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.

Pastimes : My House -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (2892)	10/20/2002 5:42:55 AM
From: Solon	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 7689

"What deal have I made with the government of the United States?" Interesting. You have mentioned that you are obligated to recognize certain limitations on your freedom. I am wondering if Government is similarly restricted in its power and authority, and must meet "requirements" just as you do. Is it fair to say that it does? "I don't consider anything voluntary if you are required to do it even if you would do it without the requirement." What an intersting perspective. So if one is required by law to eschew murder, rape, trespass on property and the like...such decent obedience to virtue would not be "voluntary" in your books, as people are required to act in a non-injurious fashion in our society. So how does one assign a moral quality to one whose actions are deemed to be not voluntary? On what basis do we assign or assess accountability if there is no voluntary basis for an action? For instance, take someone who fervently believes that the ten commandments are compulsory dictums from the highest Head of State and the Supreme Lawmaker. If I understand you correctly, obedience to these commandments would not be voluntary because they are required by church law and may result in punishments up to and including eternal torture in Hell. Then what is there to praise, Tim? What to condemn? Now in law they talk of voluntary manslaughter, involuntary manslaughter...and the like. There is a recognition that accountability is linked to the degree of volition and to the depth of comprehension. And much attention is paid to whether an act is freely chosen and sufficiently understood. In your conception, however, a geat many of everyday choices and actions are NOT voluntary simply because they are required or commanded by others. But I assume that challenging the requirement and risking disapproval or punishment would then be considered voluntary...wouldn't it?? Would the only people capable then of voluntary acts be those miscreants--the rounders and the rebels? Or are ALL decisions of free choice exercised in connection with a controversial act considered to be NOT VOLUNTARY? This certainly brings up some interesting questions, and I thank you for introducing me to such a novel conception. Cool stuff, Tim.