@Vitor, you mean the broader issue of due process rights and double jeopardy rights etc? Perhaps, but that's for the SCOTUS to decide at a later date. Until then, this law stands.
EDIT: Ah, but it looks like it's time for Red Dead Redemption.
Enjoy having the guns are on your side because it is only a temporary situation that will be short lived. As soon as all of the guns are in the free market your side will be too poor to maintain guns.
No one can ever argue with bloom. If there were a headline saying "united states government exterminates venezualan population for oil" bloom would be like "SWEET! Oil for mez!" We can say, but bloom, you're killing thousands and thousands of innocent people to get what you want! And he'll be all like "well I have guns and you don't and they don't so dakka dakka dakka" But I agree, why post bloom? If you're just going to restate the obvious: They have guns. They can do it. They are doing something I subjective like. Yay. No one realized that they can do whatever they want cus they have the guns.
Bloom, we now know guns allow people to do stuff. Please bring something new to the conversation.
I am not arguing with bloom. I am working towards a free market and putting bloom out of business. Bloom can LOL now. I will LOL later.
I'll bring something new when I need something new to get what I want.
I think it's time to stop trying to engage an amoral, fatalist state worshipper. It is quite apparent that no meaningful discussion can occur. It's akin to arguing with a 3 year old. There is no thought behind any statements. I wish this forum had an ignore function.
I haven't spent much time on these forums, but I think it's fair to say this thread made me say "WTF?" Let me summarize my observations in this post with a short fictional conversation between two completely fictional characters named, coincidentally, Broom and Others:
Broom: "It is illegal to jaywalk." (obvious)
Others: "You're right, it is illegal to jaywalk. We are well aware that the government will punish you for this activity, if observed. However, we are higher functioning beings who wish to philosophically discuss jaywalking, and whether or not governments ought to prevent you from jaywalking."
Broom: "Jaywalking is illegal, the government says so."
Others: "We aren't arguing the facts, we are arguing a theoretical position. We don't think governments should stop you from jaywalking."
Broom: "Don't you see, governments will stop you from jaywalking. It's the law, so it must be the best, most just, thing for society to do."
Others: "We don't believe that just because government currently prohibits something that the activity is wrong, per se."
Broom: "But it's illegal, so it's wrong."
Others: (give up)
In our story, the completely fabricated person Broom continues to argue one point to which no one objects. Then, switches his argument to fallaciously justify the governments action, simply because it already does it.
I am forced to assume that, either:
bloomj32:you mean the broader issue of due process rights and double jeopardy rights etc? Perhaps, but that's for the SCOTUS to decide at a later date. Until then, this law stands.
False. The case is currently dismissed. The initial ruling by the district court was a dismissal, on two grounds - the Constitution requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt and that Congress exceeded its Article I legislative powers. Upon appeal, the Fourth Circuit upheld the dismissal on this latter but did not rule on the former. SCOTUS then reversed the Fourth Circui's decision, but again, did not rule on the former. Until the initial court's ruling is reversed, something SCOTUS specifically did not do, the case is still dismissed.
"The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit with respect to Congress’ power to enact this statute is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion."
At no point has the district court's ruling (dismissal due to an unconstitutionally low burden of proof) been overturned.
faber est suae quisque fortunae
Although I wasn't going to comment in this thread again (seeing the life it has taken on), I want to clarify my own position:
While I understand the OP's sentiment, I'm not remotely convinced that the general populace will care about the plight of a sex offender. The more likely reaction will be of the 'I don't care/the sicko(s) got what he(they) deserved' variety. No one apart from some dedicated human rights activists might take up the defence of somebody tainted by a (false or true) sex offence. In other words, the OP's outrage will probably fall on deaf ears outside of this forum…
People generally don't have the time to thoughtfully consider the legal semantics of various crimes and will happily rely instead on the judgements cast down by whatever authority because it suits their prejudices to do so – especially in crimes that illicit strong emotional reactions, such as rape or molestation. Sex offenders are, in society's eyes, disposable weirdos everyone can safely despise.
I do agree, however, that 'sex offender' has a ridiculously broad interpretation nowadays and is the easiest means to ruin somebody's life (which is probably why it's so prevalent).
Ludwig von Mises: "We must see conditions as they really are, not as we want them to be."
Nothing particularly wrong with locking up sex offenders for life, if that's what we think should happen. However, this is clear denial of due process. You cannot try, convict, and sentence someone, and then when the sentence is done, say, "Oh, we don't think you weren't punished enough, back you go." Sentence them to life once and for all. Anything else reeks of ex-post-facto.
