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 (44957)	1/26/2006 6:42:49 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90947

When you accept without objection the protection of the justice system, it is a priori evidence of your agreement I disagree. More importantly I don't think that an actual agreement, even an explicit and repeated one, would change the simple fact that enforcement of a law often involves the government initiating force, and that the enforcement is backed up at least indirectly with the threat of deadly force. The enforcement might be justified, the necessarily level of force to execute the enforcement might be justified. The threat of deadly force behind the enforcement might be justified. I am only describing reality not arguing against it. Or to put it another way you, your statement quoted above in italics is not true, and even if it was true it would still be irrelevant to the question at hand. Now, if you are legally capable of repudiating the rights, duties, responsibilities, obligations, and accountabilities which are entailed by your citizenship as an American WITHOUT repudiating that citizenship, then I would consider that you might have an argument that you are under no obligation to comply with your laws...but that you do so only out of good will or fear. Legally capable has nothing to do with it. Just being born in the US makes you a citizen but lack of explicit repudiation of citizenship does not equal acceptance of any law that the government might make, or even any constitutional law. Moreover even if it did equal acceptance of "duties, responsibilities, obligations, and accountabilities which are entailed by your citizenship" it wouldn't change my point. It would justify enforcement against me if I violate the laws, but I never claimed anywhere in this argument that enforcement is illegitimate or unjustified. The idea that nobody is legally bound to respect or obey is anarchy. I never claimed that people were not legally bound to obey the law. "Legally bound" just means that the government passed a law and requires your obedience. It doesn't mean you agreed to it, but even if you did accept it or agree to it that would once again be irrelevant to the point I have been making through out this entire conversation. The point is simply that the threat of deadly force is behind enforcement of law. Pilling on justification for this fact, or arguing that the deadly force is unlikely to be used, is irrelevant to the point. You might consider the point to be unimportant. You might want to argue other related points that you consider more important. But if that is what you are trying to do you should explicitly say so, rather then imply otherwise. Tim