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: Bill who wrote (86935)	11/18/2004 10:23:40 AM
From: D. Long	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793726

The answer is much simpler than prostitution or incest. "Simple dislike" is a rather understated and oversimplified waving off of cultural norms. We don't allow people to walk down the street buck naked. It doesn't violate anyone's rights, but it is socially unacceptable. We don't allow many things that would be considered nuisances because of social norms, or "simple dislike". "Getting along" in society entails more than a simplistic "don't violate my rights" slogan. What are one's rights? That has been a PhD mill for nigh on 400 years now. Are rights positive, or negative, or both? It doesn't resolve any questions. Libertarians and Randians will say that rights are negative, and corrollary to one's property interest in one's own life. It goes downhill into murky darkness after that. Derek

To: Bill who wrote (86935)	11/22/2004 11:06:58 PM
From: Dayuhan	Respond to of 793726

So you favor legalizing prostitution? Why not? Outlawing it has not exactly eliminated it, it has just forced it into a semi-underground state and made it easier to exploit and abuse participants. How about incest? I don’t think there’s enough demand for it to make any real difference whether we approve or not. I seriously doubt that laws against incest are or can be enforced in any event: it’s pretty hard to keep consenting adults from doing what they want to do. There has never been an unfettered legal right to "marry the person you want to marry." That’s true. We’re asking whether there should be one, and it seems to me that the only reasonable criterion for deciding that question should be whether the assertion of such a right would infringe upon anyone else’s rights. Seems to me we're discussing where the line should drawn. The great majority of Americans believe the line should be drawn at gay marriage. This may change over the next several decades, but for now, the will of the people must be respected. As I said before, the question really has nothing to do with gay marriage per se, it’s about defining a line between individual liberty and the popular will. Should a majority be able to tell a minority that they cannot do what they wish to do simply because the majority finds the desired action distasteful? That’s the question at hand, and I would personally prefer to come down on the side of liberty, unless the liberty in question has demonstrable negative consequences. Prejudice, no matter how widely held, is a poor basis for policy.