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: ManyMoose who wrote (45160)	2/9/2006 3:37:00 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90947

If your general principle is civil disobedience of fundamentally unjust or unconstitutional laws is acceptable in order to effect change of those laws, then I would have to agree. I wouldn't extend this agreement to laws that are marginally unjust or merely annoying. If your general principle is that disobedience of laws that you don't like when you don't think you will get caught is acceptable, then I don't agree. Neither is really the general principle I am arguing for in this discussion. The general principle isn't disobedience of any laws. It is not about not obeying laws or supporting others in there disobedience to the laws. The principle is merely that violating the law doesn't automatically mean you are initiating force against anyone or attacking anyone. This would apply to both fundamentally unjust and/or unconstitutional laws, and laws that are both just and constitutional. I'll use another example, but remember I'm not talking about the example itself or laws similar to the example. I am making a more general point about law using the example. Lets say the speed limit on a normal interstate was set to be 35 miles per hour with no good justification (it isn't esp. dangerous or busy, there is no construction, no special concern for the lives and health of people and animals, etc.). That wouldn't be unconstitutional and I wouldn't call it fundamentally unjust. My assertion is that by driving 36 miles per hour I am not attacking society. Note that this argument does not include the assertion that driving 36 mph would be good or even acceptable. My opinions on that are irrelevant to the point. The only assertion is that I am not initiating force against society by driving 36 mph on a hypothetical flat, straight, empty, safe, interstate that for some odd reason had a speed limit of 35mph. Tim