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.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ilaine who wrote (29662)	1/31/1999 2:24:00 PM
From: Edwarda	Respond to of 108807

Blue, I'd be interested in your response to this posting of mine: Message 7581577

To: Ilaine who wrote (29662)	1/31/1999 2:31:00 PM
From: Father Terrence	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 108807

Just because Jefferson was wrong in owning slaves, does not mean that the concept of rights is not valid. Rights are immaterial, however, if a society wants to be told what to do, when to do it and how to do it, and if the perception is that the individual is subordinate to the State. Societies that hold the State supreme are ones such as Nazi Germany, facist Italy, the Soviet Union, the Ayatollah's Iran, Saddam's Iraq, Communist China, etc. The difference is the philosophical foundation on how the individual is recognized. FT

To: Ilaine who wrote (29662)	1/31/1999 6:02:00 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 108807

Rights are a concept. A human construct. As such I like them. As I told Edwarda there are rights I want. Of course rights normally impose duties, so they don't come free. If you have the right to your own property you have the duty not to take the property of others. But as I said before- all this talk of rights is nothing more than words. It isn't as if there are rights police to look out for you every minute. If your rights are violated YOU have to know they are, and then you have to go to court to take care of it- assuming your interpretation of your rights squares with precedent and statute- then your grievance is redressed. But it doesn't make the assault to your rights non-existent. So this concept of inalienable strikes me as a little absurd. People get killed every day in this country- their right to life is alienated. No precious words by anyone is going to stop a bullet. And criminals are put to death, after due process, their inalienable right to life is clearly not all that inalienable.