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: Solon who wrote (3698)	11/19/2002 12:43:17 AM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 7689

So call it illegal, Tim. Don't pretend that legal government is arbitrary. All activity outside of rules and enforcement is "arbitrary". But if the government as a whole is not limited by its own laws then it is arbitrary. There is no super government it has to answer to. As long as it is limited by law (most particularly the constitution) then it is not arbitrary. If it exceeds those limits reguarly then it is not some rogue illegal element of the government but the whole governmen acting in an arbitrary fashion. Of course the extent the government is arbitry fanishes, and the US's government is a lot less arbitrary then governments in places like North Korea and Iraq, or even places like Egypt and Colombia. In that comparative sense the US government is relativly unarbitrary. "I define whatever I want as wrong or right." That is fine, Tim. But it is irrelevant to my post: individuals (such as yourself) do not define what is right for the social group No I do define what is right for the group. And you can define it and everyone else can define it. And no one has to accept someone elses definition. This might be a semantic problem about what is meant by "defining what is right for the group". It could be having your own personal opinion about what is right and wrong for the group, and considering opinions different from this as wrong (which is what I meant) or it could mean having an opinion about what is right and wrong and then imposing that decision on a group. So you do believe in forcing people to pay taxes, then?? :-) To an extent it is wrong, but you need to have taxes to avoid anarchy so there really is no choice. You don't need to have a minimal saftety net to avoid anarchy but 1 - Most people will compromise their abstract principles a bit to avoid a real world disaster 2 - In addition to freedom I also value democracy and a strong majority would vote for at least a minimal safety net, and 3 - Having a minimal saftey net does help prevent unrest and keep order. Well Tim...you are right! I don't believe in Hell! But the bible makes it clear that you must give EVERYTHING if you are to get through the needle... I don't think it makes it so clear at all. In any case if it does it would be in the New Testament, which the woman in the story could not have read since it didn't exist at the time. Jesus did call his disciples to give up everything and follow him, but it isn't clear that he asks everyone to do this or that hell is an automatic punishment for those who do not. Tim