"You seem to think your moral/rational arguments carry more weight than a SCOTUS ruling. But they don't." - bloomj31
Incorrect. The SCOTUS ruling carries more legal force, but no more moral or rational weight. And the US has a history of ridiculous laws vis a vi sex offenses that raise the possibility of perfectly peaceful, consenting people ending up being held for ridiculous amounts of time. Consider how many 19 year old males have been subject to arrest, trial and prison for 'assaulting' their girlfirends who were under age at the time. Consider the number of blacks jailed for 'raping' white women when they did no such thing, or the number of gays who have been punished for the horrible crime of giving their partners a hummer. A law which carries the potential for abuse such as this is abhorrent to the very idea of a free society. 'Sex offenders' are the target now because of the horrid nature of the actual crimes and because of the ridiculously high recidivism rate among many offenders. However, what's the rational and objective definition of whether or not someone poses enough of a danger to the state to remain confined at the state's say so? There is none, it's entirely at the state's discretion. And they can now begin the process of dumbing that standard down so in a couple to a few decades US citizens will be facing civil commitments for all kinds of ridiculous reasons.
" wouldn't call what you're doing thinking. Indeed, your position seems to be that ideas don't matter." - gocrew
And historically he'd be as correct as anyone else. For all practical matters he is correct: the people with the guns make the law, and have always done so historically speaking, and if you disobey they will shoot you to get compliance. Whether you or I personally think a legal system based on coersion is a good thing is beside the point that we are living in such a system.
xahrx: "You seem to think your moral/rational arguments carry more weight than a SCOTUS ruling. But they don't." - bloomj31 Incorrect. The SCOTUS ruling carries more legal force, but no more moral or rational weight. And the US has a history of ridiculous laws vis a vi sex offenses that raise the possibility of perfectly peaceful, consenting people ending up being held for ridiculous amounts of time. Consider how many 19 year old males have been subject to arrest, trial and prison for 'assaulting' their girlfirends who were under age at the time. Consider the number of blacks jailed for 'raping' white women when they did no such thing, or the number of gays who have been punished for the horrible crime of giving their partners a hummer. A law which carries the potential for abuse such as this is abhorrent to the very idea of a free society. 'Sex offenders' are the target now because of the horrid nature of the actual crimes and because of the ridiculously high recidivism rate among many offenders. However, what's the rational and objective definition of whether or not someone poses enough of a danger to the state to remain confined at the state's say so? There is none, it's entirely at the state's discretion. And they can now begin the process of dumbing that standard down so in a couple to a few decades US citizens will be facing civil commitments for all kinds of ridiculous reasons.
bloomj31:Blah, who cares what you think? The law is the law and I like this one. You don't like it? Get the ruling overturned. Until you do, this is how things work.
Just out of curiosity, what would your position be if the supreme court upheld a law saying that you specifically are to be locked up indefinitely? Obviously a law like that would be pointless and illogical, not to mention blatantly unconstitutional for a variety of reasons. But it would still be the law and they could still enforce it. Would you still think that the burden should be on you to get that ruling overturned? Would you still criticize people who criticize the ruling?
^bloom likes <x> if it helps him, dislikes it if it hurts him. <x> could be a law. <x> could be murdering millions of people for a cupcake. *shrug*
I am forced to assume that, either: Broom is logically or argumentatively incompetent. Is a troll.
It doesn't have to be either. Seems more like both to me.
" wouldn't call what you're doing thinking. Indeed, your position seems to be that ideas don't matter." - gocrew And historically he'd be as correct as anyone else. For all practical matters he is correct: the people with the guns make the law, and have always done so historically speaking, and if you disobey they will shoot you to get compliance. Whether you or I personally think a legal system based on coersion is a good thing is beside the point that we are living in such a system.
It's true but does he really think we don't realize this? Civilized people attempt to justify punishment.
Democracy means the opportunity to be everyone's slave.—Karl Kraus.
I didn't expect this thread to explode the way it did.
To me, I see it simply as government securing more power for itself. It's appalling on that alone. To top it off, it is another avenue for abuse.One example among the thousands.
http://reason.com/blog/2010/05/12/more-on-tonya-craft-acquittal
Let's say, someone was arrested on terrorist charges, or from a riot. If the prisoner does not repent. he stays in jail forever, according to this law.
