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.

Pastimes : Neocon's Seminar Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: one_less who wrote (1017)	6/25/2004 3:51:46 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1112

I was speaking of a transcendent definition of justice not a practical one. I'm not sure how I would draw the distinction between the two. Justice is a fairly transcendent idea. I'm not talking about the "administration of justice", or what the law or the constitution say about justice. I am speaking of justice in natural law terms. Are you saying that one person's needs can be denied so that another's can be met, and that is justice? No. I am saying that if one person's needs are not met then it isn't an injustice. If someone has what he needs to meet all of his needs and you take some of what he needs away then it is unjust, but a lack of resources in and of itself doesn't indicate injustice. In fact everyone could act with perfect justice and fairness but there may not be enough resources to meet all of their needs or even any of their needs. Tim