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 (44962)	1/27/2006 6:23:12 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90947

Of course, they are. Pretend that you come to my house to collect a debt owed to you and that I then pull a gun on you and you shoot me in self defense. If I threatened to hurt or kill you or burn down your house, or to abduct ("arrest") you, than it wouldn't be in self defense if I killed you after you drew a gun on me. If we agreed that some item of property would become mine if you didn't pay me back, and I take it and you pull a gun and I shoot you it would be in self defense because in that case I am not creating the confrontation. I am taking my property and you are trying to stop me. You would be attacking me, not defending yourself or your property so you would be initiating the use of force, and my response would be self defense. The government is not taking its own property when it makes a seizure or when it pressures you to pay taxes. It is taking your property. This taking is necessary but the necessity doesn't change the nature of the act. It is also not taking its own property when it fines you for some other type of crime. Do you think the courts would hold I am not and have not been talking about what the courts will hold, or what other people might decide. I am talking about reality, not other people's opinion of reality. Tim