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.

Politics : About that Cuban boy, Elian -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: The Barracuda™ who wrote (4327)	5/5/2000 10:45:00 AM
From: epicure	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 9127

If rights didn't come constantly into conflict we wouldn't need laws. Rights are always in conflict. Take smoker's "rights". If you are a libertarian (as I am) you come to the theory that people have the "right" to smoke- but do they have a right to smoke everywhere? FOr example in theatres? Does the "right" to safety overwhelm the right to smoke? Well, our society decided some time ago that it does. What about the right to smoke in restaurants? That is where the right to smoke comes into conflict with the right to breathe air without smoke in it. How do you solve this? One way to look at it is to say that the person who simply wishes to breathe is exercising a passive right which is per se less intrusive than the act of the smoker putting smoke in the air- and the passive right should triumph over the active right when both are in conflict. Any way- that's the way I resolve the issue for my self. But then I have asthma so I WANT the result I come up with. But there are definitely RIGHTS on both sides that are in conflict. I've got lots more examples.