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 : Actual left/right wing discussion -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: one_less who wrote (6725)	5/24/2007 2:30:11 PM
From: Augustus Gloop	Respond to of 10087

What I'm unsure about is if we haven't maybe seen the start of an impending world war.

To: one_less who wrote (6725)	5/24/2007 2:35:49 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 10087

"...A critical distinction in Anglo-American law is that between actions that are malum in se and actions that are malum prohibitum. Some actions are malum in se -- wrong in themselves. Examples are murder, rape, theft, and fraud. These actions are now formally prohibited by legislation, but their wrongness -- indeed, their very illegality -- exists independently of legislative prohibition. If, say, the Virginia legislature were to repeal its statutory prohibition on murder, murder would still be wrong and criminal in Virginia. Murderers would still be wrongdoers and criminals. If the State government refused to punish such criminals, people would do so privately. Other actions are malum prohibitum -- "wrong" merely because the government proclaims these actions to be wrong. One example is avoiding taxes. If Uncle Sam tomorrow abolishes the federal income tax, failure of Americans to send money to Washington would be neither wrong nor criminal, and persons who send no money to Washington would not be regarded by their neighbors and co-workers as despicable louts whose company should be avoided. To attach the label "criminal" both to persons who commit actions that are malum in se and to persons whose only wrongdoing is the commission of actions that are merely malum prohibitum is to use language confusingly. It is to dilute the scorn and loathing that true criminals deserve..." cafehayek.typepad.com The article quoted above is about illegal immigration. I'm not trying to make a point one way or the other about illegal immigration, so I just quoted part of it. I agree with the blogger, that the distinction between things that are inherently crimes (malum in se, which I believe literally translates as something like "wrong in itself"), and things which are against the law, but aren't inherently wrong (malum prohibitum), and I do think the label "criminal" used for both is in a certain sense accurate, but will tend to imply that we should feel the same repulsion for someone who breaks any law, that we should feel for someone who commits a crime that is seriously wrong. I'd even agree with the blogger that illegal immigration is not malum in se, but agreeing with that point, doesn't imply opposition to any immigration laws, or calling for them not to be enforced.