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.

Technology Stocks : CYRIX / NSM -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jim McMannis who wrote (29569)	9/20/1998 7:43:00 PM
From: James F. Hopkins	Respond to of 33344

Hi Jim; It looks like lawyerism, has become some sort of religious brother hood. Sort of like the monks of the middle ages, we can't seem to come to grips that something a lot more sinister than Monica & Clinton's little perversion is going on; and that every one is being focused on that as we slip into another period of the dark ages. Has any one noticed that the more lawyers we get the more crime goes up. In the last decade we have increased the population in the Penalties by 300% , but have not reduced crime at all. Some thing is basically wrong with a system, that claims to be the most advance in the world, but has the highest per capita prison population in the world. And I don't think we are going to fix it with more laws, or tougher laws , or nore lawyers, we have been trying that now for some time. It's not more or tougher laws we need , as much as fairer ones, we run justice from the bottom up, ( that is when we don't sell it ) while we need to run it from the top down. But no political system has ever done that since the days of the of Hammurabi , 1792-1750 bc. Based on regulations & guided by principles that the strong should not take unfair advantage of the weak, the original eye for an eye was a term used and it's original intention was as an expression in prescribing penalties to make clear that in their justice not "NOT MORE" than an eye for an eye or tooth for a tooth. In other words the penalty could not exceed the offence. Also the caveat emptor "let the buyer beware" was meant to include full disclosure from seller to buyer..not an excuse to cover up the defects, or hide hidden charges called discounts. Cavent Emptor as used today now shifts that responsibilty from the seller to the buyer, and from from the strong to the weak. Malfeasance could result in the death penalty...much was spelled out almost 4000 years ago that surpasses our present justice system, and most of it's been twisted backwards by our modern day lawyers. Jim