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: Dayuhan who wrote (84965)	11/8/2004 10:30:03 PM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793758

We can have a free country or a moral country, but never both My attitude is that you can't have a free country unless it is moral. I define a "moral action" as one that does not interfere with the property of another. I suspect you are defining morality in religious terms. Glad to see you back.

To: Dayuhan who wrote (84965)	11/8/2004 10:38:41 PM
From: Keith Feral	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793758

<We can have a free country or a moral country, but never both. If people have the freedom to choose, some will make choices we don't like. That's life. The cost of taking away freedom is greater than the cost of the decisions some will make.> Herein lies the fine line between equality and freedom. Carranza was doing an amazing job with the discussion on privacy and how it is not a value protected by the Constitution per se. I think that privacy is the hidden link between Western democracy that promotes freedom and equality. Our respect (not to be confused with Constitutional right) for privacy gives people the right to entertain freedom & equality. The minute that someone like the DC sniper walks all over the freedom of other people within society, that person loses all rights of privacy. They are exposed to the highest levels of surveillance that eliminates all sense of freedom. Ultimately, this process can remove all their rights of equality of citizenship if they are proven guilty and executed. I wonder if one could assign a single value to each branch of government whose job it is to protect or expose. Legislative -freedom, executive - privacy, judicial - equality. I think it makes some line of reasoning that the lawmakers legislate the rules that make us free, the law enforcement part of the executive branch determines the extent to which the private actions of a person or persons violates the rules of freedom, and the judicial branch decides if the injustice proven or not by the executive branch has violated the freedom that should be equally enjoyed by the injured parties.

To: Dayuhan who wrote (84965)	11/9/2004 11:50:13 AM
From: Mary Cluney	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 793758

<Should your neighbor be permitted to do as he chooses? Only one question: does his choice infringe on your rights? If the answer is "no", it's none of your business.> That is so clear. That is so simple. Basically I agree with the spirit of your contention. It would work for 99.999% of situations in the world. However, I could think of hypotheticals that would be very challenging - but those would not be the primary reasons why other people might disagree.

To: Dayuhan who wrote (84965)	11/10/2004 6:32:37 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 793758

There is only one reasonable criterion for defining an acceptable intrusion on individual liberty: infringement on the rights of other individuals. I might agree on that. I do agree on that in theory and in practice I think we should move a lot more in that direction. However "unacceptable intrusion on individual liberty" does not equal "unconstitutional intrusion on individual liberty". And of course there is always room for debate about what is an intrusion on individual liberty (acceptable or not) and on what constitutes an infringement on the rights of other individuals. Tim