I was very glad that he did that. I'm not sure how this translates on a more abstract plane nor even if I trust that translation because, in this case, it seemed to me that the punishment fit the crime.
Joanna
Wendy Lyon wrote:
> On 4/30/06, Miles Jackson <cqmv at pdx.edu> wrote:
>
>>
>> There is no flaw in the analogy: in each case, the person claims a
>> right to disregard the law on the basis of their own beliefs.
>
> ...
>
>> I agree that there are contexts in which principled rejection of the
>> rule of existing laws is necessary and justifiable.
>
>
> The analogy is flawed and you've made the same error in your second
> paragraph. None of what we've been discussing concerns beliefs or
> principles. These are cases where the law has been violated, and
> those whose responsibility it is to punish lawbreakers can't or won't
> do it, so others take this responsibility into their own hands. You're
> portraying it as some attempt at civil disobedience, when in
> fact it is an attempt (however misguided) as restoring order in the
> community.
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>