Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: TimF who wrote (45134)	2/9/2006 9:50:50 AM
From: Solon	Read Replies (1) of 90947

"I mentioned marijuana laws an example of laws against victimless crimes" Whatever. It is entirely apart from the original topic as to the degree of force which lies behind the enforcement of human rights and freedoms and the proscriptions on that use of force. "However whatever you chose to point out will not change the fact that I did not introduce the topic that you claimed I introduced. When I mentioned the "Constitutional legitimacy of certain (victimless crime) laws" I was legitimately responding to YOUR comment: "People enforcing those laws are not protecting the rights and freedoms of others at least not directly." Your comment implies that such enforcement lacks constitutional legitimacy (I have pointed out to you that the U.S. legal system rests upon the Constitution which relies on the principle that people are born with inalienable rights). I was correct to point out to you the contradiction. "Victimless crime laws do not such thing" They purport to defend the public health and safety at individual and group levels. Your denial that they "do no such thing" is merely a denial--not an argument. "Although I do in fact think that(that society has enacted bad laws)(brackets mine) , that is not what I have been telling you." Really? In this very post you said: "although many of them are (bad laws) (brackets mine). "Neither do I" Then what is your interest in (for instance) marijuana laws as it relates to the issue of the degree of force which lies behind the enforcement of human rights and freedoms and the proscriptions on that use of force? "I agree that the fundamental purpose of government is to protect our rights and freedoms"..."That doesn't mean, even in theory, that all laws serve that purpose" I have made it clear that laws purport to serve that purpose. I have made it clear that the legal system is based on the PRINCIPLE of safeguarding Rights and Freedoms. I told you I am not interested in arguing (at this time) which laws are bad or which laws "serve that purpose". Nor (without knowing what you mean by "bad" in "Neither necessarily makes them bad laws, or unconstitutional laws") do I intend to argue (at this time) whether or not an unconstitutional law is or is not de facto "bad".

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next