You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #77: Of course they should. [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
Statistical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-20-09 12:46 PM
Response to Reply #62
77. Of course they should.
Edited on Thu Aug-20-09 12:55 PM by Statistical
That is how rule of law works. Police enforce the law. They stop someone from brining a bomb into the polling place because the law gives them that authority. Without the law the Police have no authority to stop anyone for anything.

If there was no law against strapping a nuke to your car that goes off if someone attempts to steal it that would be permitted also.
If there was no law against owning your own nuclear aircraft carrier and fighter wing that would be permitted also.

Asking if in the absence of a law prohibiting something if it should something be allowed is the height of silliness. Of course it is allowed. It is the law that determines what is NOT allowed. The law tells us what we can't do, not what we CAN do. If the law doesn't prohibit us then we are allowed to do it. The Police have no authority to stop someone from "not breaking the law".

If there was no law against murder guess what? IT WOULD BE ALLOWED. Now it would be morally wrong (according to me which is no authority), people might protest it but it would be allowed. Our society has decided murder is not allowed and how do we enforce that collective standard? WE PASSED LAWS MAKING MURDER "NOT ALLOWED".

So if there was no law against bombs in a polling area there are two outcomes:
a) the majority thinks it is ok. They are ok with a lack of prohibition on bombs in polling places.
b) the majority is shocked and outraged and soon there will be laws making it "not allowed" to bring a bomb into a polling place.

In 1967 you could buy an automatic weapon from Sears or ACE hardware. Cash and carry. Society decided that shouldn't be allowed and they passed the 1968 Gun Control Act. In 1967 it was allowed. In 1968 it wasn't. What was the difference? The law made it not allowed.

Rule of law is rule of law.
You pass laws to restrict activity. Since laws are public knowledge everyone knows the "rules of the game". People can look up and go "oh I can't bring a bomb to a polling station". Without laws it is just ad-hoc feelings, gut checks, and judgement calls. Some cops may let bombs in the polling place and other people may go to jail. Lack of equal protection under the law.

IF you don't want something to happen:
1) pass laws that restrict/prohibit
2) ensure law enforcement is aware
3) check up on the govt make sure they are enforcing the law
3) make sure society knows about the law so they don't become accidental offenders
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC