To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.off-topic.debateOpen lugnet.off-topic.debate in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Off-Topic / Debate / 3923
3922  |  3924
Subject: 
Re: Law (was: Art) Debate (Was: [Re: Swearing?])
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.off-topic.debate
Date: 
Mon, 24 Jan 2000 13:35:23 GMT
Viewed: 
5210 times
  
Christopher Weeks wrote:
> 
> "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.

Ugh. Yes, if corporations break the law, they do hurt people. They
should be prosecuted. The government prosecutes corporations, right?  I
agree with you that the US government has a tremendous amount of power
because of money, etc. The government does have a horrible record of
misusing 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."

Someone said the excessive liberty line. It sounded like they were
talking about corporations see it as excessive liberty, rather than
breaking the law.

> 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?

No, I think all gun control laws are unconstitutional, and I don't see a
problem with that. I think most police agencies don't really care
either, as long as you don't go out and commit crimes with it. Different
situations, as I see.

Scott S.



Message is in Reply To:
  Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
 
(...) Stop putting words into my mouth. (...) You mean it wasn't rhetorical? Besides, I did answer. Any big corporation has the power to do so. Just not legally. Jasper (27 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
    

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR