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 : A US National Health Care System? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (12210)	12/9/2009 5:44:11 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

It can't work what way? My post wasn't about what should, will, or can work, or what shouldn't, won't or can't. Its about consent. If you take as a given (as most people would) that "we can't just follow the laws we agree with", that doesn't mean you consent to the others. You consent to those you agree with and you either obey or violate (and risk punishment for the violation) those you don't. I'm not arguing "all laws should be optional", in a sense I'm pointing out the opposite, that they aren't optional. In other words you don't consent to them, they are imposed on you. A certain amount of such imposition is needed, a much greater amount can be accepted without violent resistance or open revolution because the harm done by the law is less, often much less, than the harm that revolution would cause to the country as a whole, or violent opposition would be likely to result in for the particular opposer. But that some is necessary, and much more is not violently resisted, doesn't mean that any (except maybe the parts that are agreed to) is consensual.