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 : Should God be replaced? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Solon who wrote (20536)	6/20/2005 4:26:33 PM
From: Oeconomicus	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 28931

"These rights may not conflict because by definition they are Absolute rights--SPECIFICALLY limited to any point where they would intrude, interfere, or otherwise violate such rights in other individuals." I think this is the heart of the matter. Let's take, for example, one of the commonly recognized liberties we all enjoy - freedom of speech. Is it absolute or is it limited? It can't be both. The reality is that it is limited (by society by mutual consent of its members). If it were absolute, then it clearly COULD conflict with the rights of others. Society has allowed speech to be limited, for example, to protect the rights of the accused to a fair trial or the rights of a rape victim to privacy. Or for another, in the interest of national security (i.e. to protect the legitimate functioning of government in defense of our rights against an enemy who doesn't care about such things). You acknowledge that rights we consider inalienable can also legitimately be limited, right? You even say when - "where they would intrude, interfere, or otherwise violate such rights in other individuals." So, it seems the difference in our positions is that what I describe as society's laws determining the precedence of rights in conflict, you describe as a "limitation" on rights that prevents them from conflicting. You are simply defining away the problem. Let me ask you - where do the "limitations" come from? Who decides where my right to freedom of speech ends because it may interfere with your right to a fair trial - or even which right, yours or mine, is more important? I say society decides, through it's laws. You say ... what?