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 : Pro Choice Action Team -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Peter O'Brien who wrote (714)	2/26/2001 8:19:05 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 948

Good try. But I can intelligently comment on it. You can say I can't - but that doesn't make it true. As for your point number 1- how would you define "directly" and "intentionally"? Would the person forced have to actually have intended harm, or only intended the action that then resulted in harm? So, for example, a drunk driver who got behind the wheel- intended to drive but did not intend to injure someone. Is he a blood donor? Someone who is tired and knows it- they have the intent to drive- and they critically injure someone- do we force them? how direct? A criminal is getting away- a police car chasing him runs over a little girl- this accident is a direct consequence of the police chasing the criminal. Do we make him donate? Do you have a court determine this? Because you cannot deprive people of life, liberty or property without due process. Courts would slow this process down- would it even work with courts in the process? And in our country with our Constitution there is no way you could keep the courts out.