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: Neocon who wrote (84879)	11/8/2004 4:59:22 PM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793817

I am saying that we have, in text of the Constitution, a gauge for the right to privacy. Not really. We have free speech, the right to assemble, and the right to exercise our religious beliefs as we [mostly] see fit but what about our rights to do as we please at home? You won't find them anywhere in the Constitution. Can the state tell us that we can't get stinko drunk at home without disturbing anyone? Smoke the stinkiest cigars we can find? Have sex with consenting adults as we see fit? Can we end our lives if we see fit to do so? BTW, this is an issue that has been litigated with respect to the right to privacy. The right to privacy was found not to encompass the right of an individual to end his life if he deems it appropriate. I disagreed with the decision. I think we have a semantic issue which is a bit daunting. The right to privacy is probably a mischaracterization since it encompasses many things that don't have anything to do with traditional notions of the word "privacy," including a woman's right to do with her body as she [mostly] pleases, the right of consenting adults to do sexually pretty much what they want, and the right of parents to bring up children as [mostly] they see fit. It is not about the right to be secure in person or home, papers and effects, which is protected the the 4th Amendment. I see it simplistically as pretty much the right to do with your life what you please so long as you don't hurt anyone else. In that sense, the Constitution does not specifically address this very fundamental right, though it clearly exists; it had to be adduced out of the inarticulated interstitial grooves and ponds of the Bill of Rights. All good libertarians should be quite in favor of it. vbg