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: Solon who wrote (76066)	10/1/2003 6:49:07 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

You can dismiss the feelings of others if you are a dictator. In a democracy such imposition is more problematic... I don't think it is a matter of feelings. If Karen felt harmed because Jewel didn't give her a nice gift equal to or better then the one that Jewel bought his daughter on her last birthday would that be a legitimate grievance that has to be addressed because other wise her feelings would be hurt? Sure we live in a democracy but that doesn't mean that individuals can't state their opinions and principles or even try to get laws passed supporting those ideas. It does mean that what the people or really their representives vote for will be the law rather then what you or I or Karen or Neo thinks should be the law and that none of us get to be dictators. I would have thought that this would have gone without saying but apparently it does not. Even if people did not have a "proper claim" it does not mean they are unharmed. There is at best a partial congruence between law and justice. When we speak of "harm" the chasm widens considerably. I meant a proper claim as a matter of justice or natural rights not of law. If they have a just claim on his services (whether the law says they do or says they do not) and he does not provide the services they could claim that he did them harm. However I don't see any way that I could conclude that they have a just claim on his services. Also he is not doing anything to them if he denies the service so he is not causing any harm. He is perhaps failing to alleviate harm but that isn't the same thing. I do not think it makes logical sense to talk about A causing harm to B unless A actually causes something to happen to B. Yes it could be said that someone's denial of service causes harm but I only think that makes sense if they have a proper right to that service. If you could say that Mojo is causing harm to X by not giving her a massage then it could also be said that he was still causing harm to X even if he didn't give anyone a massage. If the doctor made an appointment with you and then refused to deal with you, I might agree that the doctors refusal to honor his commitment caused you harm, but if he makes no such commitment his not providing you a service is no more harmful to you then the fact that I'm not going to mail you a check for $1000 is harmful to you. In both cases you might be better off if you did get the benefit but in neither case do you have any right to insist on it. Tim