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.

Strategies & Market Trends : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jacob Snyder who wrote (71317)	2/26/2011 4:54:56 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 217650

Again: I oppose armies and war, I think all of us could concur with this.. but support police and law enforcement. And I think most of us would concur with this.. But since there is no "global police" to provide planetary "law enforcement" we have nation/states with active military forces to defend their sovereign interests (self-defense.. "neighborhood" defense), as well as "global militia" to deal with larger community issues. In sum, the only "law" that applies to relations between nation/states is the law of the jungle (ie: survival of the fittest.. might makes right.. etc). Now.. with regard to Law Enforcement, separate those two words and define them separately. Laws are regulations and societal "rules" of expected behavior by the nation's respective citizens. They can be passed without consent of the governed, or by elected representatives. Enforcement is the means by which that government insures that it's rules are implemented and observed by the masses. Without enforcement of the recognized laws, and Law Enforcement Agencies (LEA) financed, trained, AND ARMED to implement them, members of that community would be required to arm and defend themselves. So.. are you calling for a "global police" force to be organized to implement international laws? And if so, who will write those international laws? And once you have written them, can they morally be imposed upon those who don't want to adhere to this new international "code of conduct"? You can parse words all you want, but IN REALITY, a LEA is nothing more than a trained para-military organization with the purpose of preserving law and order in society. Since there is no organized society (the UN being a poor example) that encompasses every sovereign "resident" (nation/state) on the planet, the law of the jungle is all that prevails. We can paint it with all the nice "legalese" that we want, but ultimately the only LEA is an (heavily) armed mob of citizen police. And those global LEAs only enforce the laws that are in their self-interest. Iraq is a perfect example of this. There were various binding (chapter VII, UN charter) resolutions against Saddam's government, but only those aligned with the US were willing to enforce them. The rest preferred to deal with the devil and thwart attempts to make Saddam abide by the law. So Jacob.. I'm all with you when it comes to want peace and love for everyone. I wish nothing more than to see mankind resolve it's conflicts peacefully. But you know something?. There are Hundreds of Millions of people on this planet who don't give a crap what you or I think. They will take what we have because they live by the only law they know.. The Law of the Jungle.. Predator and Prey.. Which one do you prefer to be? Hawk

To: Jacob Snyder who wrote (71317)	2/26/2011 6:04:11 PM
From: TobagoJack	1 Recommendation Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 217650

<<one in 6 American women have been the target of sexual assault>> ... seems a rather incredibly high number. either sexual assault in usa has a different meaning than elsewhere, or family values not actually strong, by inference.