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 (4335)	5/5/2000 12:25:00 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 9127

I have not given a reason why there should be no public property. That is merely one (your) interpretation. IMO I have given a reason why laws are needed to moderate between conflicting rights. Of course I don't actually believe in rights in the Platonic or natural law, sense (and I seem to recall you do). I don't think there are rights just sitting out somewhere, waiting for people to realize they have them. It is my opinion that rights are what society agrees they are. The social contract theory. Because without a society and "enforcement" rights are meaningless. You can TELL a lion you have a right not to be eaten but it isn't going to listen. It takes a society of people willing to agree that you HAVE a right for the right to be a right. Otherwise it's your idea of what ought to be a right- and that's not worth much. As for your strange and illogical jump to the nature of dispute resolution in socialist countries- I would merely say you are wrong. There are legal organs that settle disputes in communsit/socialist countries (without the use of weapons). They do not use guns "whenever" there is a dispute. It is this kind of over the top rhetoric that makes you seem such a simpleton.