Either way, he seems to exemplify people who can take the 20,000 foot lofty intellectual view and say well, this is all debatable and no harm was done, maybe it was justified anyway. Except that a man was hounded to suicide - well, he just shouldn't have been so upset by being prosecuted because it was all so very academic, apparently.
Bullshit. When the penalty for a victimless, profitless property 'crime' is potentially higher than for child abuse, robbery or manslaughter, there's something slightly amiss, eh?
... the premises, it's very well-reasoned (and not nutty).
In particular, as I understand it, part of civil disobedience against an unjust law is exactly accepting the real possibility of going to jail. So I agree with the writer on that point, which is little mentioned. (Which is not the same as agreeing with the prosecution, or the penalities, or the exercise of discretion.)
Comments
Is that small-c conservative a lawyer or just pretending?
Either way, he seems to exemplify people who can take the 20,000 foot lofty intellectual view and say well, this is all debatable and no harm was done, maybe it was justified anyway. Except that a man was hounded to suicide - well, he just shouldn't have been so upset by being prosecuted because it was all so very academic, apparently.
Bullshit. When the penalty for a victimless, profitless property 'crime' is potentially higher than for child abuse, robbery or manslaughter, there's something slightly amiss, eh?
I didn't say I agreed with them, but if you accept ...
... the premises, it's very well-reasoned (and not nutty).
In particular, as I understand it, part of civil disobedience against an unjust law is exactly accepting the real possibility of going to jail. So I agree with the writer on that point, which is little mentioned. (Which is not the same as agreeing with the prosecution, or the penalities, or the exercise of discretion.)