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: Dale Baker who wrote (22692)	7/2/2006 4:44:06 PM
From: Jim S	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 541602

Whoa, slow down, Dale!! Yeah, I'm right of center on a lot of issues, but not on everything. At least, not since the center line got moved in the past years. For people on the right, how much interference do they want with sexual and reproductive conduct? Flag burning? Dirty words on TV? Nipples in public? Maybe you should carry your argument to Jerry Falwell or some such person. I can't speak for them, nor do I have any desire to do so. Since you asked, I can speak for myself, though. a) I don't think the gov't has any business trying to deal with "reproductive rights" (which I assume is your euphemism for abortion). Such things are, IMIO, totally out of the purview of the gov't. b) The Supremes got it right on flag burning. As distasteful as I find it, it is a 1st Amendment right. c) Dirty words and nipples are things that have to do with societal mores, and shouldn't be subject to national governmental interference. If a community doesn't like those things, they should take action locally, not nationally. And, although you didn't ask, I also think that the "war on drugs" is a waste of time and resources, and has become an end in itself, becoming a "rice bowl" for governmental officials and some others. I'd deal with drugs by natural selection, letting the jerks die on the street, with ample quantities of cheap drugs in their pockets, and absolutely no public funds expended to help or encourage them. For matters of public safety beyond the capabilities of individuals, such as food inspections and financial regulations, the government does have reason to be involved. But not for matters of personal choice, such as seatbelts. Stoplights and lines in the center of the road are sensible; forcing people to comply with rules that affect only themselves do not.

To: Dale Baker who wrote (22692)	7/3/2006 5:35:15 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541602

For people on the right, how much interference do they want with sexual and reproductive conduct? Flag burning? Dirty words on TV? Nipples in public? I consider myself, and am generally considered by others, to be on the right. I want very little to no intervention in any of those areas. Maybe a little intervention against public nudity (but even then I'm not leading a campaign against it, just accepting the fact that people want such laws, and that I don't consider such laws to either be unconstitutional or a grave injustice), and certainly things like non-consensual sexual acts should be interfered with, but generally I'm against heavy government interference. With Lane3's seatbelt case I'm against the exact current law for both practical reasons and reasons of principle. If they modified the law in such a way as to deal with her objections while still maintaining a seatbelt requirement than most of the practical objections would go away, but the reasons of principle would remain. I'm also mostly with Jim S on the "right to be fools" idea.