This actually happens already, I saw on Reason, some guy practicing law for a cash strapped church without a licence. He can't get out of jail because he won't say, "i won't do it again". But I believe that was a sentencing condtion, not a post sentence requirement.
From what I've been reading, "sex offender" is the magic word that justifies any torture. To me, it is more sickening than the sex offender's crime. It is true, emotion clouds judgement.
Actually, libertarians such as myself have outlined a rational basis for law.
By "rational" you mean 'palatable to American Propertarian Anarchists'? Value judgments and methods of action are subject only to internal criticism, and frankly we don't know if stated values and actual values are the same thing. There is no such thing as an 'irrational' or 'rational' law, the law is the law; whether it is useful from your view or not depends on value judgments and not facts of the case.
Law and morality are non-contiguous, and although people may have moral theories in regards to law or legal theories as regards morality, the two are separate entities and it is as ridiculous to criticize law for being 'irrational' as it is to criticize generals for being 'irrational' because they lead armies. Leading armies is what generals do, deciding exceptions is what judges do. There is no 'right' or 'wrong' way to do this without prior assumption of certain systems of value.
“Socialism is a fraud, a comedy, a phantom, a blackmail.” - Benito Mussolini"Toute nation a le gouvernemente qu'il mérite." - Joseph de Maistre
Who cares if it's right or wrong? It's the law.
Remember when I accused you of having no perspective?
Your unintentional self parody ceased to be amusing a long time ago. You clearly are proud of your ability to never question the status quo so I have to ask, why are you posting? We know its law. You add nothing to this conversation.
Peace
Broom is logically or argumentatively incompetent.
This, sadly.
Liberte,
Well said.
Bloom's value judgement is his alone. As is mine, as is Liberte's. What I am alluding to is that who is the state to interfere with the victim's choice of punishment? If the victim forgives her/his rapist, it should be left at that. Their value scale of the damage the rape has done is different than the states.
Jailing people because of "thought crimes" seems very dangerous. Rape, Murder, Theft... All of the above. .
Not that it is relevant to a system of justice that criminalizes precrime but Is anyone familiar with the cases of all five petitioners?
In SCOTUS the brief I was scanning it read as if three of them were sex offenders by convictions for possession of child pornograpy on computers.
"Just out of curiosity, what would your position be if the supreme court upheld a law saying that you specifically are to be locked up indefinitely?"
I'd be screwed. Obviously I wouldn't be in favor of it because it wouldn't benefit me. But if that's the law, that's the law.
"the people with the guns make the law, and have always done so historically speaking, and if you disobey they will shoot you to get compliance. Whether you or I personally think a legal system based on coersion is a good thing is beside the point that we are living in such a system."
This.
"But it's illegal, so it's wrong."
I have never said that I have to think something is wrong for me to be willing to punish it, it simply has to be against the law.
Again, I will say this for what seems like the thousandth time. The law has nothing to do with right and wrong, it has to do with what is and is not allowed. Until you understand this, you will not understand how morality and law are totally separate. All that is required for a law to be a law is power. It doesn't have to be morally justified or logically justified, it simply has to be enforced. If the government has the power to enforce this law, it can do it.
Whether or not you think punishing jaywalking is moral or logically justifiable is totally irrelevant. Whether you think this law is morally or logically justifiable is irrelevant. The only relevant question is: does the government have the power to enforce this law? I think they do.
"It's the law, so it must be the best, most just, thing for society to do."
This is absolutely not what I'm saying. I'm not interested in best or morally just, I'm simply interested in seeing the rules applied as they are written down. The law has nothing to do with moral justice or what's best for society. It has to do with order. Order requires no moral justification, it requires no logical justification, it simply requires that the rules are enforced regularly as they are written.
"switches his argument to fallaciously justify the governments action"
Again, no I'm not trying to morally justify anything.
Again, I will say this for what seems like the thousandth time. The law has nothing to do with right and wrong,
@JakobM
This is not might makes right. This is might makes possible. This is might precedes questions of right or wrong.
Without might, law is not possible. Might is a precondition for law. Without might, there can be no law.
Just because people think that the law has something to with right and wrong doesn't mean it does. People can think any law is either morally just or morally unjust, but without the power to enforce the law, it doesn't matter what they think it is, it's not a law. And lawmen can think their acts are morally justified, but that's irrelevant. If they didn't have the might to enforce the law, it wouldn't matter what their values were.
