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: MacCoy who wrote (35142)	2/23/1999 8:37:00 AM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

Indeed, many issues involve judgment, and are not simple, which is why political opponents need not be enemies. However, there may be guidelines to aid judgment. For example, I would not impose the death penalty unless there were evidence of aggravating circumstances, making the crime particularly heinous. Most states, in fact, have adopted that guideline. It is up to a particular prosecutor, judge, and jury to apply it. Similarly, I would say that no governmental decision that can be reserved to a lower level of government should be made at a higher level of government. Thus, municipalities should determine health standards for dining establishments, and states should plan the system of roadways. The federal government, under this system, would do a good seal less than it does now. Also, I would say that property rights should not be impaired without a compelling reason. Working out the application of those two guidelines is for the various governments. In a more coherent political environment, there would be a greater degree of consensus on the guidelines, and political disputes would only revolve around the more difficult cases. In fact, we live in a political environment where the guidelines I just articulated are highly controversial, and where the level of political dispute is consequently more grave.