Comments on: The Iraq War Railroad http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/doc/2008/06/08/the-iraq-war-railroad/ Same old blog, brand new place Thu, 03 Dec 2009 06:54:46 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: fp http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/doc/2008/06/08/the-iraq-war-railroad/comment-page-1/#comment-59436 fp Thu, 12 Jun 2008 23:34:51 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/doc/2008/06/08/the-iraq-war-railroad/#comment-59436 A free people enjoy the rule of law cooperatively. I don't know why one would think that violence was required to enforce the law when good will and cooperation are required for any society to endure. That said, how about the Supremes and their stand for habeus corpus today! Little by little, bit by bit, I think we are reassembling the democracy that the lawless plutocrats informed by the Chicago school of economists have tried to destroy. A free people enjoy the rule of law cooperatively. I don’t know why one would think that violence was required to enforce the law when good will and cooperation are required for any society to endure.

That said, how about the Supremes and their stand for habeus corpus today! Little by little, bit by bit, I think we are reassembling the democracy that the lawless plutocrats informed by the Chicago school of economists have tried to destroy.

]]> By: Russell Nelson http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/doc/2008/06/08/the-iraq-war-railroad/comment-page-1/#comment-58213 Russell Nelson Mon, 09 Jun 2008 05:26:26 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/doc/2008/06/08/the-iraq-war-railroad/#comment-58213 <i>... we make too many laws and have too many regulations. But I’ve also called myself a “defective pacifist” </i> I don't understand why you put the "but" there. Laws need violence to enforce them, thus the only laws a pacifist can support are the ones that reduce violence in excess of the violence needed to enforce them. If you use that as your rule of thumb, then any interventions into the peaceful affairs of men are not legitimate. Since free trade is peaceful (otherwise it would beg the definition of ''free''), a government supported by pacifists should want, just as you say, fewer laws and fewer regulations. That said, many Quakers (who are at least nominally pacifists) are leftists. Makes me wonder what most of us are thinking of in the silence..... … we make too many laws and have too many regulations. But I’ve also called myself a “defective pacifist”
I don’t understand why you put the “but” there. Laws need violence to enforce them, thus the only laws a pacifist can support are the ones that reduce violence in excess of the violence needed to enforce them. If you use that as your rule of thumb, then any interventions into the peaceful affairs of men are not legitimate. Since free trade is peaceful (otherwise it would beg the definition of ”free”), a government supported by pacifists should want, just as you say, fewer laws and fewer regulations.

That said, many Quakers (who are at least nominally pacifists) are leftists. Makes me wonder what most of us are thinking of in the silence…..

]]>