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 (17402)	6/26/2001 2:27:43 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

If one has a libertarian bent, it is crucial to keep the distinction between the immoral and illegal subsets nice and crisp. That's like saying it is crucial to keep the distinction between language and thought nice and crisp. They're inextricably intertwined. Same with immoral and illegal. That's the whole point. Laws are based on society's moral viewpoints. There is no line. Maybe there are a few things on the fringes that are separate. But there is no moral viewpoint that can't be incorporated into some law (look at Islamic societies!) and no substantive law that isn't based in some way on a moral belief or principle. You're trying to create a distinction that doesn't exist. I invited you before (a much nicer word than challenged!) to come up with a substantive law that wasn't based on a moral principle. I would understand your position better, and might be able to agree with you, if you could suggest some such. But I doubt they exist.