Mutant/Superhero Registration Ethics

Discuss anything vaguely M&M related here, such as comics, movies, and action figures.
Blitz
Groupie
Groupie
Posts: 92
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 9:40 pm

Mutant/Superhero Registration Ethics

Postby Blitz » Thu Aug 08, 2013 12:59 pm

So, in Jabroniville's build thread, saint_matthew started dropping some pro-reg speech and treating it as if it was the obvious truth. I objected for a bit, and then decided to stop derailing Jabroniville's thread. Instead of removing the discussion from the public eye entirely, Ares requested that it be continued over here. Hence, this thread.

saint_matthew wrote:No, people hated it because it was a terrible story, that would have destroyed the Marvel universe, as it reduced every superhero down to a petty governmental functionary. No more Batman style vigilante characters, no more Runaways.

But as i have mentioned a couple of times now fiction =/= reality.


Yeah, not buying this. I can see the fanbase saying "this story sucks!" because the story sucks - and, really, many people did, and they're not exactly wrong. However, what also happened is that the fanbase largely sided with the Anti-Reg side, completely blindsiding the writers. You're attributing that to the meta-level Pro-Reg-is-bad-for-the-narrative angle, when it's unlikely that as many as one fan in a thousand actually thought that way. The readers overwhelmingly sided ideologically with the Anti-Reg movement.

saint_matthew wrote:There is no such thing as civil liberties, civil liberties is a concept, one that no two countries agree on. Heck even the American Civil Liberties as laid out in the The United States Constitution/Bill of Rights has been altered over time as new situations arise... An i can most assuredly promise you that when the United States Constitution of Earth 616 was written, no one was thinking about people with the power to sterilise every living thing on a planet with an idle thought.

/facepalm. Except registraion of mutants doesn't remove any benefit of basic civil liberties, either as a nebulous concept, or as an expression of that concept as layed out in Constitution/Bill of Rights. In fact it dos the exact opposite: It expands the law, to also cover those individuals & to protect mutants from humans & humans from mutants, equally & without bias, under a unified legal system.

Its just a boring superhero comic


Again with the meta-level argument. We hadn't GOTTEN to the boring part yet. The fans weren't saying "We're worried that this will lead to dramatically reduced stories opportunities!" They were saying "Cap Was Right." So yeah, hogwash.

As for civil liberties, I don't think you'll find the "you are precisely as free as we decide you are at the moment" argument to be particularly compelling to, say, an ethics board. Yes, civil liberties have changed in the last two hundred years and change, but typically to guarantee more, not to single out a specific group for extra scrutiny under the law. "Equal protection under the law" is kind of a THING, in the United States. Pretty much the fundamental ideal, in fact.

You did summarize the Pro-Reg argument from the books quite well. Allow me to respond by repeating some of the more common Anti-Reg arguments.

"Wait, this is the same government that periodically persecutes us with extreme violence, and now I'm supposed to file my name, home address, phone number, and parents' names with them?"
and its corollary,
"Isn't this awfully similar to what Hitler did to the Jews/gays/Catholics/Gypsies/cripples/politically inconvenient, as a precursor to killing them?"

Identifying your victims is an important first step in state-sponsored genocide, among other atrocities. Even if you trust the current people in power not to do so, there is such a thing as an Election Cycle, and you never can be sure who comes next, and you can't exactly take the power you granted them away.

But hey, I'm sure there's nothing to worry about. It's not like the government is taking known super-powered individuals and violently coercing them to do its bidding, right? Ooooh, waitaminute...

It's no surprise that Captain America championed the Anti-Reg side. It violated some of his core values. The writers made a good decision placing him there. It's just strange that they didn't then take the logical next step and say "and he's absolutely right."

"If my enemies were to gain access to this information, I'm screwed! I don't have the resources to go public! My friends and family will be vulnerable!"

There's a reason the Pro-Reg people tended to be the public heroes, while the secret identity heroes tended toward Anti-Reg. Heroes with secret identities tend to not be doing it for the giggles. If their enemies find out who they are, they're in a lot of trouble.

