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 : Actual left/right wing discussion -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: koan who wrote (8671)	11/25/2010 2:18:02 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 10087

Whne we live in a society we have to give up some freedom to the tribe. Depending on how precisely you define freedom yes. (Consider the expression, "your freedom to swing your fist, stops at my nose", in a sense outlawing attacks on others may be considered to not be restricting freedom. But in perhaps a more commons sense its a justified restriction on freedom.) But the amount we need to give up, in order to allow for the proper functioning of society is quite minimal, and in fact society would work better if the government didn't try to take as much freedom away from us as it does. Descrimination is descrimination In one sense yes. Also pumpkin pie is pumpkin pie, a point which is about as useful to this conversation as your statement. In another sense no. Different forms of discrimination are very different things. Some of which are positive. Its a word with a much wider meaning than what might be covered by the phrase "discrimination based on race, sex, religion, or national origin". It includes discriminating between high quality goods and low quality goods, and discriminating between terrorist who want to board an airplane carrying a bomb, and ordinary travelers. Even limiting the discussion to "discrimination based on race, sex, religion, or national origin", or to some similar construction, different forms of that are very different. Hiring an actor because his race fits the role is discrimination based on race. A woman looking for only other women, or perhaps only members of her religious or ethnic group to be roommates with is discrimination, as is wanting to date only members of certain groups. Even if we limit it more to unjust and/or obnoxious versions of such discrimination, the different forms and actions in that general category would be very different. Most discriminatory actions, are not properly the business of government at any level, and particularly not the business of the federal government as laid out in our constitution. Society says: "you maay not murder or rob people and you may not descriminate. Society doesn't, no society every has, and probably no society ever will, say "you must not discriminate", and actually try to enforce that idea. But I understand that your using the term in a much more narrow way. But even with a narrow construction of the term, discrimination is very different that robbery or murder. Both of those are initiating force against someone else, they are aggressive injustices, not just exercising your freedom of association in peaceful (even if in this case potentially obnoxious) ways.