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: Little Joe who wrote (18040)	11/30/2003 3:30:28 AM
From: Dayuhan	Respond to of 793625

The reference to the pursuit of Happiness is thought by many scholars to be a reference to economic freedom Which scholars would these be? The document was produced after a fair amount of deliberation, at it seems reasonable to me to assume that it means exactly what it says. It is odd to me that the government can: 1. control where I build my home, 2. how I use my property, 3. require me to provide it with all sorts of personal information, without any apparant limit, in a census, which the constitution permits only for purposes of counting the number of inhabitants of the US. 4. require me to wear a seatbelt where only my health is in danger. 5. Require me to wear a helmet if I ride a motorcycle, again where only my health is in danger. 6. etc, etc, etc. Yet somehow it finds that there is a constitutional right for people of the same sex to marry. So far, I haven’t seen any such finding. I didn’t argue in favor of any of the propositions you cite, so I feel no obligation to defend them. As a general rule, I believe that the sole constraint on the pursuit of happiness should be the infringement of that pursuit on the rights of others, meaning simply that people should be free to do as they choose unless their choice infringes on the rights of others. Considering that principle, I find it impossible to support the notion that government should – or can – prohibit marriage or any other contractual agreement between persons of the same sex. As long as it’s a voluntary act by consenting adults, it’s none of your business or mine, and certainly not the government’s. It seems that the courts view is that freedom is not for all of us or maybe that some of us are more free than others. I was discussing my view, not that of “the courts”. Those views diverge in a number of areas. This is one of them.