The end of Civil War attempted to sweep this under the rug, saying "Well, SHIELD is going to have the list, and Tony is going to have SHIELD, so the information isn't publicly available! It's not that bad!" Sure, because government computers are never, ever hacked. I'm sure every time that list is used for anything, whether for its intended purpose or the inevitable Congressional debates over related topics, some or all of the related information isn't going to be out in the world and much, much less secure than the (dubious) safety of SHIELD's servers.

Every superhero's identity would be public inside six months. Casualties among superheroes, plus their friends and family, would spike immediately.

"I was born with my powers. Suddenly, I need a license to exist?"

For better or worse, laws requiring registry of a thing are attempts to control that thing. Want a legally binding marriage? Need a license. Want a firearm? Need a license. Want to fly a plane? Want to drive a car? Want to vote? You need to register all of these things, because the government has decided that it needs control over these things. And for the most part, that's okay. I don't feel that it infringes unduly on our freedoms to have oversight over these important things, whether they're potentially life-threatening or merely life-changing. You're entering into these things voluntarily, and you understand what you're getting into.

Requiring a person to be registered just because they exist, though, enters into some really dubious legal and ethical territory. It's not as if people with inborn powers made the decision to do so, yet they're automatically entered into a system to be monitored and supervised the way a criminal is.

TL;DR: The whole Pro-Reg argument is unethical and wrong and dangerous, whether you're talking about just mutants or super-heroes in general.

User avatar
Mr Mole
Firebrand
Firebrand
Posts: 837
Joined: Fri May 18, 2007 9:33 am
Location: Washington (the state, not the district)

Re: Mutant/Superhero Registration Ethics

Postby Mr Mole » Thu Aug 08, 2013 1:25 pm

Blitz wrote:Requiring a person to be registered just because they exist, though, enters into some really dubious legal and ethical territory. It's not as if people with inborn powers made the decision to do so, yet they're automatically entered into a system to be monitored and supervised the way a criminal is.

While not universally enforced, people in the USA are already required to register "just because they exist." Birth certificates come to mind.

I'm not taking one side or the other on the SRA issue. That'd be pointless.

I am saying reasonable people can disagree on the issue and land on different sides of the fence.

Jabroniville
Cosmic Entity
Cosmic Entity
Posts: 8711
Joined: Sat Nov 04, 2006 1:12 am
Contact:

Re: Mutant/Superhero Registration Ethics

Postby Jabroniville » Thu Aug 08, 2013 1:41 pm

I think that in real-life, there would've probably been Super-Hero Registration right from the beginning. However, like I stated I my thread- the government in comics is also SUPER-prone to being taken over by evil people (mind control, the President is secretly the leader of The Secret Empire, Someone has the bright idea to give NORMAN OSBORN control, etc.), so this kind of thing would never work out in "the world of jet-powered apes and time travel".

I don't think fans ENTIRELY objected to the storyline because it would "Wreck the super-hero narrative", though I think that's part of it- the whole "Spider-Man is mistrusted and sometimes hunted, but he's actually A GOOD GUY" thing is a huge part of many superhero books. BUT heroes like Cap, the Hulk and others are ALREADY registered, so many books would have been unchanged. Cap even made this point early-on, mentioning that "the heroes who work close to the streets" or something were going to reject this (if Daredevil, Spidey & Moon Knight are on the list, they're in danger because some of their rich-boy villains can FIND the list).

On a big level, they objected because CAP objected, and he's generally a moral centre, and fans are instinctively going to side with him. It doesn't help that the major force in Registration was Maria Hill, who was acting like a tenth-grade bitch the entire time, and actively tried to arrest Cap merely because he said he wouldn't help them round up heroes. Millar basically went off the rails, and had the Pro-Reg side to evil thing after evil thing, just because he assumed that fans would TAKE the Pro-Reg side, and wanted to make it look more "even".

Of course, character derailment is EASILY the #1 complaint about Civil War most people have. People acting like gigantic assholes just to drill the narrative further is something that's kind of annoying to read about. Of course, they're STILL less likely to brawl at the drop of a hat than they were in the 1960s comics!

