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: Mike P. who wrote (148)	6/30/1998 10:12:00 AM
From: MeDroogies	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 13060

Perhaps you haven't read the Federalist Papers...or Locke...perhaps even the Constitution...I don't know. Maybe you've read all of them. What you missed is that the rights of the majority ARE NOT protected to a GREATER DEGREE over those of the minority. NOPE. In fact, the rights of the minority are SUPPOSED TO BE protected from infringement. A majority of 51% DOES NOT give a clear mandate on any subject...any more than a majority of 75% does, or 99%. There are still those who disagree. Their rights are supposed to be protected. Your analysis of the pursuit of happiness flies in the face of EVERY and I'm serious, you need to review your political philosophy, EVERY philosphers' views on what it means to pursue one's happiness. If 75% of the people think that car ownership is bad and outlaws it, what about the 25% who like cars? What recourse do they have? Under our system of laws, their rights should be protected, and they should be given some recourse to practice the right of car ownership... What the US has tended to do is TEACH and BELIEVE that majority rights RULE. THEY do NOT. As such, your views on drugs have proven your inability to coalesce the concept of legality and validity. You claim that you know the correlation between drugs and cigs/alcohol, but you lay it in terms of legality....That is a purely temporal thing. Validity has no temporal bounds. I want you to explain the correlation in a physical sense....tell me how one is more dangerous than the other....and why, due to this danger, one should be outlawed and the other legal. How is it valid for equally dangerous drugs to be treated differently?