To: TimF who wrote (45184 ) 2/10/2006 6:43:45 PM From: Solon Read Replies (2) | Respond to "You have violated the law, but its very unlikely that you have endangered citizens "DOES attack the democratic continuance of (Webster's) "an enduring and cooperating social group whose members have developed organized patterns of relationships through interaction with one another is simply beyond any rational dispute."Society doesn't really make determinations as such ""it will be society whom determines whether or not it has been undermined, violated, cheapened, attacked, disobeyed, etc." it is clear that I am referring to the end result of all the voices and mechanisms of society as they work through the democratic process to the making of laws, the apprehension of law breakers, and the decisions made to sanction. If it was NOT clear that I was saying that, then perhaps (and hopefully) it is clear to you now??? In other words...the "system" which is empowered by the people to defend the laws made by the people WILL INDEED determine the fact (or not) of violation. If this is not easy for you to grasp, then it is only necessary for you to grasp that there are people empowered by society to identify and bring to justice people whom violate the laws of society.would have input into this determination--and you would be entitled to a competent defense."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. ""Contempt is not an attack ""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 " it DOES NOT mean that the contempt was the actual violation, does it?? There is a law against contempt in a courtroom (in that instance the ACT of contempt) because it attacks the social structure and the legal authority for society to function as a democracy under laws, but I was referring to the entire plethora of laws--not to contempt in particular. The myriad violations of law are the offenses--the attacks or injuries, if you will. The violation supposes the contempt but it is unneccesary for you to miss the obvious point that the violations of law are being addressed. There is an understood contempt (Webster's) "the ACT of despising" in the undermining of a democratic society, but if you are unable to conceptualize contempt as such, my expectations are not disappointed in any way. Whether you comprehend the prima facie existence of contempt in the violation of a system which is manifested and embodied by the authority of laws, or whether you do not--it does not change the fact that a violation of society IS a violation of society. Again, the offense does not have to be an attack with a hammer--or any other such violent crime. All contempt for the laws of society (Ahmmm--by willfully violating them--get it?) undermines the fundamental essence of that society. In this instance, one who attacks the authority of laws by willfully violating those laws is undermining the laws of that society. An undermining of the rule of law (and the authority of the democratic principle that all citizens be equally bound by the rule of law), IS And if you don't get it, Tim (or if you pretend not to get it)...TOUGH.