I think the interesting thing about Civil War (that again, got derailed because of all the character problems and the need for constant fights) was that there IS logic to both sides. Registering superhumans makes legit sense, because some of them are INSANELY dangerous. But the ANTI-Reg side has a point in that the government tends to do nasty/stupid stuff with this information, and that MOST rotten people are ALREADY known to the government, since they, you know... COMMITTED CRIMES ALREADY. The fact that fans could still argue about this is proof that it's a compelling thing.

One of the better/more interesting things to come out of Civil War was the whole "training camp" aspect shown in... whatever book that was. With Gauntlet training at Camp Hammond. Because it showed the positives (superhumans being shown how to use their powers. Basically like The X-Men except the government would KNOW it was being done right, so it wasn't like Uncle Sam was just watching tons of city-destroyers be trained in secret by God Knows Who), AND the negatives (the Evil Government of Marvel training poor Cloud to be a sniper, getting people killed in training, etc.).

User avatar
Kyle
Sidekick
Sidekick
Posts: 358
Joined: Sun Jun 19, 2005 11:38 pm
Location: Canada, eh?

Re: Mutant/Superhero Registration Ethics

Postby Kyle » Thu Aug 08, 2013 1:50 pm

The discussion is an interesting one, and I was going to post a response there before realising Jabroniville's thread was definitely not the place.

Blitz wrote:Requiring a person to be registered just because they exist, though, enters into some really dubious legal and ethical territory. It's not as if people with inborn powers made the decision to do so, yet they're automatically entered into a system to be monitored and supervised the way a criminal is.


The problem with this argument is that we already require registration of dangerous individuals simply because they exist, and most people are completely in favour of it. We strip these people of their rights and liberties, sometimes without them actually having ever committed a crime. Their names and addresses are made public, and they never asked to be born with the condition that makes them a danger to others.

I am, of course, referring to sex offenders.

Hear me out. I know that comparing Spider-Man to a child molester is a bit of a stretch, but I think it's relevant to the argument.

There have been some interesting papers published recently regarding the brains of paedophiles. Were you aware that about twenty-five percent of paedophiles are left handed as opposed ten percent of the total population? Also, paedophiles have significantly less white matter making up their brain than a normal person. Now, obviously not all left handed people are sexually deviant, but it does point a fundamental difference in the wiring of a paedophile's brain as compared to that of a regular individual.

I'm not saying that we shouldn't be concerned for the safety of children, or that individuals who do prey upon them shouldn't face lawful persecution. However, not every paedophile acts upon their urges. Unfortunately, in the United States -- though not Canada or the UK -- if an individual seeks psychiatric help to deal with these impulses that they never asked for and have no control over, the doctors they see are required by law to report them to the authorities, regardless of whether or not they've ever actually acted on their desires.

Individuals who've never committed a crime can end up on a sex offender registry for seeking help to deal with a problem so that they can avoid harming children. And most people are perfectly okay with that.

Ethics and morality are all well and good inside a bubble, but in reality things get murky. It's all well and good to say that an individual who represents a clear danger to the people around them never asked for their powers, but how many times does New York City need to destroyed by people in costumes with no legal authority to fight crime before the citizenry starts to demand some sort of action? Or at least some accountability.

And when you have folks like Cyclops and Rogue and Havok who can't really control their powers so well, maybe they wouldn't be so wrong.

Blitz
Groupie
Groupie
Posts: 92
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 9:40 pm

Re: Mutant/Superhero Registration Ethics

Postby Blitz » Thu Aug 08, 2013 2:25 pm

Kyle wrote:The discussion is an interesting one, and I was going to post a response there before realising Jabroniville's thread was definitely not the place.

Blitz wrote:Requiring a person to be registered just because they exist, though, enters into some really dubious legal and ethical territory. It's not as if people with inborn powers made the decision to do so, yet they're automatically entered into a system to be monitored and supervised the way a criminal is.


The problem with this argument is that we already require registration of dangerous individuals simply because they exist, and most people are completely in favour of it. We strip these people of their rights and liberties, sometimes without them actually having ever committed a crime. Their names and addresses are made public, and they never asked to be born with the condition that makes them a danger to others.

I am, of course, referring to sex offenders.

Hear me out. I know that comparing Spider-Man to a child molester is a bit of a stretch, but I think it's relevant to the argument.

