Sharks in the Septic Tank Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Solon who wrote (80828)	6/30/2004 5:02:14 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (2) of 82486

”Who is the arbiter of when the beliefs of any one person affect either the liberty or justice of another person or persons?” It is little concern of mine since I am not about eradicating corruption from the world and since the 'who' is certainly outside of the scope of the topic I proposed. I proposed a tripartite view of freedom, one that is established on the librae of justice. You have yet to consider such a view. You and I agree that if one person’s beliefs are exercised in such a way as to deny liberty or justice to another, then the actions violate what we could consider freedom. This has never been an issue for me. Perhaps you could stop championing that point long enough to see that there is no opposition to it. You are focused on inner belief systems but what you have failed to consider is whether or not the issue of freedom also suffers from an in balance when either of the other two variables is allowed to ‘trump’ in the name of freedom. Notice how we can make six declarations similar to the first: ”I cannot violate someone else’s personal liberty as an exercise of my ‘freedom of conscience’. I cannot treat some one unjustly as an exercise of my freedom of conscience" I cannot treat someone else unjustly as an exercise of my personal liberty. I cannot violate someone else’s freedom of conscience as an exercise of my personal liberty. I cannot take someone else’s personal liberty to get justice for myself. I cannot violate someone else’s freedom of conscience to get justice for myself.” Taken individually, each of these statements becomes arguable. As you have your self been doing. The tripartite view is more holistic and less arguable, as one cannot be true without the other two also being true; not only for myself but for all. “I have the natural right to freedom of conscience, liberty, and to be treated justly by others. These are not separated entities but terms that are enmeshed with one another to form tripartite view of justice.” When one concept is positioned to encumber one or both of the others you create a quagmire of litigious contention that mires in irresolvable conflicts. ”There is no good reason to expect an end to litigation whether the laws are 97% just or 100% just. The laws can be 100% fair and people will yet have good cause for litigation.” Cause for litigation only means that people have cause to bring their disputes before an objective judge. There is no end to the things people can argue over and no guarantee that the judge will be fair. The founding principles of law, however, should present the opportunity for a fair and just outcome in a free society. On the other hand, if we enter our social endeavors with the assumption that the outcome will based on some sort of favoritism or endemic corruption then we have lost all hope.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next