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 : My House -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Solon who wrote (3741)	11/24/2002 3:13:55 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 7689

Thankyou! That proves that you agree that a government which is sometimes arbitrary (and THAT is propositional between us--and not factual) is NOT an arbitrary Government! :-) Not at all. It proves nothing. You made an analogy. I agreed with your interpretation of that analogous situation. One is not necessarily stupid just because you commit one stupid act. But such an analogy does not amount to proof. In fact I presented my own analogy (that if one acts in a criminal matter 1% of the time its reasonable to call you a criminal). Of course my analogy doesn't prove me right any more then yours proves you right. Both are better as rhetorical artifices then they are as logical proofs. SORRY...NOT! The Government IS limited by law. The ability to sucessfully break the law (as you claim they have done) does not change that! Many people are criminals. It does not entail that the law is arbitrary. If I ground you for the night and you still sneak out the window to go to a party and drink cheap brandy and get S---faced..it does not mean my home rules are arbitrary--LOL! If it was just that the government or people in it could occasionally get away with violating the law then I would agree but its more then that. The government can violate the law and then consider it legal as it is the one making the determination of what is legal and what it not. The courts are part of the government and in any case they do not always follow the constitution which is the highest law, most particularly the federal government has been allowed to assume power and responsibility which does not constitutionally belong to it. Now what I said is very clear...RIGHT?? I am referring to the fact that the group has decision making authority and power which trumps the individual authority UNLESS the individual is a dictator. I was NOT challenging your right to an individual opinion..RIGHT?? I was NOT challenging your autonomy...RIGHT?? What I said and what I meant was very clear..WAS IT NOT?? We seem to simply have a different opinion about what "defining what is right for the group means". We can continue to but heads over the semantic part of the argument or we can examine the actual ideas by using different words and phrases, or we can just drop the whole thing. Notmally I would say lets get past the semantics and examine the ideas, but I'm not sure there is much in the way of ideas in dispute here, the whole disagreement might be a semantic one. Tim