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 (5605)	1/10/2017 7:44:58 PM
From: neolib	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 357285

don't hurt people or take their stuff. It is not about: That is too simplistic, because the real core of Libertarians is "don't tell people what to do." I suppose you could claim that is implied by "not hurting them" and "not taking their stuff", buts it clearer to state it the way I did. And from there you can see why smoking doesn't cause cancer, evolution is a hoax, and burning fossil fuels can't cause trouble, and guns don't kill people. Because Libertarians can't come to grips with how individual freedom intersects with society. Let me turn it around: Do you think that in some cases there are definitive answers to questions that impact society as a whole, and that such answers might suggest society wide responses to those issues, that would include restricting individual behaviors? I.e. might it actually be the case that (I'm not asking whether you think it is, I'm asking whether in principle it might be the case) that a society with more weapons is a more dangerous society, and therefore restricting weapons might be wiser, that a society that teaches its kids nonsense about science might be shooting itself in the foot, and therefore kids aught to have some minimum exposure to reality, that burning fossil fuels might in fact be raising the global temp and that therefore altering our energy strategy might be useful, etc, etc? Or do you think that every idiots view on the subject, formed by listening to nutcase media fools, should get equal weight in the "marketplace of ideas"?