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 (135)	6/29/1998 5:25:00 PM
From: Mama Bear	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13056

Hmm, so terroristic threats are ok? Barb

To: freeus who wrote (135)	6/30/1998 2:49:00 AM
From: Rob Lyman	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13056

>>If you can drink and/or take drugs and be a good driver, the government has no business bothering you. When a govt is into "prevention" we are all in big trouble. Only hurting people, hurting someone else's property (not your own) or stealing someone's property is a crime. Or ought to be.<< Hmmm. I agree that neither drinking/drug taking nor automobile driving are acts which should be prohibited by government. The problem I have is the activity of doing both at the same time -- it seems that this dual activity is clearly putting others into danger, and hence should be prevented. Following this line of reasoning further leads to all kinds of seemingly indefensible behaviors. For example, would you tolerate firing a shotgun in a crowded mall? Both firing a shotgun and being in a crowded mall are reasonable activities, but doing them together clearly puts others at considerable risk. From your perspective, this act should be protected (unless, of course someone is "accidentally" wounded in the process of this dangerous act -- in that case a crime has been committed and I guess, the shooter should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law). Please clarify this for me. Would you argue to protect these types of behaviors?

To: freeus who wrote (135)	6/30/1998 9:45:00 AM
From: MeDroogies	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13056

Freeus, there is - without a doubt - a need to prevent proven potential harm. To just say that drunk driving is okay because nothing has happened is to turn a blind eye to the rights of the people who are unknowingly put at risk. Your story about the killer is a perfect example...he should have been jailed, IMHO. Threats constitute a violation of privacy and safety. To expand your scenario, Neville Chamberlain was the only real Libertarian hero of WWII because he did nothing to stop the "threat" of Hitler, which is the right and proper thing. Clearly, that scenario was wrong, as Hitler had made his intentions quite clear and Chamberlain was hoping for the best to occur...that Hitler was bluffing. I, for one, do not want to be driving on roads which are populated TO ANY DEGREE by drunk drivers who WON'T face penalties. The lack of a penalty would allow more people to drive drunk - increasing by some magnitude the number of injuries and fatalities to non-drinking individuals. It is perfectly acceptable to imbibe and impair oneself, but if the net result of that impairment is to put others at risk, then you have violated the rights of those other people.

To: freeus who wrote (135)	6/30/1998 9:55:00 PM
From: Fangorn	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 13056

freeus, Driving while intoxicated is exactly the same as shooting a gun in the air without knowing who or what is downrange. I have a right to expect that the driver coming toward me in the other lane is a competent driver. Should we let blind people drive?

To: freeus who wrote (135)	3/24/1999 8:21:00 AM
From: The Street	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 13056

Libertarians FINALLY make a NATIONAL difference!!!! +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ FREEDOM Watch A look at what's new on "Project FREEDOM." ( house.gov ) +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Issued: Tuesday, March 23, 1999 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ NOTE: Rep. Paul will be a guest on CNN's Talk Back Live in the 3 pm (EST) hour, discussing the situation with Kosovo. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ "Know Your Customer" regs withdrawn Rep. Paul says action is a small victory for Americans everywhere WASHINGTON, DC -- Facing heated protests from more than a quarter-million Americans, federal regulators today announced they are withdrawing the proposed "Know Your Customer" regulations that would have forced banks to spy on American citizens. The agencies proposing the regulations were the Federal Reserve, the FDIC, the Office of Comptroller of the Currency, and the Office of Thrift Supervision Leading the charge against "Know Your Customer" has been US Rep. Ron Paul (R, Texas), the only member of the House's Committee on Banking and Financial Services to oppose a blueprint of the plan the rest of the committee endorsed in 1998. "This has been a minor skirmish in the battle over privacy rights and the protection of civil liberties, but it is a victory for which many people have worked very hard," said Rep. Paul, who early this year introduced H.R. 516, to overturn the regulations if implemented. "I'm pleased so many organizations and individuals were willing to stand up against these agencies. Besides having an obvious effect on the regulators, their actions helped convince some of my colleagues to change their position and oppose this blatantly unconstitutional privacy violation."... ...<SNIP>... Read the entire press release at: house.gov +++++++++++++++++++++++ +++++++++++++++++++++++ +++++++++++++++++++++++ To be removed from this list, send a reply e-mail with the word "remove" in the Subject line. Please DO NOT send e-mail correspondence to this address, as the message WILL NOT be read or processed. Go to house.gov for information on how to send questions, comments and suggestions using the Internet. FREEDOM Watch is a service of Rep. Ron Paul's office. By signing up, recipients are requesting to be notified when new items are posted, or changes are made, to US Rep. Ron Paul's congressional web site, Project FREEDOM, house.gov