Irrational. If someone is committing a criminal act, do other individuals not have an obligation to stand against the criminal behavior rather than simply flee and ignore it?

Again, your position is irrational. While you are correct in stating that no one need ever go against their convictions, if you stayed, you would still support a system through your taxes, vote and acceptance that legitimizes criminal behavior against others.

__________________
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." - Schopenhauer

I live in Arizona and have been to Tombstone a few times, once myself and others with people who visit and want to go there. It's hardly worth the effort. I much prefer Oatman, or Bisbee or Tucson even. Walking through Kit Carson's home in Taos was a kick. It was more a multi-room mud brick structure than anything. Kit Carson was a hell of guy.

What is interesting about Tombstone are the facts behind the gunfight at the OK Corral (which really wasn't at the OK Corral). Based on eyewitness accounts from that time the museum people have positioned mannequins exactly where Earps, Clantons and Doc Holiday were supposed to have been during the fight. They damm near standing on top of each other, maybe 6 feet apart, but spread out a bit. Holiday, the only one carrying a shotgun, was standing in the rear behind the Earps. As it happened the Clantons were most upset with Holiday over a farro game. However that wasn't the main reason they were all squared off in the lot in town. No matter, Holiday wasn't going to let the opportunity pass him by so he shot first, before anyone had drawn their weapons.

Outman The free range burros rule the town. Oatman is in the middle of nowhere. The burros belong to no one and go anywhere in the desert town they please. The people who live in Oatman are real characters.

Bisbee was the wildest town in the old west after Dodge City and Deadwood. It's a fantastic place to spend the weekend. When people get weird they move to Bisbee.

Then there's Prescott (pronounced press kit) which still has an active whiskey row where the cowboys used to ride into town to get liquored up.

There's Gerome named after Churchill's mum. A mile high ghost town brought back to life.

In the White Mountains you have Ft. Apache and the town of Pine Top, named after a white bartender who had a shaved head. The Buffalo soldiers used to go to an outpost and drink and called the bartender "pine top". The settlement grew and became a town. It's not far from a town called "Show Low", a town won in a card game. Main street is Ace of Deuces Blvd., the low card that won the game.

The west was wild for the times back then and the people who settled in the west made it a very colorful place. Much of that remains today.

__________________
You, you, and you, panic. The rest of you follow me.

Last book read: "Hot Blood" ~ Stephan Leather
Now reading: "The Gate House" ~ Nelson DeMille

You can call it irrational, but if the due process of the law concludes that a given activity is legal, and the Constitution validates it, it is therefore NOT CRIMINAL. Perhaps you have come to regard some supernatural force as the only legitimate designator of what is or is not lawful, I prefer to take the view that people should govern themselves. If the law is indeed criminal (not supported by the legal framework of the country), or it's status is so ambiguous that there is no decisive ruling one way or the other, then we not only have the right to stand against it, we have an obligation to do so according to our convictions. John Brown's raid at Harper's Ferry comes to mind as an excellent example. Note that the state exacted a heavy price from him in exchange for the expression of his convictions.

Like I said in my earlier post, I might be put into a position where I would support with my taxes a system that I don't agree with, I never said one had to accept the outcome meekly. I could choose to withhold my taxes and engage in various forms of civil disobedience, in an attempt to keep the issue in the publc conscience. I could tirelessly agitate for it's repeal. If I concluded that I could not change my fellow citizens minds on a given bit of legislation, I STILL HAVE THE OPTION TO QUIT THE COUNTRY. Keep in mind that for the premise of our conversation, the law in question is in accordance with the Constitution and passed by popular acclaim.

__________________
Question: Are we not men?
Answer: We are DEVO!

It is indeed irrational.

Legalized criminality is still criminality.

Logic and reason and are not supernatural forces.

The problem is that we aren't free to govern ourselves. I have people in authority controlling my peaceful, honest, voluntary activities. I have no real liberty in this country. I'm not even free to keep all the money I earn.

