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: Mary Cluney who wrote (85085)	11/9/2004 12:09:54 PM
From: Bill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793759

There are many so-called hypotheticals which don't fit the axiom of 'people should be free to do what they want, unless their exercise of their freedom intrudes on the rights of others'. - drug users - hunters - polluters - developers - drunk drivers - prostitutes - porn users etc. Of course, there are indirect, cascading or risk effects from each of these groups, just as there are from more novell activities like gay marriage. Furthermore, should society's costs, in the form of increased taxes or insurance premiums, be factored into the intrusion equation? Seems to me it's not as simple as it looks.

To: Mary Cluney who wrote (85085)	11/9/2004 10:17:44 PM
From: Bridge Player	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793759

If Joey decides to drop acid, it may not directly and immediately infringe on my rights. So I gather you would say that is his right. Now lets say that in doing so Joey fries his stupid brains to a crisp. Is it now also my right to deny him the use of my tax dollars for institutional care for the rest of his worthless life?

To: Mary Cluney who wrote (85085)	11/13/2004 9:08:28 PM
From: Dayuhan	Respond to of 793759

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. That’s why we should use it. However, I could think of hypotheticals that would be very challenging - but those would not be the primary reasons why other people might disagree. True. Most of those who disagree do so because the emphasis on individual liberty means that we must tolerate actions that we don’t like. This is a bitter pill for those who think their values should be everyone’s values, but swallowing that pill is the price of liberty.