Re: Stiglitz: a massive burden of debt visited on future generations

On Tue, 13 May 2008 17:05:44 -0700, John Holmes <jholmes@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 

wrote:

> On Tue, 13 May 2008, Stephen R. Diamond wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 11 May 2008 15:24:56 -0700, John Holmes  
>> <jholmes@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>
>>> Further discussion of how one might act in such cases is inadvisable  
>>> in a public forum.
>>
>> Why is that? No legal duty WHATSOEVER exists to fink on lawbreakers.  
>> Even murderers, when you get down to it.
>>
>> -- srd
>
> Technically, you are right. Maybe not in practice, and it is always  
> better to be safe than sorry. So let us change the subject.
>
> -jh-

The subject is neither interesting nor im****tant. But the subject of  
letting the state constrain public discussion might be both, when without 

even a credible threat in its favor, rather reminding me of the U.S. SWP's
 
obeying the unconstitutional Voorhees Act. Frankly, I think comments I  
have made about defending Al Qaeda incur much greater risk than  
hypotheticals about not informing on criminal acts. Even garden variety  
remarks about sup****ting forces militarily opposing the U.S. carry greater
 
legal risk than these hypotheticals.

Since I regard such decisions re common lawbreakers as apolitical, from my
 
perspective they are clearly irrelevant here, EXCEPT on the issue of  
relevance itself. If anyone thinks that Marxism implies a position on the 

morality of common criminal acts themselves--the context of this  
example--in my somewhat competent opinion, I don't think they face any  
significant legal risk in pursuing such a discussion.

-- 
srd