From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Wed Aug 14 2002 - 13:39:31 MDT
Dehede011@aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 8/13/2002 11:57:37 PM Central Standard Time,
> samantha@objectent.com writes: So, it seems obvious that the way to avoid
> such evils is to severely restrict and control the way laws are passed, how
> they can legally be formulated and the limits on their enforcement. A way to
> challenge and repeal laws that is not overly burdensome must be devised.
> Most of all, certain rights must truly be inalienable - incapable of being
> overridden by creation of any law.
>
> Samantha,
> I sure don't want to start an argument and I do think most would agree
> that the above is desirable but isn't that proposal almost equivalent to
> proposal that we institute a program of Deux Machina? We might as well pass
> a law stating that nothing will go wrong because we want the Gods to set
> everything right. No law, in and of itself can protect us.
> Ron h.
Why no, it is not equivalent to Deux Machina at all. It is a
matter of the foundational principles of a government and how
rigourously they are understood and implied. No law against
error is required and I am surprised you would think I was
suggesting any such thing.
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:16:06 MST