There have been some interesting papers published recently regarding the brains of paedophiles. Were you aware that about twenty-five percent of paedophiles are left handed as opposed ten percent of the total population? Also, paedophiles have significantly less white matter making up their brain than a normal person. Now, obviously not all left handed people are sexually deviant, but it does point a fundamental difference in the wiring of a paedophile's brain as compared to that of a regular individual.

I'm not saying that we shouldn't be concerned for the safety of children, or that individuals who do prey upon them shouldn't face lawful persecution. However, not every paedophile acts upon their urges. Unfortunately, in the United States -- though not Canada or the UK -- if an individual seeks psychiatric help to deal with these impulses that they never asked for and have no control over, the doctors they see are required by law to report them to the authorities, regardless of whether or not they've ever actually acted on their desires.

Individuals who've never committed a crime can end up on a sex offender registry for seeking help to deal with a problem so that they can avoid harming children. And most people are perfectly okay with that.

Ethics and morality are all well and good inside a bubble, but in reality things get murky. It's all well and good to say that an individual who represents a clear danger to the people around them never asked for their powers, but how many times does New York City need to destroyed by people in costumes with no legal authority to fight crime before the citizenry starts to demand some sort of action? Or at least some accountability.

And when you have folks like Cyclops and Rogue and Havok who can't really control their powers so well, maybe they wouldn't be so wrong.


See, as a law student with a friend who was wrongly convicted of sex crimes against children, I'm pretty aware of these issues.

The difference, primarily, is that we strip the rights of people convicted of an act, not because they exist. Yeah, there might be certain things predisposing them toward offending, but thankfully, there is no Left-Handed Person Registry, or even a Low-White-Matter Registry. Violent crime of all sorts is also strongly correlated to ethnicity, but VERY thankfully, no one is calling to register every member of any ethnic groups, either.

In the United States, the primary way to find yourself living in these circumstances is to commit a crime. Your rights will be abridged a bit as a consequence. As you point out, if you feel that you require assistance in order to prevent committing a crime, you can voluntarily seek that assistance, and your rights will be abridged as a part of that, but it was still essentially voluntary. (And still rather questionable at that. I'm not a fan.) Regardless, your decisions as a person have established you as a danger to the community. That didn't happen just because you exist. No one is looking at biological factors and saying "this person is inherently dangerous and should be registered and monitored," which is what you're doing with mutant registration, or any other person with inborn powers.

As for registering all superheroes, the end result remains that superheroes who require secret identities are instantly screwed, which I think most people understand.

Raws
Henchman
Henchman
Posts: 201
Joined: Wed Jun 16, 2010 12:21 pm

Re: Mutant/Superhero Registration Ethics

Postby Raws » Thu Aug 08, 2013 2:58 pm

Blitz wrote:As for registering all superheroes, the end result remains that superheroes who require secret identities are instantly screwed, which I think most people understand.


I guess there's the point where real life and comic books differ most. In real life you don't want/need "secret identity super-heroes" and we dont automatically assume that "the government will do evil things" with the register...

edit: I dont want, in real-life, that someone who feels like "rambo" or "punisher, go out, take a gun and hit the streets "doing justice". Would I want someone to do it with a power? Without training? Without accountability? no.

If someone has the abilities/vocation to be a "hero" and "serve the people" than go receive training, put an uniform and work, in a fashion, like a policeman.

I dont see the need of registering a "power" as restricting civil liberties. There are many things about us that are already registered... Names, figerprints, blood-tipes, etc, etc.

I'm a judge in Brazil. Maybe here we don't have so much liberties as you have in the US. But for me, registering a "power" would be just one more document to fill. like passport, RG, CPF, birth registration, mariage registration, etc... And I see a reasonable reason to require a registration.

thats just my opinion, ofcourse.

Blitz
Groupie
Groupie
Posts: 92
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 9:40 pm

Re: Mutant/Superhero Registration Ethics

Postby Blitz » Thu Aug 08, 2013 3:20 pm

Raws wrote:I guess there's the point where real life and comic books differ most. In real life you don't want/need "secret identity super-heroes" and we dont automatically assume that "the government will do evil things" with the register...


