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


To: TimF who wrote (15658)9/4/2001 6:43:17 PM
From: Lane3  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 59480
 
The action is to take by force or threat of force.

Tim, laws are enforceable by force or threat of force. That's why they call it en-force-ment. I'll bet you don't have a problem when the cops use force or threat of force to rescue someone from being raped. Or to cuff and carry off the perp. Because you approve of that law. If the law is legit, then the authorities use force if necessary to assure compliance. It doesn't matter if you or I approve of the law or not. We get input into whether or not a law is desirable through our representatives during the legislative process, not the enforcement process. At the enforcement end, the use of force is not related to whether or not it's a wise law.

Karen



To: TimF who wrote (15658)9/5/2001 7:09:18 AM
From: Neocon  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 59480
 
Well, we can hone the difference a little better, anyway. You seem to think that the aspect of force automatically taints it. I think that the issue is whether it is owed or not. Force, whether to enforce or punish, can be excessive, of course, but laying that aside, the matter is one of justice: is there an enforceable obligation? I say that the government is duly constituted to define enforceable obligations, or, from another angle, punishable infractions, i.c. laws. As long as it is legitimate that government promulgate laws, force per se is not invalidating.