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: TimF who wrote (45157)	2/10/2006 9:23:03 AM
From: Solon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90947

"Enforcing a law against a victimless crime is not protecting the rights and freedoms of others even if the law is fully constitutionally legitimate" "victimless crime" is simply jargon for a certain class of violation. Society is always a victim where a crime has been committed, so your denial fails to convince. "Gratuitous assertions can be gratuitously denied." I simply said that your denial was not an argument. I did not say it was gratuitous. As for my assertion that they ""purport to defend the public health and safety at individual and group levels", it is a true and supportable statement. By "public health and safety", I, of course, comprehend all the rights and freedoms embodied and implied in the Constitution. "I had not been saying that the laws were bad when I said that enforcing them was initiating force" You're quibbling. "That is an important point to me even though it is rather an abstract one." Could you repeat it in different words, then?? Because I really have no idea what you were trying to assert in that paragraph. "A large part of my point is that making one statement does not mean you are implying the other" You've spent a lot of time telling me what you DON'T want to say. Why not post a coherent sentence or two telling me what you DO want to say and what RELEVANT point you wish to argue?? "Or in other words by saying that enforcement of the law can be an initiation of force I am not automatically saying that that law has any of the above characteristics." I have no idea what you are talking about. I see no connection between any potential argument over the merits of a law and the obvious fact that all laws must be enforced with force. Perhaps (as I suggested in my last paragraph) you could simply tell me what it is you are trying to argue? Obviously, the original discussion about deadly force has concluded to my satisfaction. Can you tell me if you have a point to make--or not?

To: TimF who wrote (45157)	2/10/2006 10:19:16 AM
From: Solon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90947

Let me try to clarify some of these issues. I don’t know if you are intentionally trying to obscure matters or if it is just a reflection of your thought process--but I think I need to tidy things up a bit so that I may have the opportunity of following along with you. 1). Thought is not a crime. It is not against the law. It is not censored . 2). Certain actions are against the law because society has decided under representative democracy that said actions constitute an affront to the community and impinge upon the rights, freedoms, health and welfare of the community. Thus, said actions undermine the rule of law and attack the democratic process. 3). Certain rules and regulations may be violated without undermining society. Rules are always created for the general case because it would be impossible (in advance) to make a rule for every specific case. The illustration I often use is this: If your wife is in the restroom and suffers a heart attack and calls for help, you will (of course) barge in and assist. You will have ignored the “WOMEN” sign on the door which was put there to safeguard privacy, modesty, and other rights--but society will not prosecute you in this instance because you have not undermined the democratic process or the reliance on objective law. 4). Many laws are never enforced because they are too costly to enforce, or because the violations are minimal. One example is the littering laws. Now, I believe that littering shows a contempt for the community and that it is a colossal display of ignorance. Society agrees with me. Because it DOES undermine social values, the community has enacted laws against it. Nor are you likely to be slapped around because you drive 36 in a 35. You HAVE violated the attempt to safeguard the safety of citizens, but the violation is minimal and may not be intentional. The point of that particular law IS INDEED to make driving and walking and cycling SAFER. It is not to harass decent citizens who are not contemptuous toward their community and towards democracy. 5). In all instances where the law is broken, it will be society whom determines whether or not it has been undermined, violated, cheapened, attacked, disobeyed, etc. I am sorry, Tim, but it is not your choice to make. You can claim you have not undermined the democratic process and the rule of law and the integrity of the Constitution and the men and women and fellow citizens who create laws with the intent of safeguarding rights and freedoms--but your claim is feckless and irrelevant. You will have a fair chance in a court of law to make your claim that you did not undermine, violate, or attack society--and the democratic process on which the support and maintenance of your rights depend. If you prevail there, then your claim will stand. But ANY undermining of the rule of law is an attack against society. Whether or not your community is violated sufficiently to employ negative sanction...well THAT is up to the community. Generally speaking, we have no time or inclination to slap you around for doing 36 in a 35. It would be an unreliable and unprovable allegation in any case. And believe me, Tim...your rights are too important to be niggled. The equal rights of all people entails that the community may decide when it has been violated. Your personal decision would be prejudiced and subjective. The decision under law allows for the full objective strength of society to defend all people (including Tim) from arbitrary or unconsidered sanction. There is a reason why society has chosen, after thousands of years of experience and experimentation, to adopt democratic methodology around principles of fundamental human rights: It has been found that individual arrogance (and the contempt illustrated by the attitude that one has no onus to obey legislation) leads to totalitarianism, dictatorship--and a general disrespect for ideals of equality. 6). Finally, when you are in violation of the laws of your community and thus are bringing your community, democracy, and your country under the attack of your contempt and disobedience--sufficient force will be used to serve you with the charge of your violation and sufficient force will be used to detain you (when necessary). Be assured that only the force allowed by law will be (lawfully) used against you. On the other hand, should you be mouthy or uncooperative with those whom are protecting society from you--there is no guarantee that you will not (unlawfully) be slapped around. That is just the way it is... :-) Unfortunately, there are criminals in and out of uniform. And that, also, is just the way it is... In point #6 I used the word "you" because "one" would be far too awkward. It goes without saying that it is not intended in the personal sense, my dear Fowler. :-)