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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sunny who wrote (14088)	10/27/2003 5:10:42 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793782

However, our laws should not facilitate immorality. I agree with this. We should get rid of laws that facilitate immorality. See, we can agree on something. Where do you suggest we start? I'd be happy to consider any law you want to get rid of. It's very libertarian to get rid of laws. <g> As a Christian, we are taught to support our government, because they are there for our safety and good. We are also taught to pray for our leaders so that they will have the wisdom and the will to ensure our continued prosperity. Something else we can agree on. Maybe there's not such a gap after all. In the context of the quote from 2 Peter, it implies that if you let sinful lust become a focus in your life or define you, you become a slave to the sin. Paul tells us that all things are permissible, but not everything is profitable. Losing one's self to lust is a terrible thing. We have a triple... <g> Think about the rise of internet pornography, gambling or legal addictions that rise from drinking or smoking. Who is more free, the person who chooses not to partake or the one who becomes trapped into a lifestyle or habit by the very thing he is seeking the freedom to do. Can it be that we agree on all four points? Be still my heart. <g> The question I have about the last one is what would you propose the government do about it? People are weak or chemically imbalanced and they get addicted to stuff. That is horrible. Is it the job of the government to stiffen their spines or adjust their chemistry? The Constitution doesn't say anything about that. The Constitution guarantees us freedom from government overreach and establishes mechanisms to protect us from loss of our freedoms at the hands of others. So if an addict mugs you for drug money, he gets arrested. And if someone assaults you with a needle full of heroin, he gets arrested. What else do you want the government to do? The only other thing it can do within its role is to avoid making laws that interfere with individuals and society effectively deal with problems of addiction. As you said, it should not facilitate immorality. But should it stop it? It has no mandate to do that and when it tries, as it has so many times and many ways, it fails miserably and sometimes makes things worse because it really isn't cut out to do that. We have our boot straps, our families, our churches, and charities to help when we are tempted by or struggle with addictions. If the government stopped taking so much of our money for programs it's not good at, we'd have more resources to use ourselves or to give to charities that are best equipped to deal with such things. You mention in that clip that the person who chooses not to partake is more free. We choose not to partake. We have freedom to make the right choice. Freedom is a lovely thing.