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 : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: neolib who wrote (7819)	12/21/2005 4:35:16 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 542035

In terms of increased regulations in cities: 1) Building codes/zoning regulations 2) Noise regulations 3) Environmental regulations 4) Animal regulations 5) Use of firearms A number of those would fit under what I talked about earlier, pragmatic situations resulting in a compromise, while in an area with low population density there is less, or even no need to compromise. If by use of firearms, you mean shooting firearms without strong specific precautions (like firing in a firing range) or strong justification (like self defense) than I would include that as one of the pragmatic compromises that make sense in the city. Even in the country there is a moral and legal requirement not to endanger others but you can use your firearms in more places and in more ways without endangering others. If you mean gun control, then I would consider it a mistaken pragmatic compromise. It gets implement with the hope of making people safer, but it actually does the opposite. Building codes/zoning regulations I consider part a pragmatic compromise and part a mistake compromise. The hard part is determining exactly where to draw the line. Only a very dogmatic libertarian would oppose building codes to keep large buildings from collapsing at the first quake in LA, but a good argument can be made against many forms of zoning. 6) Some freedom of expression I'm not sure what you mean but that in the context of increased regulations in cities. And do you see some freedoms that might be given up by people who live in rural areas? 1) Speech/expression issues especially wrt to sexual matters, but also including political or religious views. Think about what happens to gays in small, conservative settings Low population, or low population density doesn't have to mean conservative. But then even in liberal small towns you can get the same type of thing with a different slant, and I guess it can often happen in cities as well. The conservative small town might shun open homosexual couples. The liberal area might shun people who say homosexuality is immoral, or might require people to give benefits to homosexual couples. The libertarian idea is that whether you consider homosexuality to be a sin or not, you should not apply the force of law against consenting adults who are not harming others. Also whether you consider dislike or disapproval of homosexual behavior or homosexuals to be acceptable you shouldn't apply the force of law to control "homophobes" interaction with homosexuals (beyond preventing actual attacks against homosexuals). Both anti-sodomy laws and "politically correct" speech codes, would be anti-libertarian. Tim