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 : Bill Clinton Scandal - SANITY CHECK -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jim Roof who wrote (1540)	9/5/1998 1:57:00 AM
From: Earl Risch	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 67261

Hi Jim, I believe you and I would disagree about the meaning of libertarianism (note with a small l), and I may need further clarification on some of your points. Someone or some group will in fact dictate legislation which by its very nature affects morality. I would hope that this would be a duly elected Congress restricted by the Constitution. Who will say no to them?... Is it wrong to police this group and their agenda? The legitimate duties of the federal government, as outlined by the constitution, are very limited and rightfully so. In a very broad sense, the intent IMO is to protect us, where necessary, from foreign powers, and from each other. The age of consent, the rights of minors, the nature of the marriage contract etc. are probably the legitimate concern of the federal government. Although in some of these examples, you might argue they should be relegated to the states. ...freedom divorced from responsibility and restraint IMO, the reason we have freedom divorced from responsibility and restraint is because the federal government is becoming everyone's nanny, guaranteeing that people will be protected from the consequences of their actions. ...there could well be a huge variance in these laws instead of the federally mandated homogenious legal texture that Washington wishes to paint across the nation in a broad stroke. I think that in some cases it is advantageous to persuade the individual states to agree, for instance on traffic laws, at least on the federal highways. In other cases, the variance in laws gives individuals some freedom to choose without moving out of the country. For instance, if I don't want to pay a state tax, I have some freedom to move to a state that does not have one. (Having the variance and choices also subjects the states to some of the pressures of supply and demand, which causes those in state governments to consider how to respond to the wishes of individuals, corporations ...) Neither the Crusades nor the Inquisition conformed to any of the basic tenets of Christianity... True, but Christianity was used to rationalize these atrocities, and religion is still the cause of many of the world's violent conflicts. It appears to me that the "inherently weak bricks", or "lives in disarray" probably has some basis in your belief that man is inherently evil. I believe that if you protect individual rights, there is no need for "moral policing". IMHO ER