Subject:
|
Re: Law (was: Art) Debate (Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 24 Jan 2000 19:59:07 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2758 times
|
| |
|
|
Jasper Janssen wrote:
>
> > but the problem is that companies do break the law, and thus have
> > the power to hurt people.
>
> > But so what?
>
> I find this an exceedingly callous statement, on the surface. Explain
> further.
Oh, I didn't mean it like that, I meant it like this:
Where are we going from there? As a member (sort of) of the side (sort
of) opposite (sort of) yours, I'm willing to accept that corporations
have the power to hurt people inappropriately. They do now. They
always have. They always will. This is true under any system that we
can have. I think that Scott is correct when he asserts that the US
government has more power, but I don't see that this matters. Large
organizations of all kinds are dangerous. So are individuals.
What is the stance that _corporations are dangerous_ leading to or
justifying? What is it an argument for or against? And isn't this an
issue that would be somewhat (at least) rectified by the installation of
personal liability within corporations?
> > 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.
>
> The disposable income of the US government isn't that high.
I suppose that depends on what you mean by disposable. And compared to whom?
Thirtyish years ago, we had enough disposable income to prosecute a
silly war in SEAsia. I understand that a wholeotta(tm) money went into
that. More than Microsoft or AOL could muster, I'd guess. I think we
don't have to worry in the near term about corporations sending
hitsquads out after us because we have a difference of opinion with
them. We might consider worrying about that with the US government. (I
realize that it's statistically so unlikely that I don't worry about it,
but it still hits a big ole honkin' nerve when they do it to someone else.)
> > 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?
>
> You are. The law just happens to be unconstitutional.
Is it wrong to consider the dictates of the constitution laws? If not,
then I have clearly contradictory laws affecting my venue and I guess I
have to choose one to consider preeminent.
If the constitution doesn't count as laws, then what is it? (Don't say
the constitution.)
Chris
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
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
|
|
|
|
