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: one_less who wrote (14822)	11/13/1998 5:54:00 PM
From: jbe	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

No problem with "moral" and "principle", Abdul Haq. It's the word "superordinate" that gets me. Do you mean "superior"? If so, superior to what? The point of my comment (the one you quoted) was that it is impossible, not just utopian, to meet everyones needs absolutely and simultaneously (your definition of justice). Your comment seems totally unrelated to mine. You say: "Exactly. You can't even begin to rectify the current system without some superordinate philosophy as a foundation." I repeat, what part of the system needs rectifying, in your opinion? Seems to me there is nothing wrong with what you earlier called "American jurisprudence", that is, with the general philosophy of law underlying the American legal system as a whole. The problem, if there is one, may lie elsewhere: in the kind of laws we pass, in case overloads, or in the way our prisons are adminstered, for example. A revolution should not be necessary in order to fix such things. jbe