Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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.

Pastimes : Books, Movies, Food, Wine, and Whatever -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: SirRealist who wrote (1334)	9/1/2001 1:29:45 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 51775

Wow- that was very specific. Abigail Adams said something very similar to her husband John about the protection of women. She said that giving women more protection under the law wasn't necessary when one had a kind and just husband (as she did) but those laws only protected women from abusive husbands- and so wasn't it the morally right thing to do to put laws in place that would affect only abusive men. But your anarchist would argue they don't work. I am not sure that is true. I think, for most people, laws do work. Even for people who need them. Laws represent collective will. And there are not that many people who are willing to go against the collective will of their society. Of course some laws are not respected by the collective will- like prohibition, prostitution, and drug laws, for example- these laws, imo, weaken respect for all laws because they get people in the habit of scoffing at the law. We need to be very careful which laws we put in place- so that people who really need laws will be able to look to a simple and straightforward guide to behavior. What we have now is a mess. (imo)