🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <6gdm25$i7q$1@usenet88.supernews.com>, HiThere@outtatown.com
(HiThere) wrote:

> In article <gall-0604982332010001@usrts1m14.uwinnipeg.ca>, gall@uwinnipeg.ca 
> (Norman Gall) wrote:

> >However, in enforcing the CCC, we can use force to detain someone under
> >suspicion of a crime, even when it is a non-violent crime, like purgery -
> >are you going to argue that this is also unjustified.
 
> No. Sanctions against perjury are applied after the fact _and_ peerjury _is_ 
> an initiation of force akin to fraud.

The sanctions are, but the threat of force is present before (just as it
is in the case of forcing landowners to not consider sexual orientation in
deliberations as to whom they will rent). Denying someone a fair shake
(without adequate grounds) is prejudice and an initiation of force akin to
entering into a contract in bad faith.

You want to argue that there is no relevant realtionship between the
landowner and the potential tenent *until* a contract has been signed.  It
seems to me that you want to argue that before usch time nothing is owned
by either party to the other.  I would argue that you owe them the moral
duty of trating them at all times as an end-in-themselves rther than a
means to an end; this would require treating them fairly.  And that they
simply 'don't like fags' isn't good enough.

> >However, this is an argument against the CCC in whole. 

> Yep

> > We have laws
> >requiring people to tell the truth when questioned by police and in a
> >court of law. Are you arguing that all of these laws are unjustified?

> No.

How do you reconcile asserting an argument that questions the authority of
the CCC *and* say that you are not arguing against laws which are
contained therein? This is prima facie contradictory.

> >So what? They were mistaken.

> It just illustrates the danger.

But this is a danger in any system that is democratic to any extent.  Only
in some sort of totalitarian regime that bought the notion that the gov't
has no authority to tell anyone what to do would this not be a danger.


> >So what? Unless you are questioning the idea of passing laws writ large,
> >this missed the point entirely.

> Not exactly, but I am questioning any number of laws writ large--but not 
> bevcause they _are_ writ large, There are other criteria.

Well yes.  It seems to me that the criteria that you are using is whether
the law 'tells people what to do'. But even regulative law does this.  "If
yu want to get married, do this."

> >I concur, but the answer isn't to abolish all laws, but to come to an
> >understanding as to what factors are relevant for which decisions and make
> >laws based on those principles. 

> Yes!

Right, but the principle you seem to be advocating implies the abolistion
of all laws.

I hope that the other post clears up this criterion.  I really would like
to know what principles you think sorts this out to your satisfaction
*and* retains the authority of a Gov't to pass laws.

Norm Gall

-- 
" On an occasion of this kind it becomes more than a moral duty 
  to speak one's mind. It becomes a pleasure."      Oscar Wilde