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 : The Boxing Ring Revived -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: The Philosopher who wrote (4021)	1/22/2003 7:15:09 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 7720

As, it seems, with every post to you I will start here. This is not true: "Well, I think you're changing your ground -- you said at one point that I had no rights that government couldn't regulate." I am not opposed to changing my ground when I see some reason to but I have not changed this. Your rights are what is right because it is what it means to be a human being and a member of humanity. You often confuse that with the right to do something because there isn't a law against it. I have been over this so much with you that you are really starting to look like a bloody brick wall. The rights that are a given such as you are given life, you are given sexuality, you are given free will, the ability to believe things, etc are protectable and restrictable by the government. Well a good one anyway. More importantly, that is the good role of humanity that ideally is expressed in the form of government. "So it seems that your position now is: "I believe that government has no right to restrict my right to (fill in the blank) as long as I do not unreasonably " LOL that is your statement not mine. I substituted the (fill in the blank) for your statement about your right to believe. I agreed with it but found it ironic that the statement preceding it was your comment that the government should not have the right to restrict some of your rights. Then you mentioned your highest priority "right" followed by the ways you thought the government should restrict it. "Okay. So according to that formulation I can commit reasonable murder, reasonable rape, reasonable burglary, reasonable wifebeating, reasonable terrorist acts, reasonable nuclear bombing of major cities." That was your formulation and this is your extension of it not mine. "I'm still wedded to the concept of limited government. The the citzens create the government (whereas you seem to posit its existence independent of those who create it if I follow your points fairly), that the citizens give certain powers to government and withhold other powers, and that if the people don't like the government or the way it is acting, they are entitled to change it, by force if necessary. "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots." On this we agree and I have no idea why you posted it. A tangent?