Can't assume they won't, either. Current events in the United States, one scandal after another. Spying, abuse of power, cover-ups... not particularly encouraging. And if being critical of the current administration isn't to the liking of some people, those people probably wouldn't have been too eager to trust the previous administration with this kind of information and power. Either way, Americans don't tend to like trusting the government with excess power over themselves, because sooner or later, the government will find an inappropriate use to put it to.

Raws wrote:edit: I dont want, in real-life, that someone who feels like "rambo" or "punisher, go out, take a gun and hit the streets "doing justice". Would I want someone to do it with a power? Without training? Without accountability? no.

If someone has the abilities/vocation to be a "hero" and "serve the people" than go receive training, put an uniform and work, in a fashion, like a policeman.


Sure, in real life, and even in the comic books, masked superheroes are mostly illegal vigilantes to begin with, making the legal significance and enforceable nature of a Registration Act questionable, at best. It's basically an extra charge to hit someone with when you catch them being a vigilante.

Raws wrote:I dont see the need of registering a "power" as restricting civil liberties. There are many things about us that are already registered... Names, figerprints, blood-tipes, etc, etc.

I'm a judge in Brazil. Maybe here we don't have so much liberties as you have in the US. But for me, registering a "power" would be just one more document to fill. like passport, RG, CPF, birth registration, mariage registration, etc... And I see a reasonable reason to require a registration.

thats just my opinion, ofcourse.


Names, sure, but a lot of other details about an American aren't generally tracked by the government. Or rather, have not so far. Coming soon. Affordable Care Act, centralized medical databases, etc. Regardless of anyone's opinion of the overall merits and flaws of the law, this aspect doesn't poll well.

Americans tend to expect a higher degree of privacy and independence from the government than residents of other parts of the world.

User avatar
Arkrite
Cosmic Entity
Cosmic Entity
Posts: 11094
Joined: Thu Oct 19, 2006 5:02 pm
Location: The Frozen North

Re: Mutant/Superhero Registration Ethics

Postby Arkrite » Thu Aug 08, 2013 3:21 pm

My big question with this kind of registration is "What are you trying to accomplish?"

Having a license to drive a car, or to purchase a gun makes sense to a degree. You don't want people who haven't been trained driving a car, and or purchasing firearms.

Except it rarely ever stops anybody.

And it seems even weirder when you're trying to get people to register something that they can do naturally.
I'm a very large man, should I have to register?
How about if I know kung-fu too?
Okay, now how about if I can disintegrate (fill in the blank)?

I bet most people are edging towards yes on that last one, but for starters are we now assuming that people are going to be guilty of misuse of their abilities?
Because the only benefit I can see to registering is so you can hunt them down later if you think they're guilty of something.

Or some might say that they require to be trained in the usage of their ability. Assuming you're given options on where they can go that might not be a bad thing.
On the other hand if the government is deciding that they now have to go to camps for training?

What if I don't want my daughter going to the mutant school? Maybe I want her to go to a school better suited for teaching her how to be the profession she desires.
Maybe I don't want her being coerced into becoming a military sniper asset.

And the government... errgh... The government in real life might not be evil, but it's rarely as benevolent as it would like to think it is, and is full of people who believe that they're the only people who knows how to fix the world's problems.
That in itself scares me.
But take Marvel's setting. Didn't these guys make Sentinels to fly around killing people with powers? Didn't they try to force mutants into camps? Aren't they always doing strange things trying to make super soldiers?

And in a world filled with shapeshifters (Mystique, or Cameleon, Mysterio), super geniuses (Doctor Doom), or just technologically savvy or powered villains (The Wizard).... yeah, I don't think that this registry would be safe at all.
It would be a very limited amount of time before the knowledge became public, or was leaked by people inside who just didn't like super powered individuals. And then you have people knocking on your door looking to hire you, convert you, or destroy you.

And the concept, in Marvel, seems really strange as most of the people with secret identities are the heroes protecting people. And most of the really big bads who are causing so much trouble are publicly known by this point.

