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: one_less who wrote (20830)	7/2/2005 12:41:25 PM
From: Solon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 28931

"I will have to give it some more thought, as I do not consider rights as being in conflict with responsibilities" The problem Oeconomicus is having stems from his failure to understand that these "inalienable rights" are circumscribed by definition. There is no absolute liberty, for instance. My freedom ends where it interferes with your freedom. If one were the only human on earth and one presumed that no other creatures had rights, then, yes...freedom would be without restrictions. But in community (as we live)--all "inalienable" rights are limited by those self same rights in others. It is the duty of law to sort out those restrictions, etc. It is a contradiction and a misunderstanding to say that these rights conflict. They do not. Yes...I cannot punch you in the nose...but that was never a part of my inalienable rights.

To: one_less who wrote (20830)	7/4/2005 8:54:31 PM
From: one_less	Respond to of 28931

"...as I do not consider rights as being in conflict with responsibilities." cus, I am sorry this is taking so long but you posed a difficult challenge and I still haven't been able to work through it. Topic: One person's inalienable rights can come into conflict with another? I say no. This topic is huge so for today I will simply try to make clear the direction I am taking. I will work on it and add to the presentation and/or argument later. The destiny of human beings is marked by progress toward the liberation of individuals from the tyranny of kings, dogma, and ordered establishment. Our era is no more naturally obliged to the authority of its predecessors than any other. Since we cannot trust completely in the rule of order or authority to guarantee our progress, we must take the responsibility in hand ourselves. Inalienable rights do not conflict, however civil freedoms may and do give rise to competition and cooperation over material interests. It is, in fact, this extension of human experience that opens the door for us to continue the struggle for progress toward the noble destiny of human existence. That fact also makes it imperative for enlightened souls to separate them selves from the dogma of their generation. In so doing, they are apt to find themselves on trial for heresy; if not in actuality, then definitely in social circumstance...so be it.