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 (76849)	4/5/2000 12:45:00 AM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

Intrinsic rights "not based in morality" is a contradiction in terms. "Rights" only have meaning in two contexts: the positive law, where they are not intrinsic, but granted by fiat, or as inhering as part of our moral theory. Rights are nothing more than a claim on others, to oblige them to behave in a certain manner towards the person who holds the right. The right of property is nothing more than the obligation of others to leave it alone, unless permission for use is granted. Rights are generally qualified by circumstance. For example, my property rights end when they infringe upon the well-being of others, in certain defined circumstances. I do not have the unqualified right to disturb the peace by playing my stereo as loudly as I want, because others have a right to their repose. Because the conflicts which may arise are destructive of civility, the attempt is made to forestall them through reasonable regulation, and adjudicate them when the application of the rule, or the circumstances of the case, are in dispute. This is called the rule of law. The rule of law must taken into account not only individual rights, but the obligation of the individual to take responsibility for his actions and their impact upon the community. If the social consequences are deemed trivial, fine, he can go to hell for all the law cares. If the social consequences are profound, even plausibly so, the behavior of the individual becomes the law's business. It is the judgment of liberal democratic regimes that a great deal of latitude will be afforded the individual before the law takes notice, and that is prudent, lest there be a meddlesome tyranny. But that does not mean that society cannot act in self- defense, whatever the provocation. Whether the current method of dealing with the problem of drugs is correct, it is no answer to merely invoke individual rights. A good deal depends on one's view of the potential scourge were drugs to become markedly more accessible.........