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: D. Long who wrote (28158)	2/6/2004 9:48:39 AM
From: michael97123	Respond to of 793845

Derek, Differences on social issues like abortion, gay marriage, gun control, janet jackson's breast et al should not divert those of us who recognize the danger from without from choosing the only man running for president who understands the war we are now in and what must be done to win it. These social issues should wait until after we achieve that goal in the next election. In the world of al quaeda all these peripheral issues that tear us apart work to their benefit. Mike

To: D. Long who wrote (28158)	2/9/2004 2:36:45 AM
From: Dayuhan	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793845

There is a right to pursue happiness stated in the Declaration, which is not a blank check on hedonism. It is the declaration that every person is entitled to decide what is in their own best interest. It is not the declaration that every man is entitled to do as he pleases. It seems to suggest, in fact fairly clearly, that we ought to be permitted to do as we please as long as we don’t intrude on the rights of others. As long as somebody’s “hedonism” doesn’t intrude on your rights, it’s really none of your business, is it? That’s the only relevant question: who would be hurt if these people are permitted to do what they want to do? If the answer is “nobody” – as in this case it is – why should anybody object? Of course the State has an obligation to regulate contracts beyond mere consent. What do you think would be reasonable criteria for State intervention in the private affairs of citizens? Implicit in the concept of rights, and civil society, is the concept of duties. What duty are you talking about here? The duty to arrange our lives in a way that meets Derek’s approval? Don’t speak to me of “social conventions”. If the Government was tasked to uphold social conventions, southern landowners would still be keeping slaves and women wouldn’t be allowed to vote. Don’t we have a duty to respect the right of our fellow citizens to order their lives as they see fit, even if they do so in a manner that we find personally distasteful?