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.

Politics : Right Wing Extremist Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Neocon who wrote (15584)	9/4/2001 12:54:11 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 59480

As long as the government has the right to enact laws with penalties for infractions, the mere threat of the use of force does not make something unjust. There is some level of injustice in the other laws as well in that they force us to give up some of our freedom but practically it is necessary to give up some of our freedom to have society work. The idea of a social contract is often used to justify this but as I have said before I haven't signed any contract. I'm not saying I oppose making any compromise of my freedom I realize some compromise is needed but the fact that it is needed or even tolerated does not mean it is just. One type of law where there is a strong distinction is laws that seek to prevent or deter criminal attacks. Enforceing these laws could simply be considered collective self defense. Another distinction is that tax laws cause your wealth to be siezed. If anyone else besides the governent did this you would call it theft or extortion. As I stated awile back on the Boxing Ring thread I don't consider the government to have a special moral status. If it is wrong for me to do something then it is generally wrong for the government to do it as well. Tim