Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Father Terrence who wrote (51574)	8/16/1999 9:02:00 AM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

Prove it....

To: Father Terrence who wrote (51574)	8/16/1999 9:27:00 AM
From: Neocon	Respond to of 108807

Now, back to serious analysis: even were rights to solely inhere in individuals, there are frequently collateral effects to the use of property or contractual transactions that impact on various and sundry individuals. Ordinarily, the priority is given to the free disposition of property, both because the owner and/or client is the most affected by its disposition, and because it is better for the community if there is clear responsibility for property, and free- trade. However, there are instances where the "third- party" effects are deemed sufficiently severe to interfere with property or contract. For example, the insertion of a factory into a residential neighborhood would have deleterious consequences, both to the quality of life of residents, and to their ability to dispose of their own property at a decent price. Thus, one of the most common expressions of "community rights" is through zoning.....

To: Father Terrence who wrote (51574)	8/16/1999 11:38:00 AM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

Edit: This has to some degree been superceded by the invervening discussion you had. However, I do agree with Neocon here. An individual or individuals can have rights, not a community. I disagree. I think my community, not just the individuals in it, has certain rights. For example, the right to maintain law and order. That right can't be given to individuals to exercise as they wish, since your belief in law may be very different from mine. It has to be based on community agreement in some form. The right to restrain individuals from destroying community resources, such as a shared lake or common. I do, however, recognize that I am using the term right more in its broader contemporary sense rather than in its more restricted natural law sense. Generally I try to avoid that, since many things which today are considered by some to be rights are really privileges. But I still do think that the community does have certain rights of its own. Edit: If only individuals have rights and communities don't, how do you justify the existence of a police force? Shouldn't each individual just be going out with his or her gun and enforcing what he or she sees as his or her rights? What "right" does the community have to stop them?