For instance, you could pass a law yourself right now but if you lack the might to uphold it, it won't be a law. Conversely, if our government passes a law and can enforce it, it's a law whether you think it's right or wrong.
People can certainly pass laws that are consistent with their values, but the law itself has nothing to do with right and wrong. It has to do with might. Might cannot make things right or wrong, it can simply make them so. People can inject their own set of moral values into any set of laws and declare them either just or unjust but the actual mechanism of law has nothing to do with right and wrong.
We must separate the values inserted into laws by people from the actual functional mechanism behind law, which is the use of force to uphold rules. We must also separate ourselves from the idea that laws require moral and/or logical justification. They do not. Laws simply require that someone has the power to enforce them.
EDIT: As an answer to another poster: if you really look at the way our common law system works, it's all based on precedent, so it's inherently conservative and inherently dedicated to the status quo. What was held to be law yesterday will mostly likely be held to be law today and tomorrow unless the court overturns precedent, which is not as common as the court upholding precedent. I personally tend to favor the status quo myself. I don't like too much change. I like things to be predictable. So I find myself naturally drawn to the law because it facilitates my personal preferences.
bloomj31:This is might makes possible.
So be bored bro.
I'm sorry. Do you not know why its important to discuss the the overall disutility of particular laws? Why its important to be able to explain how anarcho capitalist law will work to the benefit of everyone? Sheesh.
Once a State has been established, the problem of the ruling group or "caste" is how to maintain their rule.[7] While force is their modus operandi, their basic and long-run problem is ideological. For in order to continue in office, any government (not simply a "democratic" government) must have the support of the majority of its subjects. This support, it must be noted, need not be active enthusiasm; it may well be passive resignation as if to an inevitable law of nature. But support in the sense of acceptance of some sort it must be; else the minority of State rulers would eventually be outweighed by the active resistance of the majority of the public. Since predation must be supported out of the surplus of production, it is necessarily true that the class constituting the State—the full-time bureaucracy (and nobility)—must be a rather small minority in the land, although it may, of course, purchase allies among important groups in the population. Therefore, the chief task of the rulers is always to secure the active or resigned acceptance of the majority of the citizens.[8] ,[9] Of course, one method of securing support is through the creation of vested economic interests. Therefore, the King alone cannot rule; he must have a sizable group of followers who enjoy the prerequisites of rule, for example, the members of the State apparatus, such as the full-time bureaucracy or the established nobility.[10] But this still secures only a minority of eager supporters, and even the essential purchasing of support by subsidies and other grants of privilege still does not obtain the consent of the majority. For this essential acceptance, the majority must be persuaded by ideology that their government is good, wise and, at least, inevitable, and certainly better than other conceivable alternatives. Promoting this ideology among the people is the vital social task of the "intellectuals." For the masses of men do not create their own ideas, or indeed think through these ideas independently; they follow passively the ideas adopted and disseminated by the body of intellectuals. The intellectuals are, therefore, the "opinionmolders" in society. And since it is precisely a molding of opinion that the State most desperately needs, the basis for age-old alliance between the State and the intellectuals becomes clear.
Of course, one method of securing support is through the creation of vested economic interests. Therefore, the King alone cannot rule; he must have a sizable group of followers who enjoy the prerequisites of rule, for example, the members of the State apparatus, such as the full-time bureaucracy or the established nobility.[10] But this still secures only a minority of eager supporters, and even the essential purchasing of support by subsidies and other grants of privilege still does not obtain the consent of the majority. For this essential acceptance, the majority must be persuaded by ideology that their government is good, wise and, at least, inevitable, and certainly better than other conceivable alternatives. Promoting this ideology among the people is the vital social task of the "intellectuals." For the masses of men do not create their own ideas, or indeed think through these ideas independently; they follow passively the ideas adopted and disseminated by the body of intellectuals. The intellectuals are, therefore, the "opinionmolders" in society. And since it is precisely a molding of opinion that the State most desperately needs, the basis for age-old alliance between the State and the intellectuals becomes clear.
