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 : Al Gore vs George Bush: the moderate's perspective -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (1454)	10/7/2000 12:13:47 AM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10042

If laws are a contract between men and women, or men, or women- they need be based on nothing more than what the people making the rules wish to decide. The people in charge, or all the people, can decide whatever they wish. They can pull something out of the air and call it "natural law", they can just decide to put into law what is expedient, or they can base it on some religion or other. Law need not be based on morality. It needs to only be a rule, that if broken, will have societal repercussions. Morality, is a thing often higher than the law. More akin to doing what is "right"- whatever you happen to think what is "right" is. Thus there would be as many "rights" and "wrongs" as there are religions and philosophies. It's not like I made up relativism- if you live in the US you see it all around you, made manifest in our multicultural society. Law is a low standard (usually) and seems to me to be set for the purpose of greasing the skids of social interaction- to prevent bloodshed and encourage commerce. Morality is a much finer thing. Confusing the two is just silly- whether you do it, or whether Jefferson does it. I prefer Hamilton the realist, to Jefferson the silly idealist.