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: exdaytrader76 who wrote (21339)	7/19/2005 12:18:30 PM
From: Oeconomicus	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 28931

Actually, that "study" (using the term loosely) was arguing for regulating all births. I'm not sure how one would accomplish that without regulation of sex, forced abortions and sterilizations, and other serious impositions on our liberty, not to mention our bodies, but that's what Hardin was arguing for. Frankly, I'm not sure why anyone who values liberty would cite that "study" for anything, unless as an example of the kind of would be tyrant that we need to watch out for.

To: exdaytrader76 who wrote (21339)	7/19/2005 12:46:05 PM
From: TigerPaw	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 28931

By this reasoning, should it be completely unregulated ... A common does not have to be a physical entity. For example there is (at least in my opinion) a common in the reputation for medical care. We do not all share in the common equally (just as you or I have little benefit from a sheep pasture in Massachusetts) but doctors share a great deal in order to have a good reputation for the medical profession. We all derive a benefit, even if only psychological, because the doctors have a good reputation. Therefore, there is reason for regulation in medical procedures including abortion, but I don't see where that is carried over to the decision of whether to have the procedure or not. The interest there seems to be confined to the people immediately affected. One good test for a common is to imagine whether it would affect you at all if you didn't know about it. A puff of toxic smoke in the air could easily effect you, but if nobody told you that some stranger had surgery, then what business is it of yours? TP