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 : The Left Wing Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: thames_sider who wrote (5029)	7/9/2001 9:53:43 AM
From: Solon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 6089

No, I haven't read "Coventry". I wasn't thinking of a Devil's Island nor an Australian concept. Truthfully, many "crimes" are in the reach of many good citizens given altered circumstances. However, it is the cold blooded killers in society who appear to be an alien life form unto themselves. Under no circumstances would it be ethical to mix people of totally disparate value systems in the same exile community. This is easy for anyone to see. A woman caught stealing a sirloin roast has not demonstated her suitability for living with a group of serial killers. However, the real world does have fences. The real world does have barriers; it has borders. Movement between societies is restricted or prohibited. I don't suggest removing those who are "unwanted". This would diminish society. I am considering only the proposition that the most alien and dangerous enemies of society should be allowed to practice their value system without our interference--elsewhere. In practical terms, the cost of maintaining the borders of such an area from intrusion from the air, from terrorist droppings, etc. would be rather severe; but if the world ever becomes a truly global community--then I am sure these questions would become germane. Is it ethical for a community to have a "no killers allowed" policy?