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: one_less who wrote (80831)	7/1/2004 2:00:45 PM
From: Solon	Respond to of 82486

"It is little concern of mine since I am not about eradicating corruption from the world" The point is, that I asked "who" in order to get you to differentiate your right to your deeply held beliefs (which are entirely a matter of your responsibility) from how your actions intrude on the Rights and prerogatives of society. This was the pertinent distinction to be achieved. It is not necessary that one pursue the "eradication of corruption" (or any other such esoteric goals) in order that one may become sensible to the legitimate restrictions imposed by Government against ones "moral" autonomy. What is moral and good in the mind of the individual is quite often antagonistic to the interests and opinions of others. Thus, society has a legitimate and enforceable interest in the matter; which is what I have spent many posts in presenting. "You and I agree that if one person’s beliefs are exercised in such a way as to deny liberty or justice to another, then the actions violate what we could consider freedom". Freedom is always conditional. This is to say that no rights are Absolute, but have natural limitations--as well as limitations imposed by human law-makers. "what you have failed to consider is whether or not the issue of freedom also suffers from an in balance when either of the other two variables is allowed to ‘trump’ in the name of freedom" No. I would say the same thing to one so enamored of his inalienable "Right" to pursue happiness as to state that "you do not nor does the government have the natural right or the power to force me to serve someone or do anything to another person in a way that violates my pursuit of happiness"...as I have said to you: I would say...your "right" to pursue happiness is not Absolute; and society has every right imaginable, and easily sufficient power, to abridge that pursuit of happiness where it is deemed advisable for the greater good. At no time have I suggested that any right or freedom was Absolute. I criticized your particular statement because it was out there to respond to, and it required correction, IMO. Society involves compromise, and it obliges myriad limitations on freedom and other rights. You are welcome to look at freedom in 3 parts or in 23 parts. None of that is pertinent to what we are discussing, nor do I see how it can be considered useful. If we consider the hypothesis that limitations on freedom is necessarily unjust, then we must consider that Nature is inherently unjust. And so we would call the Justice System unjust as it operates in large part through restricting freedoms both as prophylactic caution and as punishment. Of course, an unjust Justice System is oxymoronic. "There is no end to the things people can argue over and no guarantee that the judge will be fair" I can't imagine any disagreement to that premise. "The founding principles of law, however, should present the opportunity for a fair and just outcome in a free society" I can't imagine any disagreement with that, either. "On the other hand, if we enter our social endeavors with the assumption that the outcome will based on some sort of favoritism or endemic corruption then we have lost all hope." Whether your assumption is based on facts or fancy, it does not entail the loss of all hope. Certainly though, the law is administered by human beings with prejudices, so no rational person ever expects perfect justice. We only hope that good will, objective law, and the adversarial court system will combine to cede proximal equality to all under the law.

To: one_less who wrote (80831)	7/7/2004 8:52:35 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 82486

Antibiotics taken with birth control pills can cause the birth control to fail, resulting in pregnancy. Few doctors who know a patient is on BC pills and who prescribe an antibiotic warn them of this effect. (There are a lot of kids out there whose first names should probably end in "mycin".) Should the doctor be held liable for his failure? Suppose it is known beforehand that pregnancy is likely to kill the woman, it does so, and the widower sues for wrongful death. Should he win? The doctor claims he did so caution the patient, but that fact is not documented in his notes. (Nurse Ratched: "If it isn't documented, it wasn't done!") The pharmacist claims he gave the patient a standard printed sheet of instructions for the antibiotic which contained the warning. The widower claims his wife never mentioned or showed such a sheet to him and he never saw it. It was not found among her effects after her death.