> The point I was trying to make was a simple one, that you have to have a
> *theory* of what makes laws good and bad before condemning particular laws,
> not just say, for example, that taxation looks awfully like theft in some
> ways, *therefore* "taxation is theft". I'm not saying such moral critiques
> of the law can't be done...
Perhaps you or Daniel or someone would be so good as to explain how
anything other than that would appeal to people? Having implicitly
or explicitly a theory on which they base their criticism, is how
everyone proceeds that I've ever heard from.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:39:58 MDT