From: Dehede011@aol.com
Date: Sat Nov 09 2002 - 17:07:56 MST
In a message dated 11/9/2002 5:50:43 PM Central Standard Time,
bradbury@aeiveos.com writes: What part of "division of labor" don't you folks
(not specifically you Ron) understand?
##
No offense taken Robert. <G>
Then Robert continues:
"There is a *big* difference between a government trying to force its will
upon the people (cited examples are presumably Stalin & Hitler) and a
government trying to respond to the concerns of the people, e.g., the
reaction (perhaps overreaction) of Western governments to the
environmental/green movements of the '70's.
##
Robert, let me recognize a distinction that you seem to be making
yourself. As you say, "'There is a *big* difference between a government
trying to force its will upon the people (cited examples are presumably
Stalin & Hitler) and a government trying to respond to the concerns of the
people" As explained by Dr. de Soto the U. S. government seems to have
gotten on both ends of the sentence I quoted from you.
Initially the U. S. government came into the land disputes on the side
of politically connected and tried to enforce its will. The people were not
having any of that and resisted forcibly. Within a reasonable period of time
local, state and national elected officials had gotten on the side of the
small farmers and miners.
I can't remember the quotation exactly but the courts and legislatures
decided apparently that all good law comes from the people.
And that is my point. In the end our protection against having law
forced on us comes from us. If we allow law to be imposed on us that we
believe to be wrong or immoral then in the end that is exactly the law we
will get.
Ron h.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:58:01 MST