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 : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Neocon who wrote (77267)	10/10/2003 5:09:18 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

First, not all claims of conscience satisfy examination. Agreed. Second, even if they do, some of them may be disallowed on the basis of compelling state interest. Agreed. But the whole idea is to ask yourself if it's worth coercive measures, not to dismiss conscience claims without examination. Not agreed. If our court system had to examine every conscience claim that came up before it and give it a full hearing, as soon as that became known, the courts would be clogged and do nothing but. You have to have a compelling argument even to get over the threshold of being allowed to take the court's time arguing your position. And one threshold requirement is that you have done everything in your own power, first, to mitigate your damages. If mitigation is possible, or potentially possible, and you didn't try it, you don't even get to argue the point. Just as you can't bring suit against the government until you can show that you have exhausted every available administrative remedy. If every case is an exception, there is no law.

To: Neocon who wrote (77267)	10/10/2003 5:11:27 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 82486

That is what I am objecting to, using the idea that he could have done something else as a way of dismissing the fundamental claim that there is no reason one way or another to behave coercively in that situation........... Turn it around and look at it the other way. We are talking about assigning a status of conscientious objector to a certain belief in a certain situation. We have had that in the past for military draftees. What's involved with the draftees is both a very, very high moral principle--thou shall not kill--in a situation where a citizen is compelled by the government and by standards of patriotism. Both are extremely high standards. I don't think we want to accord this kind of status, exemption from laws, without a very high standard both on the matter of conscience and the situation. Mojo has a reasonable matter of conscience and a reasonable situation. They meet minimum requirements. But are they in a class with those of our current example. Not even close, particularly with regards to the situation. Do we really want to have on record, side by side, these two exemptions? And if we allow Mojo's, what other claims might we encounter? I think we have to be very cautious about going there.