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 (45194)	2/10/2006 9:20:06 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90947

I said I would entertain the question of whether or not attacking social structure (as was done during prohibition) was necessarily a bad thing. We are using slightly terms. The difference may or may not be significant. I am talking about attacking society not "the social structure". I don't consider an attack on a social structure to inherently be an attack on society. The example of prohibition isn't extraneous its an example of the core of what I am talking about. How going against a rule isn't inherently an attack on society. You said you would entertain the idea that in some situations the "attack" could be beneficial. I am saying it is is beneficial it isn't an attack on society. Prohibition itself undermined the rule of law more than having a drink during prohibition did. Unreasonable, unjust and/or overly complex laws do that. They lessen respect for the law. But that undermining wouldn't be an attack either IMO. I've used "attack", as short hand for initiating force or fraud against someone, or putting people or property in danger in a reckless manner. Trying to change something or disregarding a rule is not an attack in that sense of the word. Its possible that some of the disagreement is a semantic issue over the term attack, but I'm sure that its not all of the disagreement. It is obviously just a game for you, so have fun. It is not a game, I am quite serious about it. It might have been fun at the beginning (although it has become much less so) because debating can be fun, but it was no less serious because of that. I seriously mean what I say, I am not playing some game, or arguing some position just for the sake of argument. Not a single one of my responses have been phony. Pretend that a democracy channels input from all citizens through all appropriate channels to the eventual enacting of a law because there is no purported reason for the law and no offense against society when it is violated? As I've said multiple times I don't care what is purported. The law might have a very good purported reason, but it may not serve that reason or even honestly be an attempt to serve that reason. All sorts of special interests get laws to their benefit. The laws sometimes are purported to be for the special interest but often are not. They are claimed to have some higher purpose that they do not actually serve. Such laws are themselves an offense against society. The government is not society. It imperfectly represents the people in society but not all of its laws are supported by an consensus of society or understood by most of the people in our society. To say otherwise is to pretend or to be deluded. Pretend that people can violate the democratic principle of equality before the law without offending that very principle. Offending against a law is not attacking society. The government is a tool of society it is not society. The law is a tool of government. Offending against a specific law does not automatically serve to undermine the concept of the rule of law. Respect the law is an important moral idea but it does not enjoy a special privileged position against other moral ideas. Tim