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 (2645)	5/8/1999 3:08:00 AM
From: Dave Reed	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13056

If someone had a drug that was seeping into the groundwater that would cause madness, would it be a gross violation of his rights to insist upon coming onto his property and removing the hazard? No, it would be perfectly justifiable. However, behavior such as writing a novel that is only read by consenting adults is an absolute right, in my opinion, no matter what harm it causes to those readers. This has nothing to do with any sacredness of free artistic expression -- or even the first amendment -- to me. The difference is choice, the absence of force. I believe no adult or group of adults has any right to limit the choices of any other adults to engage in any consensual behavior. The examples you used: drugs seeping into other people's property, people creating disturbances on other people's property (i.e. shouting "fire" in a private theater), and fraudulent commercial speech are all acts of either force or fraud just as were your previous examples of child pornography and snuff films. Nobody, in my opinion, has a right to initiate force or commit fraud. If your examples are representative of what you mean by limits to rights, then we have no argument. I am not advocating a position that says people are free to do whatever they want to whomever they want, whether it's on their own property or anywhere else. Nor is that the libertarian view as I understand it. However, I think that you probably have other types of harm in mind when you talk about limits to rights. Can you identify cases where you would limit rights in the absence of any act of force or fraud? Dave

To: Neocon who wrote (2645)	5/8/1999 6:36:00 AM
From: Mama Bear	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13056

" If someone had a drug that was seeping into the groundwater that would cause madness, would it be a gross violation of his rights to insist upon coming onto his property and removing the hazard?" No, but again, you've got the rights of others being violated in your example. In this case, riparian rights. I believe the only place we disagree is victimless situations. I doubt you'll ever get me to defend the rights of the violator over the violated. Barb