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 (2673)	5/8/1999 9:28:00 PM
From: Dave Reed	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13056

I may have been careless in my choice of examples. I didn't mean to make an argument about remote risk vs. gross risk. Rather, I meant to argue that the important factor is who is making the choice that exposes someone to harm. The person directly responsible must be held accountable even if the actions of other people could have increased the likelihood that the directly responsible person made the harmful choice. I've been trying to put forward a guideline for identifying where rights have limits. My guideline is that people must not initiate force (broadly defined to include involuntary exposure to risk) or fraud. Your guidelines (as I understand them from your argument) seem to require both more knowledge about what is good for other people than I think we posses and more virtuous people to implement than I believe exist. I would like to leave less that is in the hands of the government to decide and more that is clear cut and "absolute." I don't agree that it is possible for a legislature to balance various risks and social goals and create a perfect society (or even a better one) by limiting various individual rights. Dave