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: The Philosopher who wrote (75041)	9/18/2003 5:37:17 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

That would be an example of doing what you want WITHOUT conscience... "The same principle part is believing that you should have the right to do what you do or don't want to without taking into account the impacts on other people. Sorry, about the yelling. I have a bad habit of yelling at deaf people. You don't seem to understand what it means to act according to conscience.

To: The Philosopher who wrote (75041)	9/26/2003 12:15:49 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 82486

The same principle part is believing that you should have the right to do what you do or don't want to without taking into account the impacts on other people. I don't think that is the principle involved. I would assert that we don't have a general right to do or not do whatever we want no matter what the impact is on other people. I also would not lump "to do whatever", and "to not do whatever" in to the same principle. I would require far more justification for imposing a duty on someone to do something that I would to impose a prohibition on them from doing something. There is no general right to do an action which causes harm to someone else. Not to associate with certain individuals or to perform certain services for them is not an action causing harm to anyone. It isn't an action at all and I would not, without extreme justification, impose a duty to perform such services. The girl with the radio in your example was not having any affirmative duty imposed on her, but she still resented not being able to cause a general public nuisance and what could be considered a specific attack on others. Her asserting of a right to play music anywhere she wants as loud as she wants is closer in nature (even if not degree) to the assertion that one should be able to murder or rape anyone they wanted with impunity. That someone should not have a right to attack someone else is the default assumption. It can be overridden in certain circumstances (for example you have a right to shoot someone who is trying to kill you), but normally its understood that you don't have a right to attack other people. On the other hand it is not properly the default assumption that you should have an affirmative duty to help someone, or go in to business with them or associate with them. In fact the proper default assumption is just the opposite, that you have no such duty. Tim