If I vote against every politician in power - then who exactly is representing me? NO ONE. I am being taxed without representation.

Right - but the state should have no right to control anyone's peaceful, honest, voluntary activities. If this was the case, none of these injustices would have occurred. There is a rational solution to the problem.

Ok, so you have no problem with people resisting the income tax for example, or refusing to pay taxes if they disagree with a government's policy on war, correct? If so, then you may very well be authentic in what you're saying.

Not if there is a one world government, which will inevitably occur.

Keep in mind that Appeal to Tradition and Appeal to the Majority are both logical fallacies.

__________________
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." - Schopenhauer

They're also not posessed by everyone in a useful quantity.


In theory, we all pay our taxes and agree to conduct ourselves in a way that preserves our freedoms to the greatest degree without infringing upon other's. In this way we pay for common-use infrastructure and services, and have clearly defined rights.
In theory, the "people in authority" are your fellow citizens and not members of some ruling cadre. I agree with you that many of our defined freedoms ARE infringed upon by the Govt in a way that is not endorsed by the people.



You cannot vote against a given politician, you can only stay home or vote FOR a different politician (there's your representation, albeit a flawed representation). Personally, I would like to see a "none of the above" option that, if a majority choose it, would invalidate ALL candidates on the ballot and force a re-election with new choices.



In theory, the citizens decide what actions constitute "peaceful, honest etc." and the state merely enforces that decision.



I applaud them for it. If I had more stones, I'd join them. IMHO the federal govt is no longer a legitimate extension of the people's will in this country, but I'm no anarchist either.


Agreed.

__________________
Question: Are we not men?
Answer: We are DEVO!

This is true, but the same was true back in 1776, and yet an irrational form of government became much more rational as a result of an informed, hard-working minority.


Well it's really not theory, it's an opinion, and was not the original intent of the Constitution.

The "people in authority" may claim to be equal fellow citizens, but they are not. They possess rights and privileges that the rest of us do not. For example, if an IRS agent doesn't pay his taxes, he isn't threatened with jail time. Do you or I receive the same "courtesy" if we should try and refuse to pay? No.

Since the "people in authority" have greater power, there should also be greater punishment for them if they violate their oaths of office or commit crimes. I would advocate an automatic life sentence for such people. That would certainly help to reduce the corruption that is currently running rampant in government.

There is a better solution. It's called the right to petition for redress of grievances. In this manner, the government must constantly prove its actions are beneficial to the citizens, since they can withhold their taxes if they have a grievance. I think this would solve most problems, and hold the government truly accountable to the people.


Well actually the citizens decide the "representatives" who will then decide the laws. The question is, do they have a legitimate right to criminalize any behavior that they choose?

Glad to hear you admit that. You're probably the most honest person I've ever debated this issue with. I appreciate your honest answers.

By the way, I'm not advocating anarchy either - just a government that punishes those who initiate force, fraud or coercion, and has no authority over adult citizens engaging in peaceful, honest, voluntary activities.

__________________
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." - Schopenhauer

11 shootings in Salinas, California since Labor Day, I'd say your wrong about the West.

__________________
"The only title superior to President of the United States of America is Citizen."

Did you know the word "gullible" isn't in the dictionary?

I think that if you're one of the ones being annihilated, it will matter little to you whether the other guy's motive is "tribal custom" or "greedy expansionism."

__________________
Theodore Lamar Heiks
BA, History/Political Science, Western State College of Colorado, 1984
MBA, Entrepreneurship/Marketing, City University of Seattle, 1993

I concur with you Guy and you only mentioned one location. America's Wild West a myth? Perhaps, but America is much more wilder now than ever, particularly when you consider one city, say Chicago with a murder rate higher than the number of soldiers killed in Iraq and Afghanistan in any given year. I've heard that young people are joining the military in the hopes to be sent to Iraq to escape the violence in our big cities. Don't know if there's any truth to that, but I like the website that said the U.S. should pull out of Chicago.