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 (21717)	7/26/2005 8:43:22 AM
From: Oeconomicus	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 28931

"There are natural limitations on the pursuit of happiness, the use of property, and the exercise of freedom. This DOES NOT argue for a conflict or clash of “rights”. It simply recognizes that any right belonging to more than one is NECESSARILY a limited right." So, where I say the law defines the limits of our natural rights to keep them out of conflict, you say natural rights are naturally limited to keep them out of conflict, correct? Sounds a little like another po-tay-to po-tah-to problem, except for one thing. How do we know the "natural limits" in society without laws? Do we, on a conflict by conflict basis, just reason out what is right based on whether some third person would feel threatened by what the second person did to the first? Who does this? By at least one natural law philosopher, in a state of nature, the individual alone is the judge of whether his rights have been violated. In society, we ask judges to do it, but we give them laws to go by rather than relying solely on their powers of reason. We need laws, not just right reason or "natural limits", to define the limits of our rights and keep them out of conflict. And sometimes, as I demonstrated, the law fails to adequately define those limits, opening the door to conflicts that can not be resolved simply by saying to one party "Nope, that's beyond the limits of your rights." When that happens, we must create new laws, defining new limits, to prevent or guide the resolution of similar conflicts in the future.

To: Solon who wrote (21717)	7/26/2005 8:52:55 AM
From: Oeconomicus	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 28931

"Back to abortion issues: I have a right to property by Natural Law ... My most essential property is my physical body--wherein my life resides. To agree that you may not violate my body when I am not pregnant, but that you MAY violate it when I am...THAT would be rather absurd. An individual is an individual. He/she cannot (rightfully) be carved up into 2 or 3 or 4? I can no more support the right of society to control the body of a women than I can countenance the right of society to slit my throat." When did anyone suggest carving anyone "up into 2 or 3 or 4" or slitting their throats? That'd have to be your worst straw man yet. "And I support the same protection for you..." But not for an unborn child.