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 : Libertarian Discussion Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Mama Bear who wrote (84)	6/29/1998 2:31:00 PM
From: Turboe	Respond to of 13062

Excellent point!

To: Mama Bear who wrote (84)	6/29/1998 3:02:00 PM
From: Henry Volquardsen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13062

Excellent point Barbara and good supporting examples. There have been many atrocities committed that were perfectly legal. Immoral acts are immoral regardless of the legal cover. That was the essential point of the Nuremberg Trials. Libertarianism is not about anarchy, the absence of law. What would be against the law under a Libertarian system would be acts intended to harm another. Murder and theft are still immoral and would be against the law. Perpetrating violence or fraud would also be illegal.

To: Mama Bear who wrote (84)	6/29/1998 3:31:00 PM
From: Mike P.	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 13062

and there were a couple pretty bloody wars to right the wrongs of a few i might add. funny how democracy, individual rights, free markets, and freedom correct themselves. i will not however, be as dramatic as saying the right to legalize a chemical substance compares with the tryanny of nazi germany and an effort to topple such tyranny, though im sure a case in the number of casulaties could probably be made. what is so wrong with a civilizied society making a concerted effort to prevent a highly destructive chemical? is there any benefits to anyone for any reason to engage in these practices? there are laws that this country, as a collective democracy, must engage in. i still fail to see any benefits or alternatives or socially redeeming value in the legalization of drugs, and im somewhat surprised at the adament opposition. again, i respectfully disagree and apprecitate your willingness to defend your positions. some good points were definately made, but i still defend my position. thanks. poet.