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 : Mainstream Politics and Economics -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: koan who wrote (9743)	2/18/2012 9:46:26 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 85487

When faced with totalitarian oppression, its moral for people to break the law to the extent the specific broken laws are oppressive or highly unreasonable. I'd even extend that to reasonable laws, that get in the way of fighting the oppression, to the extent that the harm done from breaking them is less than the harm from not breaking them. I'd hardly a legal absolutist even for relatively free and democratic countries. I don't think breaking the law is automatically wrong, not by a long shot. But in a fairly free and democratic country, its important in most cases for government officials follow the law while performing their duties as government officials, esp. constitutional law limiting their rightful powers. To do otherwise is to break down the rule of law and invite serious injustice. The laws (and also extra-legal actions) from the Nazis about Jews were highly unjust and oppressive. In fact their whole government was generally oppressive. The nation was not free, or meaningfully democratic (after winning one plurarity in the legislature, the nazis banned most other parties, and never allowed real free elections again). Under such circumstance justice has already broken down in a very serious way, opposing the government even in illegal ways, is not unjust, or abusive, or destructive. During WWII 96% of American's were against allowing orphaned Jewish kids into the US even though they all had families to go to. In 1967, 76% of American's were against interracial marriage. I'm not sure that's true, but I'm not sure it isn't either. Assuming it is, what point do you get from that? I'm hardly a democratic absolutist. I don't think whatever the majority wants should be law, and certainly not that's its automatically right. But the only thing we have to keep majority opinion for injustice from leading to unjust laws and government rules, is the limits on the government we have, esp. the constitution, and the idea of separation of powers. Is it a perfect check. No it isn't. In fact it could not possibly be. But toss out the rule of law, and your left with the rule of dictators, or the rule of the mob (meaning angry violent crowds, not organized crime, although I suppose they could get more power under certain scenarios). The more barbaric Americans are, the more important respect for constitutional limitations and checks and balances, and the law in general becomes. If people where all wise saints the law wouldn't be nearly as important.

To: koan who wrote (9743)	2/19/2012 2:00:35 PM
From: Brumar89	1 Recommendation Respond to of 85487

Liberals would turn over folks to a liberal government because as koan has said, the government is the people. All the government would have to do is brand the enemies of the state as zionists or racists. I've even been told by an SI liberal that it's understandable that Palestinians murder Jewish children. Most liberals already think that way. One has to ask themselves are they the type of person who would have hid the Jews (breaking the law) or turned them over to the Nazi's. Hid the slaves (breaking the law), or turned them over to the Naxi's, helped the Blacks during segregation or remained quiet about the KKK. Folks in that situation had best place their hopes in people who don't trust the government and/or who trust God first. BTW I discovered a few years ago one of my ancestors hid runaway slaves. His church even took up a collection to buy the freedom of at least one slave. They were fundamentalist Baptists.