But I think the really telling point was just seeing that the badguys were all for it. Why are the people who this is supposed to save you from trying to make it a reality? If you do something to stop people and those same people are cheering you on? You need to stop, take a closer look and try to figure out what it is that went wrong.
Last edited by Arkrite on Thu Aug 08, 2013 3:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Mr Mole
Firebrand
Firebrand
Posts: 837
Joined: Fri May 18, 2007 9:33 am
Location: Washington (the state, not the district)

Re: Mutant/Superhero Registration Ethics

Postby Mr Mole » Thu Aug 08, 2013 3:22 pm

Blitz wrote:In the United States, the primary way to find yourself living in these circumstances is to commit a crime.

As a law student, you should recognize the difference between "committing a crime" and "being convicted of a crime." The two are vastly different things, except in the imaginations of idealists. :wink:

One can commit a crime and never face prosecution... Be prosecuted without being convicted... Or be prosecuted and convicted without having committed a crime...

It's not just semantics, but it is arguably nitpicky of me. :mrgreen:

Blitz
Groupie
Groupie
Posts: 92
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 9:40 pm

Re: Mutant/Superhero Registration Ethics

Postby Blitz » Thu Aug 08, 2013 3:36 pm

Mr Mole wrote:
Blitz wrote:In the United States, the primary way to find yourself living in these circumstances is to commit a crime.

As a law student, you should recognize the difference between "committing a crime" and "being convicted of a crime." The two are vastly different things, except in the imaginations of idealists. :wink:

One can commit a crime and never face prosecution... Be prosecuted without being convicted... Or be prosecuted and convicted without having committed a crime...

It's not just semantics, but it is arguably nitpicky of me. :mrgreen:


Nah, you've got a solid point. And as I mentioned, I've got a friend who was wrongfully convicted, so trust me, right there with you on this.

However, if you've just got this unbelievable hankerin' to be convicted of a crime, you've got two choices. Commit a crime and maybe be convicted, or wait around hoping to be wrongfully convicted of one. Your chances of actually being convicted are significantly higher in the former.

Though yeah, I suppose your way of saying it is clearer, because my way of phrasing that particular sentence does sort of ignore wrongful conviction. Good catch.

User avatar
Yeoman
Cosmic Entity
Cosmic Entity
Posts: 12198
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2008 9:39 pm

Re: Mutant/Superhero Registration Ethics

Postby Yeoman » Thu Aug 08, 2013 3:45 pm

Blitz wrote:However, what also happened is that the fanbase largely sided with the Anti-Reg side, completely blindsiding the writers.


Of course, our source for this is the writer himself, Mark Millar. A man for whom nearly the entirety of his career revolves around trying to draw attention through shock tactics.

Of course, on the other hand, Ultimates pretty much proves Millar does not get Captain America on a very fundamental level.

Raws
Henchman
Henchman
Posts: 201
Joined: Wed Jun 16, 2010 12:21 pm

Re: Mutant/Superhero Registration Ethics

Postby Raws » Thu Aug 08, 2013 3:54 pm

Arkrite wrote:My big question with this kind of registration is "What are you trying to accomplish?"



Let me emphasize again that I'm not talking about the marvel registration act... I'm questioning an hipothetical application in the real world.

Let me make clear, also, that my background is different from US based guys. In Brazil we have MANY laws that treat "different people differently", usually to FAVOUR them: people with physical disabilities, poor upbringing, subject to historical racial mistreatment, YONG people, OLD people, etc... There are entire legal codices to discipline the treatment of many of this minorities... "mutants" or "superpowered people" would be just another one in the roll.

In this context, I can see MANY situations where the simple existence of a "power" would change the balance and demmand a regulation, wich in turn would demand a registration.

For instance: how do you apply a test to someone who can read the examiners mind? I've passed a public test to become a judge (thats how it works in Brazil, any one with a law degree and three years of practice can try to become a judge submitting himself to a test simmilar to a second "bar exam"). There were thousands of candidates, only 12 approved. If some of the candidates could read minds, maybe the way that the test was applied to them should take this into account?

How about someone that, when angry can loose control and destroy all his neighborhood. Shoud'nt he receive training to avoid it or, at least, discover measures to minimize the problem? How many outbursts should you really need to wait before doing something?

The need of the many outweight the need of the individual... I'm not saing to put people in camps (take into account that, in Brazil, military service is MANDATORY for one year, for instance) but in this context a registration act and some regulation (like you have for MANY things in real life, like guns, cars, chemical products, etc) should be considered.

