Dale,
You pose an important question to understand and answer. But
fortunately
the answer, rightly understood, is not a difficult one.
> > Strictly speaking the problem is not that they are unidentified. It is
> > that they are criminals. Identification may filter out some of the
> > criminals but it does not filter out all of them and it interferes
> > with some perfectly legitimate business.
> >
> A broader view encompasses the definition of "crime" and "criminal".
>
> And who is in charge of interpreting those definitions.
This appears to be a problem only because you presume that a single
answer
must be applied to and by all people. But each of us are seeking ends
according to our own values. So the answer is that each of us must
answer
this question for ourselves, act according to our own decisions and be
responsible for our decisions and actions.
Do not misunderstand what I have said above as a advocacy or tolerance
for moral relativism. I endorse an absolute moral code. But I realize
that each of us must choose (or not) to follow that code by individual
volition. Those who do must strive to live it out and protect ourselves
as best we can from those who don't. The topic I am concerned with in
this discussion is how those of us who do choose objective morality (of
which I think there is more than one on this list) can do this
effectively. Other people will presumably do other things.
> History has a long list of criminals who were never accused of a crime but
> instead were publicized as heros or demi-gods. Usury is legal is some
> countries but illegal in others just as are prostitution, so-called money
> laundrying, etc. A crime in one jurisdiction (arena of specific defining
> and definition use) may not be a crime in another.
Very good points and examples.
Best,
CCS
---
You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: [email protected]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
