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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: mistermj who wrote (174997)	11/15/2005 2:19:52 PM
From: jttmab	Respond to of 281500

No Ed. You are now rationalizing your rationalizations. Anarchy is certainly not the answer. Ed made no claims that anything close to anrachy was the answer. Anarchy is a red herring. There are times when people are faced with moral decisions. They sometimes choose to openly break the law and take the consequences and they choose to break the law because they fear the government. Every Founding Father was a traitor. Dumping tea into the Boston Harbor was a violation of law. Rosa Parks broke the law by keeping her place on the bus. They each made decisions. Rosa Parks did it openly. Patrick Henry and his band wore disguises. Daniel Ellsberg compromised the Pentagon Papers. When his identify became known the government could have prosecuted but chose not to. Ultimately, history will judge the moral correctness of the decision. The form of government entrusted to us by our Forefathers is a republic, not a democracy or mobocracy. I don't hear Bush talking about bringing any Republics to mid-East. He speaks of bringing Democracy. "Democracy" as John Adams referred to it, was and still is a non-entity. Democracy is equivalent to Democratic Republic and the common usage is Democracy. jttmab

To: mistermj who wrote (174997)	11/15/2005 2:40:03 PM
From: cnyndwllr	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

What does Adam's philosophy regarding the dangers of a democracy vs. a republic have to do with matters of conscience in determining whether to take actions that may violate the law? By the way, it seems that entering into a discussion of issues with you results in a never-ending series of new subjects. Do you keep going until you ultimately find an issue that you feel confident of winning? Because if that's your modus operandi then you've given up on prevailing on the issue of whether "winning" in Iraq will make us safer, and you've given up on the issue of whether it was better for America to have the alleged classified study leaked. By the way, while not particularly scholarly or forthright on your part, your surrender is certainly sensible in light of the fact that your initial position on those issues was poorly considered and extremely difficult to defend. Will you give up on the question of whether Adams was addressing individual choices or alternate forms of governance next? Ed