Thats my two cents.

Blitz
Groupie
Groupie
Posts: 92
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 9:40 pm

Re: Mutant/Superhero Registration Ethics

Postby Blitz » Thu Aug 08, 2013 4:43 pm

Raws, the problem comes in when you make the testing and its attendant consequences mandatory.

Say you're a Marvel-style mutant. They come up with a test in the real world to determine that. You test X-gene positive. What happens next? Is your name put into any kind of registry or watch list? Does monitor where you live and what you're doing? Are you forced to enter into any kind of training or other specialized program because of who you are? What happens if your powers never express? What happens if your only power is to make white pigment appear to be mildly off-white? Are you taken off the registry then? Or do they monitor your children, who may or may not be more powerful mutants (possibly able to perform a shockingly literal rendition of the Rolling Stones classic "Paint It Black")?

The thing with the real world is that it's governed by laws of physics. Even if somebody did have superpowers, it's exceedingly unlikely that they're going to exert enough power to cause collateral damage before anybody knows about it and can address it properly in a case-by-case basis that doesn't violate individual rights. Setting up a massive screening effort is wasteful and pointless, along with being needlessly, senselessly intrusive.

Raws
Henchman
Henchman
Posts: 201
Joined: Wed Jun 16, 2010 12:21 pm

Re: Mutant/Superhero Registration Ethics

Postby Raws » Thu Aug 08, 2013 5:08 pm

Blitz wrote:Raws, the problem comes in when you make the testing and its attendant consequences mandatory.

Say you're a Marvel-style mutant. They come up with a test in the real world to determine that. You test X-gene positive. What happens next? Is your name put into any kind of registry or watch list?


Yes.

Blitz wrote:Does monitor where you live and what you're doing?

Maybe. Depends on the case.

Blitz wrote:Are you forced to enter into any kind of training or other specialized program because of who you are?


Maybe, depends on the case.

Blitz wrote:What happens if your powers never express? What happens if your only power is to make white pigment appear to be mildly off-white? Are you taken off the registry then?


No. You just stay on the registry. No other consequences.

Blitz wrote:Or do they monitor your children, who may or may not be more powerful mutants (possibly able to perform a shockingly literal rendition of the Rolling Stones classic "Paint It Black")?


They would be on the registry. other than that, depends on the case.

Blitz wrote:The thing with the real world is that it's governed by laws of physics. Even if somebody did have superpowers, it's exceedingly unlikely that they're going to exert enough power to cause collateral damage before anybody knows about it and can address it properly in a case-by-case basis that doesn't violate individual rights.


Depends a lot on the power. For instance, mind reading and/or control could be very discreet and have ENORMOUS consequences.

Blitz wrote: Setting up a massive screening effort is wasteful and pointless, along with being needlessly, senselessly intrusive.


Its not so wasteful, dificult or massive. In fact, there are many similar registries in effect around the world and even inside the US. The question about the need, sense and intrusiveness would depend on the circunstances.

You dont have to have one model only to everybody. There could be categories, etc.

But if your ten year old kid has the power to start nuclear reactions on a massive scale. Yes, i'm sorry, but he will have to be subjected to a lot of intrusiveness and regulation, even if he is young and has not killed anyone yet...

I'll not insist on the point anymore. I see there are very different points of view and I respect yours. Mine is that, depending on the circunstances, some king of registry would be inevitable and necessary.

Blitz
Groupie
Groupie
Posts: 92
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 9:40 pm

Re: Mutant/Superhero Registration Ethics

Postby Blitz » Thu Aug 08, 2013 5:28 pm

So what, then, is the registry used for? It's ridiculous to say "you are on the list" and then "there is no inherent effect of being on the list." If you're going to determine what to do about an individual on a case-by-case basis, depending on how powers manifest, what is the purpose of having the initial list? It does nothing. The important decisions are all made at an individual level, so the list is superfluous.

Also, saying that something is "not so wasteful, dificult or massive" because "there are many similar registries in effect around the world and even inside the US" assumes that nothing currently going on in world politics, including US politics, is not wasteful, difficult, or massive. I think it's safe to say that I disagree with your core assumptions.


Return to “Sidekicks Lounge”



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest