Costumeless trick-or-treaters: the fabric of society continues to unravel
Trick-or-treating involves an implied contract. In exchange for giving you free candy, it is my right to see you in an adorable, clever, or at least half-assed costume.
The trick-or-treater has rights also. These include the right to perform "tricks" on my home, car, or other property should I fail to uphold my end of the contract by providing free candy, or should I exhibit meanspiritedness by refusing to answer the door or shaking my fist in the air while grumbling, "you kids!"
Last night, I answered the door to a precious little "sunflower," a variety of "princesses," and one very kick-ass giant inflatable "ghost." But at least sixty percent of the tots* who came to my door were completely, obviously, not in costume at all. (It doesn't have to be elaborate or expensive--would it kill you to dress up as a "hobo" or "pirate" or "gypsy" or something?) In my opinion, these young people grossly violated the trick-or-treating contract.
And yet, I did give them candy, and not out of pure charity. As mentioned previously, the trick-or-treater has the right to perform "tricks" on my property if I break the contract. The problem is, if I justifiably withhold candy from a contract violator, that person's freedom to exercise the "tricking" right may continue even though he has broken the contract. (E.g., while I sleep he may be able to egg my house without being caught.)
That candy I gave out last night was protection money. Trick-or-treating is no longer a community building activity. Now it's a racket!
*"tots" applied loosely to include pubescents on the verge of sprouting facial hair
The trick-or-treater has rights also. These include the right to perform "tricks" on my home, car, or other property should I fail to uphold my end of the contract by providing free candy, or should I exhibit meanspiritedness by refusing to answer the door or shaking my fist in the air while grumbling, "you kids!"
Last night, I answered the door to a precious little "sunflower," a variety of "princesses," and one very kick-ass giant inflatable "ghost." But at least sixty percent of the tots* who came to my door were completely, obviously, not in costume at all. (It doesn't have to be elaborate or expensive--would it kill you to dress up as a "hobo" or "pirate" or "gypsy" or something?) In my opinion, these young people grossly violated the trick-or-treating contract.
And yet, I did give them candy, and not out of pure charity. As mentioned previously, the trick-or-treater has the right to perform "tricks" on my property if I break the contract. The problem is, if I justifiably withhold candy from a contract violator, that person's freedom to exercise the "tricking" right may continue even though he has broken the contract. (E.g., while I sleep he may be able to egg my house without being caught.)
That candy I gave out last night was protection money. Trick-or-treating is no longer a community building activity. Now it's a racket!
*"tots" applied loosely to include pubescents on the verge of sprouting facial hair
Labels: civil society, Halloween
posted by Waage on Wednesday, November 01, 2006
1 Comments:
I'm happy to see kids out trick or treating at all. On our block, there was a fair amount of trick or treaters, but you should see the listings of 'safe' events held at community centers and churches for paranoid parents held in check by the Fear Nation protocols. One of these protocols is that every piece of candy given to your child by a stranger is a potential WMD wrapped by Osama himself.
So give to the children who come to your door, costumed or not. Trick or Treating has come to mean the anti-establishment-almost revolutionary- act of community building by simply knocking on the doors of strangers and taking their candy. BTW, our little anarchist went dressed as a 'princess' and was adorable. Sigh.
Post a Comment
<< Home