I took Mencken to mean that laws are sometimes written in response to outrageous acts that we all (generally) disapporve of. Laws against hate mongering seem to fall into this category. But because the laws are broadly interpretable, they are broadly dangerous. The ACLU undoubtedly has scrapbooks full of such things.
Ursula NipU wokshevs@xxxxxx wrote:
Oppressive laws are not "aimed" at the vicious. Or, if they are, then that is what makes it an unjust law - which is to say, no law at all. A just law is a universalizable law. Hence, to defend a universalizable law is neither to defend the vicious nor any other particular cultural or religious group of citizens. It is simply to defend the personhood/rational autonomy of individuals as ends-in-themselves. The reasoning below seems awfully confused, unless I'm missing something here. Walter O. MUN P.S. Mr. Powell has been patient for a very long time. Kudos to his integrity and table-tennis sense of timing. He's sleeping much better now, I'm sure. Quoting Ursula Stange <Ursula@xxxxxxxxxx>:Yes, when you stand on principle, you don't always have a nice clean place to stand.Ursula David Wright wrote:"The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most ofone's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all."-- H. L. Mencken as always and ever, d.------------------------------------------------------------------ To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html------------------------------------------------------------------ To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
------------------------------------------------------------------ To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
