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 (45188)	2/10/2006 7:28:09 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 90947

If you "disagree" with this obvious fact then you are through discussing it with me. Well nothing forces you to reply. 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. It will determine the laws, and will determine if they have been violated, it will also determine punishment for the violation. But the question of whether or not society attacked is not something that is determined by society. It is or it is not. There are borderline complex cases, but even here the declaration that something is an attack does not change whether it is or it is not, just as the declaration by the government that the law of gravity is repealed or that the moon was made of green cheese would not actually change the physical laws of the universe or the composition of the moon. WRONG. An action does not need to be a physical assault on a person to be against the rules and thus against society. I never said that only physical assaults are against the rules of society. But setting a rule against a certain action does not make that action an attack on 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 an attack against that structure and that principle. Its a stretch to call a minor violation of a law that harms no one an undermining of the rule of law. Contempt and disobedience of an unreasonable law without harming any person might act against the principle that all people are totally bound by the law but doing so doesn't make it an attack against society as society is not harmed by it. The expansion of government control, the complexity of that control, and the attitude that any violation of any law or regulation is immoral, is itself more harmful to society than speeding by a few miles an hour or drinking moderately during prohibition or other similar harmless actions. . And if you don't get it, Tim (or if you pretend not to get it)...TOUGH. Not agreeing with it does not equal not understanding it. I understand the point and reject it.

To: Solon who wrote (45188)	2/10/2006 7:28:25 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 90947

If you "disagree" with this obvious fact then you are through discussing it with me. Well nothing forces you to reply. 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. It will determine the laws, and will determine if they have been violated, it will also determine punishment for the violation. But the question of whether or not society attacked is not something that is determined by society. It is or it is not. There are borderline complex cases, but even here the declaration that something is an attack does not change whether it is or it is not, just as the declaration by the government that the law of gravity is repealed or that the moon was made of green cheese would not actually change the physical laws of the universe or the composition of the moon. WRONG. An action does not need to be a physical assault on a person to be against the rules and thus against society. I never said that only physical assaults are against the rules of society. But setting a rule against a certain action does not make that action an attack on 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 an attack against that structure and that principle. Its a stretch to call a minor violation of a law that harms no one an undermining of the rule of law. Contempt and disobedience of an unreasonable law without harming any person might act against the principle that all people are totally bound by the law but doing so doesn't make it an attack against society as society is not harmed by it. The expansion of government control, the complexity of that control, and the attitude that any violation of any law or regulation is immoral, is itself more harmful to society than speeding by a few miles an hour or drinking moderately during prohibition or other similar harmless actions. . And if you don't get it, Tim (or if you pretend not to get it)...TOUGH. Not agreeing with it does not equal not understanding it. I understand the point and reject it.