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 (80826)	6/29/2004 1:50:55 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Ah, great. A post void of declarative threats and name calling. Perhaps we could pick the topic up where we left off. Tell me first if I have understood your concern? Your primary concern is with the declaration that ‘freedom of conscience’ is a natural right. The concern you have is that someone could claim to believe conscientiously in some kind of conduct that when acted upon, violates another person or society in a harmful way. Having proclaimed their freedom of conscience about the behavior they would go off harming others as some sort of entitlement that the government has no right to interfere with. Since we are concerned with ‘natural rights’, we can agree that they extend universally to all human beings. Correct? So, I am either talking about the right to act on any thought in a way that is believed to be personally beneficial or right, or I am not. If it is the former, then such a concept would result in a chaotic helter skelter brutal anarchy. Clearly. I am not promoting anarchy or the dictatorship by one person’s conscientious view of what is right. Why should that be clear to you by now? Because, enclosed in the language of my post was this phrase … “there is no circumstance where one natural right needs to be trumped by any other or consequated by another; since they are not separated entities but terms that are enmeshed with one another to form a concept.” We have examples in our laws of how a right is restricted from trumping other rights. Freedom of speech, for example, is restricted when it approaches the limits of libel, slander, treason, and intent to cause other kinds of harm… like shouting ‘fire’ in a crowded theater. The declaration that ‘freedom of conscience’ affords me the protection from being forced to do something to another person in a way that violates my conscience, does not translate into an open ended right of conduct that causes harm to others in violation to their natural rights. I have no idea why you are battling that notion. In fact, the presentation I gave declared that ‘freedom of conscience’ does not stand alone, ever. I described ‘freedom of conscience’ as being enmeshed with ‘personal liberty’ and ‘just treatment’. Since these three exist as a natural tripartite concept, then they exist not just for my self but, for all. I cannot violate someone else’s personal liberty as an exercise of my ‘freedom of conscience’ and I cannot treat some one unjustly as an exercise of my freedom of conscience. And, within the librae of this concept, if supported by the legal system, justice is afforded to all. Natural rights as I have defined them exist as a librae of justice, not as separate entities that condone specific actions. It is the work of the legal system to define or redefine the violations of such a balance. But before that can get started we must be clear on what freedom means as a natural concept. You may want to review what I actually proposed (which doesn’t suggest, any particular right to violate or harm others, quite the contrary). "I have the natural right to freedom of conscience, liberty, and to be treated justly by others. There is no contradiction in terms here and there is no circumstance where one natural right needs to be trumped by any other or consequated by another; since they are not separated entities but terms that are enmeshed with one another to form a concept. When you understand this you will be able to perceive a system of natural justice for all that can be supported by societal laws which never violate any of these three components of freedom...." Whenever you construct societal laws which encumber one member to provide a shield of opportunity to another you create a quagmire of litigious contention that mires in irresolvable conflicts. This is what we have in our current culture of societal co-existence. We are at a point in our social evolution where we should be ready to move beyond that."