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 (45129)	2/8/2006 6:09:15 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90947

The conversation started with the assertion that the Government ultimately relies on deadly force. If it has been narrowed down to arguing over the agreeability of marijuana laws, then it is you whom have left the road. It hasn't been narrowed down to disagreement about marijuana laws. Whether or not marijuana laws are a good idea is irrelevant to the discussion. They just provide a good example of how someone can break the law without attacking (or defrauding) anyone else. There are many other examples. You've introduced an entirely new topic--the Constitutional legitimacy of certain (victimless crime) laws. No. I have not asserted that they where constitutional, or that they where unconstitutional, or that they should or shouldn't be constitutional. I haven't asked for opinions about if they are or if they should be. I haven't introduced the topic of "the Constitutional legitimacy of certain (victimless crime) laws". Whether or not they are constitutional is irrelevant to my point. Even if assume that such laws are constitutional and beneficial, it would still not make the enforcement of such laws and example of protecting the rights and freedoms of others. Even if such laws were assumed to be constitutional and beneficial enforcing them would not be self-defense, or defense of others. Tim