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 Argue -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Phil(bullrider) who wrote (12)	3/12/2000 11:55:00 PM
From: Solon	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 415

Hey Phil! My position on the Let's Argue thread is all over the map! I think it is helpful to promote discussion, so I applaud you for starting this forum. My position is likely very similar to yours. My philosophy is basically objectivism. In that regard, I believe that the one and only situation where society may morally intrude into the sacred choices of the individual is where safety is involved: i.e. where some person or persons is/are attempting to initiate force. My preceding post touches on the issue of accountability. At what point does a person acquire accountability and thus unrestricted rights? Clearly, a mindless individual is a threat to himself and others. The only way that society can ensure rights is by preventing and/or actively responding to all initiated force. In this paradigm, our society, our government, our people...are immoral. A loaded gun is not an argument. By using force to promote moral values (of sharing, etc), our government denies morality and values and degrades, abuses, and stunts the growth of a truly human society. I say this in the philosophical sense. Perhaps, in a more universal outlook, temporary pragmatism is ultimately more good. That, however, is probably beyond the scope of the hour. Yeah...I agree with you...