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 (45133)	2/8/2006 8:55:50 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90947

"Whether or not marijuana laws are a good idea is irrelevant to the discussion" Which repeats my point. Not exactly. I didn't raise the issue of whether marijuana laws were a good idea or not. I mentioned marijuana laws an example of laws against victimless crimes. That category is relevant, marijuana is just an example. And the issue I raised wasn't if that category of laws was a good idea but rather that enforcing such laws, good idea or not, is not self defense. "I haven't introduced the topic of "the Constitutional legitimacy of certain (victimless crime) laws"." Laws are made to protect Constitutional Rights and Freedoms. It doesn't matter whether or not you are aware of that fact. I am still permitted to point out that it affects the argument. Your permitted to point out anything you want as long as it doesn't violate SI TOU, or any law or regulation, or isn't something which will cause you to get banned on this thread. However whatever you chose to point out will not change the fact that I did not introduce the topic that you claimed I introduced. I did not initiate it and I didn't directly respond to it. It wasn't what I was talking about. As to defending others...that is PRECISELY what enforcing the law does Victimless crime laws do not such thing. Note: I am not asserting that they are bad laws (although many of them are), I am not asserting that they are unconstitutional (although they might be). Beneficial, constitutional laws against victimless crimes are not defense. Telling me that you, Tim Fowler, think that society has enacted bad laws Although I do in fact think that, that is not what I have been telling you. It is not connected in any direct way to what I have been saying. Attacks against arguments based on the idea that society has enacted bad laws are attacks against straw men as I have not been making any arguments based on that idea. So I do not at this time intend to argue which laws ought to be changed Neither do I. At least not until we are finished with this issue. I do not know if you respect the opinion of the United States State Department. But I will pass on their opinion, in any case. usinfo.state.gov "The U.S. legal system rests upon the principle that the fundamental purpose of government is to protect the inherent rights and freedoms that belong to all people, and to ensure equal treatment for all. I agree that the fundamental purpose of government is to protect our rights and freedoms (and I would add security, with the understanding that it would include us being secure from injustices being perpetrated against us by the government, rights and freedoms should not be subordinate to security). That doesn't mean, even in theory, that all laws serve that purpose. Some laws explicitly serve other purposes. Others might claim to serve that purpose but really do not. Neither necessarily makes them bad laws, or unconstitutional laws. Tim