Posted on 02/12/2017 6:31:34 PM PST by markomalley
Right on. It’s amazing how many of our champions in the debates on TV and radio can’t even string together that simple argument. They might touch one or two points, but never the whole thing.
Yes, it is.
If the law conflicts with the principles of hard left Marxism, then the law goes out the window.
We might as well do away with legislative debate and executive concurrence if the people, in the end, will just pick and choose which laws they find expedient to follow.
-PJ
pedophile U.
Correct.
But it is an interesting conundrum.
The other course of action is to resign one’s post.
My point is that there is a spectrum. I pretty much disavow ‘slippery slope’ arguments as a cheap and shoddy way to avoid thinking, but the fact is that in modern history, most of the most heinous actions have all been perfectly legal for the person taking them to do under the laws of their society. Every KGB agent, every guard in a death camp, the fanatics at of Mao’s Cultural Revolution, all were acting legally under the laws they were subject to within that sovereign state.
It is easy to say “well, I wouldn’t do something I knew to be wrong but legal even if ordered to”, but actually following that course of action? I don’t know about you, but losing my job versus doing something I thought to be wrong would be a situation that I would not want to be in. If it would always be clear cut and easy for you, I am envious.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.