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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Little Joe who wrote (133509)	3/26/2001 1:25:39 AM
From: Kevin Rose	Respond to of 769667

Thanks for the reply. Here are my thoughts. I was being a little tongue-in-cheek with the Libertarian comment. I shouldn't have made it, as I really only have a superficial understanding of Libertarianism. Certainly, gay people can (well, in most states) enter into a relationship without the involvement of the formalized institute of marriage. Unfortunately, without that formalization, they lose certain rights and privileges that 'normal' married couples enjoy. For example, the case I cited the other day of the local woman whose partner was mauled to death by a dog in her apartment building. She cannot legally sue for certain damages as the 'spouse', which is legally defined by our marriage laws as a union between man and woman. From what I understand, non-married partners also lose other rights, such as health benefits, visitation rights, and others. So, the legal recognization of marriage does affect the resulting rights of the individuals involved. On the issue of the government 'protecting us', I agree that it is a thorny issue. In my view, some 'protections' are pretty clear: FDA regulating drug companies, warning labels on products, building codes, etc. These are clearly meant to protect individuals from dangers imposed by others: sloppy drug companies, slick advertisers that don't warn consumers of product dangers, poor workmanship, etc. But, when the individuals involved are clearly only hurting themselves, should we legislate to protect them? In this category, in addition to ANY unsafe sex practice (the issue of orientation aside), you could add: motorcycle helmet laws, tobacco smoking, seatbelt laws (as you pointed out), etc. That doesn't even include the so called 'victimless' crimes: prostitution, gambling, etc. Should these be legislated? I'm sorry but my answer will probably disappoint you: I don't know. I am in favor of helmet and seatbelt laws, and would be in favor of banning tobacco (now THAT would cause quite a stir), but would not attempt to enact any legislation for safe sex. I can't even tell you quite why I divide them this way; it's just my gut feel. Not a very good answer, I'm afraid. Maybe if I smoked, I'd put it on the other side of the line? Or drove a motocycle? But I do drive, and I'm in favor of the seatbelt law. One thing I have noticed, there is not the debate I used to have with some friends and relatives when I asked them to buckle up; now that it is the law, I have an excuse for imposing my wishes for their safety (at least in my car). Pretty flimsy thinking, I'm afraid. I'll have to ponder. Others have thoughts here?