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 : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (5251)	2/9/2001 10:24:02 AM
From: Solon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

You seem be looking at what I posted through some filter that is alien to me. I don't know where you got the notion that I think it's ok to take someone's sandwich. Or that I'm the only arbiter of fairness. Or that might makes right. No, you didn't say anything about sandwiches, but you made it clear that you decided. I won't bother going to your post; I remember a couple of statements. It would be more appropriate for you to post them yourself with an alternative explanation if there is to be one. I don't say your post implied immoral notions on your part--only that they implied the "rights" to immoral notions from anyone. I'm comfortable with that; That's why I work out. For the record, on the subject of abortion, I subscribe to the right to be left alone, not the right to an abortion If you read my post carefully, you see that I separated the RIGHT from the morality. FREEDOM does not merely mean the freedom to do good... It looks to me like you want to substitute some religion-like set of universal principles for existing religious dogma--something bigger than us No. If I want to substitute religion I will say so. There are universal principles. This is fact. It is not out of place to consider if this relates to religious ideas. I have not made such a comparison here. And when I talk about reason, I do not imply that it is a God. Indeed, until better evidence comes along, I make it clear that I consider each human individual as the ultimate expression of value. These "rights" are imposed by the organization that gains sufficient power from accumulating the most votes. The only thing that justifies these kinds of "rights"--in the end--is MIGHT. And that is why people say, "Oh, I'm so scared that Gore will get in!", or, "I'm terrified of Bush!". They know that "rights" are imposed without consent, and that they do not need to be justified by either reason or morality. There are not even referenda to give the illusion of consent. Yup. This seems to me like acknowledgement of the difference between contractual "rights" and political "rights". It's a matter of strategy, I guess, unless you really believe that some deity substitute has conferred these rights on all of us Reason and self interest are not deity substitutes. They are the real deal--first copies. You have the RIGHT to exist because you DO. PERIOD. And when the bastard with the gun tells you you don't...shoot him. I would like to be your neighbour. I would not need to lock my doors on your account.