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: one_less who wrote (9567)	2/4/2017 7:05:12 PM
From: Lane3	1 Recommendation Recommended By one_less Respond to of 356756

We don't need the happiness code at all to justify our movement in that direction. Maybe we don't NEED it because we have been making progress anyway, in fits and starts but it sure firms things up in favor of the freedom to pursue happiness. Likewise, there are limits on just about everything we do in the pursuit of a more joyous life You seem comfortable with limits. Limits that obviate the use of force are inherently valid. Other limits, not so much. I think it's a question of default. The limit has to be justified; the default should be latitude. Everyone doesn't see it that way. For many, the default is conformity. Locke insisted pursuit of happiness meant individual possessions (property) and efforts to build riches should not be interfered with by the government. Thus my question. Same with property. The default is that your property is yours.