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: one_less who wrote (59134)	9/20/2002 7:25:38 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

but part of that was directed at imposing or implying rediculousness on the other side (mine) of the argument to make yours stronger (nonsensical). That was not my intent. It just seemed to me that you were totally discounting duty and its implications. If you are an emergency response worker, you understand that, during an earthquake, you stay on the job, not run home to tend to your kids. Presumably, you have made other arrangements for the care of your children if you have any. If you are not prepared to stay on the job, it would be unethical to accept the job. That applies to governors, as well. To suggest that either of these situation types qualifies as putting family before duty (the opposing argument) is rediculous. I'm glad you clarified that. People frequently make choices to seek higher status or increase their lot materially, while allowing family or dependants to be harmed by their neglect. This type of person would not get my support running for governer. Mine, either.

To: one_less who wrote (59134)	9/20/2002 10:48:39 AM
From: The Philosopher	Respond to of 82486

My position is that family or dependants are more of a priority than duty to the state. You can retire, abstain, or change jobs when duty to the state is in conflict with your responsibilities to dependants. You can not ethically do the reverse. In this case, it's not so much duty to the state, though that's an issue, as gross hypocrisy. What JB is doing is saying "if your child gets caught doing A, I will use my power to get her put in jail. But if my child gets caught doing A, I will use my power to get her off." That is, IMO, an abuse of the power the people have entrusted you with. If someone takes on, voluntarily, a position of public trust, then IMO they have an obligation to exercise the powers given to them evenhandedly, without prejudice or neoptism. To do otherwise, IMO, threatens the very principle of a state of laws, not of men, and is far more damaging long term to your own family member than letting them suffer the consequences of their actions.

To: one_less who wrote (59134)	9/20/2002 11:01:19 AM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

A Major General in the armed forces who had children at home who would suffer or die without his/her direct support should retire. But that's not the case here. Here, it's more the case that a Major General has a son in the, say, 431st platoon. The MJ is ordered to send the platoon on a dangerous mission. Two members of the platoon are entitled to R&R, and the two members who are by regulation entitled to go do not include his son. So his son is scheduled to go on the mission, and risk his life. Should the MJ pull strings to get one of the soldiers entitled to go on R&R to be forced to give up his R&R slot to the major's son, so that the son won't be exposed to the dangers of the mission, but the other soldier, who is entitled to be away from the action, is required to take part in it? What's your ruling on the MJ's action in this case?