SI
SI
discoversearch

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 ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: TimF who wrote (45157)2/10/2006 9:23:03 AM
From: Solon  Read Replies (1) of 90947
 
"Enforcing a law against a victimless crime is not protecting the rights and freedoms of others even if the law is fully constitutionally legitimate"

"victimless crime" is simply jargon for a certain class of violation. Society is always a victim where a crime has been committed, so your denial fails to convince.

"Gratuitous assertions can be gratuitously denied."

I simply said that your denial was not an argument. I did not say it was gratuitous. As for my assertion that they ""purport to defend the public health and safety at individual and group levels", it is a true and supportable statement. By "public health and safety", I, of course, comprehend all the rights and freedoms embodied and implied in the Constitution.

"I had not been saying that the laws were bad when I said that enforcing them was initiating force"

You're quibbling.

"That is an important point to me even though it is rather an abstract one."

Could you repeat it in different words, then?? Because I really have no idea what you were trying to assert in that paragraph.

"A large part of my point is that making one statement does not mean you are implying the other"

You've spent a lot of time telling me what you DON'T want to say. Why not post a coherent sentence or two telling me what you DO want to say and what RELEVANT point you wish to argue??

"Or in other words by saying that enforcement of the law can be an initiation of force I am not automatically saying that that law has any of the above characteristics."

I have no idea what you are talking about. I see no connection between any potential argument over the merits of a law and the obvious fact that all laws must be enforced with force. Perhaps (as I suggested in my last paragraph) you could simply tell me what it is you are trying to argue? Obviously, the original discussion about deadly force has concluded to my satisfaction. Can you tell me if you have a point to make--or not?
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News