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 : The Trump Presidency -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (5212)	1/7/2017 7:05:06 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 367519

>>>It's always exceedingly difficult even when feasible to share the commons. One way to avoid the problem is to keep what we handle as commons to only what inherently common. <<< We have a full range of values identification that are best kept as diversely distributed rather than inherently common. We do have a few values that are inherently common due to our foundation. We have agreed to the enlightenment principle as a restraint when constructing laws and systems: 'I agree not to harm others as long as the system protects me from harm perpetrated by others.' >>>"I am not disagreeing with that. I am disagreeing on how best to achieve it."<<< I don't have a particular way, just a premise, so I'm not understanding the disagreement. >>>One way to avoid the problem is to keep what we handle as commons to only what inherently common. <<< I'm not sure if I understand this. Whatever is inherently common is of course shared. WRT people who are not able to provide for their own sustenance, we can and should supplement their condition to the minimal point of sustenance. We are currently doing that and far beyond. I added a condition which is their obligation to participate toward the common good. I didn't define a particular requirement and I don't think I need to provide examples of behavior which is counter to the common good.