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 (45135)	2/8/2006 8:58:52 PM
From: ManyMoose	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 90947

I agree with you and disagree with Tim on this issue.

To: Solon who wrote (45135)	2/8/2006 9:07:46 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90947

According to "we the people" you DO have such a debt to society. If that is true, and I don't really agree that it is, than "we the people" are wrong about this. Firstly, you have the same onus to be a lawful citizen as others do--the failure of which creates a debt. I do not agree that I have any onus to obey whatever legislation congress or my state legislature passes. I also don't agree with the idea that I have a moral obligation to follow every regulation. I do think it is usually a good idea to act in a lawful manner. Many laws are against attacks against or violations of others. I have an obligation not to violate others even if there was no law against it. Other laws are not directly against attacks but declare conventions, without which many people would be in grave danger or our society would not function effectively (for example the law about driving on the right side of the road. One should follow such laws if you don't have a very strong reason not to. Even laws that don't fall in to those categories should usually be followed, if for no other reason than the fact that force might be initiated against you if you fail to follow them. I might not have a moral obligation not to grow, but, sell, smoke or possess pot, but the practical reality that I might be arrested and possibly convicted of a crime if I do gives me a good reason not to do so. There is an alternative to being a lawful citizen and fighting for change democratically. One may become a subversive and rebel against society and the laws of society. It hardly needs to be added that I do not advocate the latter action. I would advocate the latter action as well. In fact I have never violated this particular law. I'm not very likely to smoke pot even if it became legal. However if I did choose to violate this law I would not be attacking anyone. I would not initiating force against anyone and I would not commit fraud against anyone by smoking pot. Therefore the enforcement of the law is an attack against me and an initiation of force against me. Note: This argument does not assume that the initiation of force by government is a bad idea. Even if we assume it is a great idea it still remains the initiation of force. Tim