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: TimF who wrote (45720)	2/28/2006 11:39:51 AM
From: Solon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90947

"The rules are widely known"..."they are much simpler and clearer than the law"" Even if this were true, it does not make any case for relevance. "If you do violate the rules of baseball you normally will not be seized by force and locked up" Normally, you will not in society, either. "Yes the law says what the law says. That does not mean there is any moral obligation involved." If you are trying to invoke the morality of your private conscience, then you are invoking a straw man. I would never claim that you agree with the morality of the law. You have already made it pretty clear that do not feel obligated to it by your own moral compass. The obligation to it (from the perspective of society) is the collective moral compass--the collective defining of lawfulness and peaceful coexistence--the collective standards of correct behaviour and lawful interaction. There are myriad people whom feel no personal obligation to the standards of correct behaviour which create a lawful and humane environment in which the rest of us may enjoy our natural rights and freedoms as agreed to by the Fathers. These people are dealt with in accordance with the standards of correct behaviour and correct punishment formulated through democratic process. "The obligation merely consists of the fact that you can be punished for not living up to the legal requirement." For those whom accept the social obligation to follow the same rules as the rest of the citizenship team to the goal of moral equity and peaceful coexistence, there is, of course an obligation of conscience as well as an obligation of fact. The fact that you have no personal obligation of conscience is not disputed. Society may punish you when you fail to respect personal rights and freedoms and lawful rules and regulations, but it cannot control your personal conscience of right and wrong. "The government gets to determine what it will promulgate as the standard of correct behavior, and what actions it will choose to punish, but it doesn't get to determine what actually is and is not correct behavior." The people decide through representative democracy in adherence to fundamental values declared as foundational...what are the standards of correct behavior. The people do not determine what your moral conscience will dictate. But if you act immorally (illegally from the perspective of your fellow citizens whom feel morally obligated to coexist in lawful obedience in return for the wonderful benefits they enjoy in having their liberty rights defended), then the people will (naturally) act to protect their fundamental rights and freedoms from your anarchic disposition. Keep in mind that being antisocial in and of itself is not a crime. This again is a matter of individual conscience (or in the case of pathology, the lack of conscience). Sometimes, as I have said, the social deviant may be acting to correct a collective law which has inadvertently violated fundamental rights and freedoms. When this is the case, it is usually obvious to a large body of people and may be distinguished from the antisocial and psychopathic arrogance of those whom simply feel no obligation to their fellow man. You and I can both read about these kind of people in the news, so I do not have to elaborate.