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 (45180)	2/10/2006 4:21:34 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90947

I agree with numbers 1, 2 an 3 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. I agree with the general idea you are presenting here. The specific example of littering is one that I think does provide at least a minimal attack against society. It might result in an unhealthy environment and even if it doesn't it often results in an ugly one. 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. You have violated the law, but its very unlikely that you have endangered citizens, certainly you have not attacked them. 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 Different individuals within society will have different opinions about the situation. Society doesn't really make determinations as such. Individuals make their determination and they come to some compromise to determine what actions will be outlawed and what actions will be required. Society is not a moral agent. It is a durable relationship between individuals. Even there is an actual consensus opinion across society (and in many cases covered by laws there is not), that doesn't mean that the consensus is inherently right or superior. The members of societies make laws. The law determines what the penalty will be for illegal actions. Do X action and get Y fine, or Z jail sentence. But the law does not determine if X is actually an attack on someone else. The law sets penalties it does not create or change what is just or unjust, what is an attack or what is a peaceful action. A law setting criminal penalties may be based on the consensus opinion that an action is wrong, but it may not be. Even if it is based on the idea that an action is wrong that does not mean it is based on the idea that an action is an initiation of force against society. 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). If you dropped the "thus are bringing your community, democracy and country under the attack" I could agree with that. The rest is simple fact. The "under attack" is a projection of your opinion, and one that I don't agree with. Contempt is not an attack. Contempt is a thought. As you said earlier "Thought is not a crime. It is not against the law. It is not censored ." If I commit an outlawed action force may be used against me whether or not I hold the law in contempt, and whether or not the action is an attack on anyone or anything. We agree on the concrete reality of the situation. Where we disagree is on the idea that breaking the law, in and of itself, is an attack on society. Certainly many illegal actions are actually attacks on society but there is nothing inherent in the fact that an action is illegal that makes it an attack. Tim