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: Oeconomicus who wrote (21534)	7/21/2005 1:38:07 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 28931

"- they just ARE. " Our point of departure which I have tried, unsuccessfully, to reconcile seems to be this: Me: There are immutable natural laws that must be defined as inalienable according to the strict definition, that are endowed as a natural condition of personhood and 'incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred'. There are also personal and economic rights that are derived from societal order. These are also according to natural laws of reason but are changeable (limitable) depending on circumstance. You: Lump it all into one set of natural laws, for which you also insist upon using the term 'inalienable' but as changeable depending on the changing demands of societal order. My problem with your insistence on this position is that it subjects the notion of protected natural rights that are immutable to changeable, opening the floodgates of restrictions and impositions of a government without limits. At stake is no less than liberty, personal and economic freedom and the foundations that establish our legitimacy of self government.