[lbo-talk] losers [ was: Lyndie England

[ravi]

At around 30/9/05 3:09 pm, Wojtek Sokolowski wrote:
> 
> The law says what is says and should be obeyed because it is the  law of the
> land - not some fair weather wishy-washy provisions subject to small print
> clauses and bullshit excuses.  Dura lex sed lex - as the ancients used to
> say.  I (or anyone for that matter) may chose to take the risk and break the
> law - if I see that risk worth taking - and hope to get away with it.  It
> may be moral or immoral but it does not really matter because law is not
> concerned with morality - it does not sanction morality and it does not need
> morality to be binding.  If I do get away with it, good for me, but if I do
> not - I knew (or should have known) the risk I was taking and I should not
> be bitching that it ain't fair, I should be excused, and the law should not
> apply to me.  This is a very simple logic that does not require a PhD to
> understand.
> 

ignoring the "have you stopped beating your wife, yet?" rhetoric towards
the tail end of the above paragraph, i have a simple question: i assume
even you believe that laws are abstract and have to be applied or
extrapolated to answer a particular question at hand. a question arises:
am i missing something or has the consistency of the formal system (of
laws) been established?

	--ravi

-- 
If you wish to contact me, you will get my attention faster by
substituting "r" for "listmail" in my email address. Thank you!