Wed. 10/05/19 10:10 EDT.post #94 bloomj31: Again, I will say this for what seems like the thousandth time. The law has nothing to do with right and wrong, it has to do with what is and is not allowed. Until you understand this, you will not understand how morality and law are totally separate. All that is required for a law to be a law is power. It doesn't have to be morally justified or logically justified, it simply has to be enforced. If the government has the power to enforce this law, it can do it. Whether or not you think punishing jaywalking is moral or logically justifiable is totally irrelevant. Whether you think this law is morally or logically justifiable is irrelevant. The only relevant question is: does the government have the power to enforce this law? I think they do. bloomj31:This is not might makes right. This is might makes possible. This is might precedes questions of right or wrong.Without might, law is not possible. Might is a precondition for law. Without might, there can be no law.Just because people think that the law has something to with right and wrong doesn't mean it does. People can think any law is either morally just or morally unjust, but without the power to enforce the law, it doesn't matter what they think it is, it's not a law. And lawmen can think their acts are morally justified, but that's irrelevant. If they didn't have the might to enforce the law, it wouldn't matter what their values were. For instance, you could pass a law yourself right now but if you lack the might to uphold it, it won't be a law. Conversely, if our government passes a law and can enforce it, it's a law whether you think it's right or wrong. People can certainly pass laws that are consistent with their values, but the law itself has nothing to do with right and wrong. It has to do with might. Might cannot make things right or wrong, it can simply make them so. People can inject their own set of moral values into any set of laws and declare them either just or unjust but the actual mechanism of law has nothing to do with right and wrong.We must separate the values inserted into laws by people from the actual functional mechanism behind law, which is the use of force to uphold rules. We must also separate ourselves from the idea that laws require moral and/or logical justification. They do not. Laws simply require that someone has the power to enforce them.It seems to me that morality, or at least, the popular perception of moral justification, must come first; this is why the state supplements its gun power with propaganda, including the delusion that "democracy=freedom." When the propaganda fails, so does the state's ability to enforce the law. As easy examples, drug and alcohol prohibition laws have failed, as have copyright and prostitution laws. The state certainly has the guns and the prisons, but there has been and is mass disobedience (or at least, non-compliance), because the laws are popularly perceived to be immoral.
bloomj31: Again, I will say this for what seems like the thousandth time. The law has nothing to do with right and wrong, it has to do with what is and is not allowed. Until you understand this, you will not understand how morality and law are totally separate. All that is required for a law to be a law is power. It doesn't have to be morally justified or logically justified, it simply has to be enforced. If the government has the power to enforce this law, it can do it. Whether or not you think punishing jaywalking is moral or logically justifiable is totally irrelevant. Whether you think this law is morally or logically justifiable is irrelevant. The only relevant question is: does the government have the power to enforce this law? I think they do.
bloomj31:This is not might makes right. This is might makes possible. This is might precedes questions of right or wrong.Without might, law is not possible. Might is a precondition for law. Without might, there can be no law.Just because people think that the law has something to with right and wrong doesn't mean it does. People can think any law is either morally just or morally unjust, but without the power to enforce the law, it doesn't matter what they think it is, it's not a law. And lawmen can think their acts are morally justified, but that's irrelevant. If they didn't have the might to enforce the law, it wouldn't matter what their values were. For instance, you could pass a law yourself right now but if you lack the might to uphold it, it won't be a law. Conversely, if our government passes a law and can enforce it, it's a law whether you think it's right or wrong. People can certainly pass laws that are consistent with their values, but the law itself has nothing to do with right and wrong. It has to do with might. Might cannot make things right or wrong, it can simply make them so. People can inject their own set of moral values into any set of laws and declare them either just or unjust but the actual mechanism of law has nothing to do with right and wrong.We must separate the values inserted into laws by people from the actual functional mechanism behind law, which is the use of force to uphold rules. We must also separate ourselves from the idea that laws require moral and/or logical justification. They do not. Laws simply require that someone has the power to enforce them.
"It's true but does he really think we don't realize this? Civilized people attempt to justify punishment." - E.R. Olovetto
True, but then my guess at least would be that his point is how do you civilize the legal system when you're surrounded by very uncivilized types who seem to like using the government to bash each other over the head? Setting up a theoretical basis for an Anarcho Capitalist or Minarchist world is one thing, what's the way from here to there though? How do you get positive law to more or less match a system of ethics and morals based on property rights? In the end it would be a practical solution: people would either adopt such a system on their own because they realize the superiority of it; or, it would be imposed via force much as current laws are. This would have to include using force of some kind to stop those who want to expand the scope of the laws to things like victimless crimes, etc.
"The law has nothing to do with right and wrong, it has to do with what is and is not allowed. Until you understand this, you will not understand how morality and law are totally separate. All that is required for a law to be a law is power." - bloomj31
This is not correct. What is required for a law to be a law is power and enough aquiesence on the part of the populace such that the law is tolerated. Otherwise the public or competing authorities can undermine enforcement and even render a law completely void.
