You can't refute a normative claim with a positive claim.
----
>Are you really suggesting that our laws should be based on public opinion?
I think he's suggesting that violence (which ultimately backs state compulsion) is not an appropriate response to a non-violent act (declining to hand over keys).
I think he's suggesting that violence (which
ultimately backs state compulsion) is not an
appropriate response to a non-violent act
(declining to hand over keys).
I'm sure that's what he is saying, but it's an intellectually lazy claim.
If you only look at the scope of the demand (hand over the keys or we will put you in jail), it may seem like an escalation of force by the government. The real normative claim being made is that contempt of court charges are unconstitutional. Which is patently absurd.
The threat of force exists because through contempt, 'non-violent' dissenters can enable further violence.
>The government shouldn't have the right...
to this:
>The US Government absolutely has the right...
You can't refute a normative claim with a positive claim.
----
>Are you really suggesting that our laws should be based on public opinion?
I think he's suggesting that violence (which ultimately backs state compulsion) is not an appropriate response to a non-violent act (declining to hand over keys).