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.

Pastimes : Kosovo -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: The Philosopher who wrote (10842)	6/1/1999 11:45:00 AM
From: GUSTAVE JAEGER	Respond to of 17770

Chris, Everybody somehow believes in Law... Even those ''renegades'' who allegedly promote a ''lawless society''. After all, like quantum physics tells us that a pure, absolute vacuum doesn't exist (a Dirac ocean is always rippled by quantum fluctuations), a lawless society always comes to the ''jungle law''... So the question is how do you cope with people whose laws conflict with yours? Which insidiously brings us to the more fundamental question: how do you cope with people whose values and ethics foster a different set of laws? A clear example: both imams and rabbis are law-abiding fellows, yet I don't think you'd agree to get lumped together with them --as far as abiding by their laws goes....

To: The Philosopher who wrote (10842)	6/1/1999 12:37:00 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 17770

Some people believe in law. Sure. While others, seemingly like yourself, only believe in merely playing with law, by writing statutes that they FULLY REALIZE cannot be enforced. It is the height of legal folly for a lawyer/legislator to expect compliance of ANY LAW until the proper provision for enforcement and compliance of that law are incorporated. Voluntary compliance is the law of the commons, self-destructive in its implementation and without true value, unless coercively enforced. You can make any law you desire, Chris. But without a credible and effective "policing" power, that law is so many empty words written on toilet paper. That is the reality of our current legal system. There is no pratical law that cannot be properly enforced through coercive (violent), litigative (civil tort) action. Thus, international law, WITHOUT ENFORCEMENT POWER, is a pipe dream and merely a exercise in futility aimed at generating extra billing hours for the lawyers involved in writing it. Its only enforcement power relies on the consensual will of one or more nations to enforce that law, through military action, if necessary. That's the difference between us. Please tell me how you will enforce your "laws", Chris. I, and the entire world, long for your solution to this problem. As for violations of law, EVEN IF NATO decided one day to launch an unprovoked attack on Serbia, the SERBS have an OBLIGATION UNDER UN COVENANTS to protect civilians within the area of military engagement. They are prohibited from brutalizing, murdering, forcibly displacing, using as human shields, or depriving of their civil rights, any civilians within their sphere of control regardless of whether these people are under their jurisdiction and sovereignty or not. Sovereignty is not an blank check to do what you please within your borders. There are covenants that Yugoslavia has signed on to and now violated dealing with protecting human rights of all individuals within their borders. They have violated the law to an egregious extent, threatening the stability of their neighboring countries, thus infringing on their sovereign territory, which is an act of aggression in and of itself. Agression begets aggression. MANY nations are able to stage a fait accompli because their neighbors lack the ability, or will, to intervene and prevent aggression. But lack of ability, or will, should not be equated as lack of authority or legitimacy in opposing these actions. At ANY TIME Britain and France could have engaged in hostilities against Adolf Hitler with full authority and legitimacy, despite Hitler's seemingly rightful claim to only be seeking to unify all the Germanic people under Berlin's control. They chose not to do until Poland was invaded over Danzig, because they clearly saw that there was no appeasing Hitler and each diplomatic surrender fed his insatiable requirement for something that would continue to unify the German people behind him. The Serbs are guilty of empowering Milosevic, just as the Germans were guilty of empowering Hitler. Thus there claim to being "innocent civilians" is questionable. Your turn. Regards, Ron

To: The Philosopher who wrote (10842)	6/2/1999 12:20:00 AM
From: Andy Thomas	Respond to of 17770

>>Some people believe in law. Some don't. I do. That's the difference between us. << Hi Christopher, some of us are suspicious of earthly law, especially when there are so many laws that a person could be taken to court for doing practically anything, or even nothing. As an exercise could you make a case against this war on something other than legal grounds? I'll bet you could find a lot of reasons as to the folly of this war without using the legal argument. I think I'm on your side here and just want to throw out some food for thought. This war is ridiculous... the situation appears as though the UN and NATO have bungled it from the moment Tito died. Of course I've toyed with the idea of a ground war, but that was only after we'd already started the bombing. The toughness of American troops comes into question... in any case the people of Yugoslavia seem to be pawns in a bigger game whose desired outcome on the part of the UN and NATO remains dubious. Someone tell me... when the "ethnic cleansing" first occured, wasn't that after the UN had taken the Bosnians' weapons away and rounded them up and put them into "safe zones" where they were only then "cleansed" by the (armed) Serbians? If I'm putting forth a lie here, someone give me a rebuttal. If what I say is closer to the truth, then why weren't the Bosnians allowed to defend themselves? Having them armed would have been the first barrier against the Serbs.... a barrier the Serbs might never have dared cross. FWIW Andy