It is also not correct to say law and morality are totally separate. Ethics and morality both inform law even though they are not the same thing as the law. And law is subserviant to them. Law is subject to ethical and moral review, ethics and morals are not subject to legal restrictions.
@Xahrx and Mark,
I disagree, I think power comes before ethics and morals because without power, the morals and ethics are irrelevant.
I'm not saying that subjective value judgments aren't used to review laws, I'm saying that without power, those value judgments carry no weight, no practical significance whatsoever.
For a very simple demonstration of this, I could say that all libertarians will now be killed because they are libertarians and libertarianism is against the law. But without the power to enforce this edict, I cannot make it so. If, however, I had the power to do it, I could do it, and there would be nothing that could stop me except for an opposing force against me. So power comes first, everything else is second.
Another practical demonstration of how morals and ethics comes second is to see how libertarians have been marginalized despite having the most rational, moral and logical arguments because libertarians are a minority and have relatively little influence or power. If morals and ethics really were more important, libertarians would be in charge of making laws, but this is not so.
So, tying it back to the ruling, it has been ruled that the Congress has the authority to make laws such as this. Unless there is some great uprising against this law (which I doubt), there will be no power that rivals Congress. Therefore, the law will be sustained and enforced. If there is an uprising against this law, even if it's value based, the only way things will be changed is with rivaling force. Either way, morals and ethics will take a backseat to power as they always have and always will. It's not possible, in a legal sense, for morals or ethics to matter more than power because while power/might are preconditions for law, logical and rational moral values and ethics are not.
"Do you not know why its important to discuss the the overall disutility of particular laws? Why its important to be able to explain how anarcho capitalist law will work to the benefit of everyone? Sheesh."
I understand talking about the undesirability of particular laws, but I do not see how it can possibly take precedence over the question of authority.
Moreover, I am not primarily interested in laws that will "work for the benefit of everyone," I am primarily interested in laws that are enforced regularly, with a single set of institutions deciding what the substance of those laws shall be to avoid too many disputes over power. I do not care about "everyone's benefit" because I do not see that as being the fundamental purpose of law.
The fundamental purpose of law, in my view, is to tell people what to do whether they like it or not.
"I'm not saying that subjective value judgments aren't used to review laws, I'm saying that without power, those value judgments carry no weight, no practical significance whatsoever." - bloomj31
I would agree and disagree. You're right that judgement without power carries no weight in the legal system, you're wrong in that people with the views espoused here are inherently powerless. They are merely out numbered at the time and so over powered. Their views do not lack backing though.
"If morals and ethics really were more important, libertarians would be in charge of making laws, but this is not so."
Again I disagree. I think you're conflating decisive with important. Power is the deciding factor, but even the powerful feel the need to morally and ethically justify their laws.
"It's not possible, in a legal sense, for morals or ethics to matter more than power because while power/might are preconditions for law, logical and rational moral values and ethics are not."
Incorrect. In our system power is the decisive attribute. Other systems of law like private law, have been postulated and even exist to a certain extent in some places.
This is no different than talking to a gestapo officer. "You must do what the führer says"
Of course, as long as atrocities are expressed using fake politeness and hypocrisy everything is OK.
bloomj31:I understand talking about the undesirability of particular laws, but I do not see how it can possibly take precedence over the question of authority.
bloomj31:I do not care about "everyone's benefit"
bloomj31:The fundamental purpose of law, in my view, is to tell people what to do whether they like it or not.
JakobM:This is no different than talking to a gestapo officer. "You must do what the führer says"
Now be polite to the gestapo officer. Remain intellectual and don't forget to be touchie, feelie as he talks about his gun, and whips it around and shows it to everybody on numerous occassions as he is sooo powerful with that phallus lookin' thingy. You wouldn't want to appear uncivil in the gestapo officers presence. Let's be nice to those that support criminality and immoral behavior because ya wouldn't want to get the natives restless.
"I would agree and disagree. You're right that judgement without power carries no weight in the legal system, you're wrong in that people with the views espoused here are inherently powerless. They are merely out numbered at the time and so over powered. Their views do not lack backing though."
Fair enough.
@JakobM, you must do what the law says, but there is no fuhrer. In fact, our executive doesn't really make laws. That's the Congress's job.
Also, I've never said everything is ok.