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 (35839)	4/25/1999 10:38:00 PM
From: jbe	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

Blue, nihil's post was meant (I think) to parody current political philosophies. Libertarianism, like the others, lends itself to parody. This particular one pointed to libertarianism's weak spot. Specifically, not everyone necessarily has property; and the "haves" can use theirs to perpetuate force and/or fraud against the "have-nots" (unless The Authorities prevent them from doing so -- but this would not be "libertarian"). Or don't you agree? Joan

To: Ilaine who wrote (35839)	4/25/1999 11:11:00 PM
From: Grainne	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

<No one has the right to initiate the use of force or fraud against anyone else, or deprive that person of the use and enjoyment of his or her property.> There are cultures on earth, historically and in the past, where private ownership of land is not even a part of their philosophy. So it is certainly not a universal belief, even though it is part of a unitarian belief system. That does not make it right, although it creates an interesting topic to debate. In California the coast is considered a state treasure, and cannot be totally blocked from public access. Who says that only the richest among us should enjoy the most beautiful areas of the planet?

To: Ilaine who wrote (35839)	4/25/1999 11:11:00 PM
From: Grainne	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

Wow, that was weird! I got squidded today, and now the same message was entered twice in a row. Since it was not worth repeating, I hereby erase it and simply babble . . . So, here is something mildly interesting--Janet Reno is probing the parents of the Columbine High School shooters, to see what they knew, with the implication that they could possibly be prosecuted. This seems strange to me; teenagers running amok are notoriously secretive. I would never read my child's diary; just because one of these students had one doesn't mean his parents had a clue: companies.newspage.com