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 : Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Solon who wrote (44690)	1/16/2006 12:46:28 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90947

Obedience to the law is always voluntary. Consequences of disobedience are imposed by the justice system. That's like saying the practice of Judaism in Nazi Germany was voluntary, but dying when the Gestapo's bullets hit was not. The use of force by Government is intended to further the goals of human rights and freedoms. See above example. The use of force by a gov't is to make an example of you to others so they will obey the laws. And all gov'ts are based fundamentally on the threat of force to ensure obedience, whether those gov'ts meet any definition of just or not. I find killing someone for being a Jew hardly advancing the goal of human rights and freedoms. These goals and the means of justice flowed from agreement made between the representatives of the citizens of these certain United States. And the US gov't will use force on you if you do not obey its laws. "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." Notice, it does not say anything about using coercion or force in order to despise human liberty and fundamental justice. The means of force already existed in the state gov'ts and it was implicitly understood that the federal gov't claimed the same right to use force. Or do you think Washington said "Pretty please, be good guys and pay your alcohol taxes" during the Whiskey Rebellion? Do you believe the Government has become corrupt over the years? Then it must be in violation of the Constitution, one would think. No gov't ever existed that did not claim the right to resort to force to enFORCE its law.