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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Drillbits & Bottlerockets -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jorj X Mckie who wrote (4933)	3/5/2001 10:49:52 PM
From: mph	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 15481

Interesting discussion. There are two kinds of laws----those that represent the society's collective morality and values (like prohibitions on murder, rape, violence, etc.) and those that address more morally neutral issues. As I recall, the first type, dealing with heinous activity, are categorized as malum in se, the second, malum prohibitum (evil in themselves vs. evil because they're prohibited). When a society becomes over-regulated, you tend to have way too many of the latter type. In our society, the malum in se kind of prohibitions really track the natural law. No one disagrees that you shouldn't murder someone or go on a shooting spree when you got your cd's or bike stolen. However, while the larger society can agree on the inherent evilness of certain acts, the real problem I see centers on how to deal with the wrongdoer in a specific situation. That's when people tend to fall back on looking for a million excuses so that the wrongdoer can be re-cast as the victim. Unfortunately, society as a whole is not willing to force people to accept personal responsibility and this transcends the criminal law. Take, for example, the myriad sports stars who have killed people driving when drunk, assaulted their girlfriends, abused drugs, and engaged in all kinds of anti-social, irresponsible and/or criminal behavior. Because of the money involved, they frequently get sixty thousand chances to get straight, etc., and many routinely keep at the same deviant behavior. If you support the organizations employing these types, you are tacitly condoning their behavior. The same is true of other personalities like actors, etc. Or even politicians.<g> Children and young adults committing mass murder should not come as a surprise when we look at the big picture of our society's unwillingness to de-victimize the screw-ups and make them take responsibility for their actions. All you have to do in America is say you're sorry or have some excuse and, geez, anything is forgiveable. Should that be the way? What's wrong with having more clearly defined notions of right and wrong, and of the importance of personal responsiblity.