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 : Libertarian Discussion Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Neocon who wrote (2614)	5/5/1999 4:57:00 PM
From: Mama Bear	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 13056

OK. I believe that setting the gov't as arbiter of morality leads to a slippery slope. I do not believe that most moral folks are that way because of a law, and also don't believe that immoral folks will choose to be moral if the gov't codifies it. Regardless, " the need for an adequate regard for decency and civic virtue" and property rights are not mutually exclusive. Actually, I believe that a gov't that infringes on property rights is immoral. It's why the FF's put the takings clause in the Constitution. But today we have the EPA that has literally turned valuable land into worthless land because it has a mudhole, and is therefore 'wetlands'. Does the gov't pay the difference? Oh my, no. Heck, is that moral? Barb

To: Neocon who wrote (2614)	5/11/1999 11:31:00 PM
From: MeDroogies	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13056

I don't believe the gov't is neutral - ever. I don't believe it is moral, either. Gov't has inherent needs and desires. It is an organism that needs feeding, and has the ability to feed itself at the expense of its subjects. In fact, it is the only way it can be fed. For a Biblical reference, you can simply look at God's giving Israel a King. Originally, the Judges "ruled" Israel. They acted as moral arbiters. However, Israel wanted a King (a gov't), and God warned them that a King would enslave them and take their lands. How is that different from an overly intrusive gov't, such as our own? Do you need a moral arbiter? Sure. But it doesn't have to be a gov't. In fact, it could be from any number of sources. The only thing the gov't has to do is to act as a potential final arbiter and assure that individual rights have been upheld, and that no single person's has been trod upon.