Subject:
|
Law (was: Art) Debate (Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 24 Jan 2000 13:55:52 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2701 times
|
| |
|
|
"Scott E. Sanburn" wrote:
>
> I hope whoever is responsible for that, in that company, gets tried for
> breaking the law. Breaking the law is never a excessive liberty, the
> exception being the Clinton administration, of course.
>
> Scott S.
Two things:
First, I think that there is a miscommunication here. You are saying
that companies have little power compared to the government if they
don't break the laws. Others are saying that by breaking the laws,
companies have the power to do stuff like steal and murder. You're both
right, but the problem is that companies to break the law, and thus have
the power to hurt people. But so what? And in any case, the US
government has a much larger budget than any corporation, so just from a
'bottom line' point of view they have more power. Period. And they
have a serious record of mis-using it.
Second, and just to pick a nit, it sounds like you're saying that laws
are always right when you say "breaking the law is never a excessive
liberty." Is that what you mean? Who is breaking the law when I own
firearms against the laws of my state but not against the 2nd ammendment
to the US constitution?
Chris
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
| (...) I hope whoever is responsible for that, in that company, gets tried for breaking the law. Breaking the law is never a excessive liberty, the exception being the Clinton administration, of course. Scott S. (25 years ago, 21-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
473 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
