect for others is for the most
> part absent here - hence the need for intrusive
> legislation.
This statement baffles me. What is more American than the pious insistence that no behavior should be prohibited unless it interferes with someone else's "right to peace and quiet"? This is a symptom of what Charles called the "illusion of the individual self" in the self-consciousness thread: that it is possible to live autonomously from the social order so that, ceteris paribus, your "personal" behavior won't affect anyone else and vice versa.
The quality of life measures that are so popular these days (e.g. banishing panhandlers and squeegee guys) all seem to be rooted in the assumption that one of the worst things that can happen is that you'll be harassed or bugged by anyone else -- that we have a God-given right to go through our days without having to confront something that's ugly, uncomfortable, unfriendly, etc. (The left equivalent of quality of life measures seems to be the formation of "safe spaces" for members of oppressed groups).
In any event, I am not aware of any successful social movement that respected the "right to peace and quiet." The problem is that such a right is becoming more entrenched; not that people are ignoring it.
-WD