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: freeus who wrote (131)	6/29/1998 5:19:00 PM
From: Mama Bear	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13056

Having spent some time, actually a considerable amount, as a professional driver I am fully in favor of laws against intoxicated driving. Just the fact that someone can get from here to there without incident does not mean that it was not a threat to life or limb to do so. I believe a threat to life and limb is a criminal act, and should be treated accordingly. Now, does that mean I support these gestapo style road blocks that go up, which inconvenience the innocent along with the guilty? No, but that's probably a different argument. Barb

To: freeus who wrote (131)	6/29/1998 5:24:00 PM
From: Daniel W. Koehler	Respond to of 13056

freeus It's that same old public policy/common good argument. A LP friend of mine likes to recount the rationale for big government is that you must assume that the populace is overwhelmingly both stupid and dishonest. Then of course we need a big policeman to maintain order. My favorite Ayn Rand argument about "the common good" is that, to paraphrase, is an intellectual nullity having no objective meaning. Yet, talk to any Big Government advocate and you hear "common good" as the rationale for almost every incursion into individual rights. Sophistry! Daniel