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: Ilaine who wrote (116022)	5/25/2005 10:04:14 AM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793842

What a fatuous response. The fact that the Connecticut laws were not enforced is a silly rationalization since citizens are expected to obey the law. It's like saying that it's OK to speed because you are unlikely to get caught. Why don't you argue that bit of silliness to the people who were affected by the laws impinging sexual privacy? You know, the ones who had their their homes broken into and who actually landed in jail. The far radical right ultimately wants to not only control our bedroom behavior but our behavior. In case you haven't noticed, the right to privacy is rooted in our traditions. The Supremes didn't seem to get this point when the first slew of decisions came out, but they do now. In that sense, the right to privacy is fundamentally a conservative notion which jives perfectly with libertarian ideas. You heard it here first. And it is exactly why a conservative like myself has no problem joining up with the right to privacy advocates, labels [and Mq's slogans] be damned. Inappropriate regulation of behavior by a Legislature can happen--it has happened!-- without the courts providing a safeguard. Label them as "intelligentsia" if you will, if they provide the required protection for our freedoms, you can call them Donald Duck for all I care. You should reconsider whether you are in fact a libertarian. It seems to me that you are willing to allow the legislatures, which you erroneously conflate with "the people," to do whatever they want. Your "Hey, it's the law" argument might have found a home in Central Europe in the 1930s, but there is no way it should be allowed to prevail here. Even Scalia has recognized that, if implicitly and on 4th amendment grounds, when he wrote the decision disallowing the use of thermal detectors to search for indoor marijuana farmers.