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 (2830)	5/13/1999 8:22:00 AM
From: Neocon	Respond to of 13056

Since several people who had apparently missed an earlier post used it yesterday, I will re- post an e- mail address:Neocon@bigfoot.com. Remember that I am on Go2Net, and do not get PMs. Bigfoot is a forwarding service, and I will decide how to respond after I get a message, so don't be surprised if the response has a different return address.

To: Neocon who wrote (2830)	5/19/1999 10:04:00 PM
From: Richard Babusek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13056

Neocon, Morality has always been subject to prudential calculation. That is why, for example, one can kill in self- defense, or tell a "white lie", or withhold a gun from a madman, even if it is his.... One can kill for many reason, but murder is forbidden. Clarity on the difference between killing and murder is a perpetual difficulty I have with my Christian brethren. I have difficulties with both the religious and secular as a result of these misunderstandings on the death penalty. To lie is not the sin, but to take advantage of another by deception is. When your “visually challenged” Aunt Mabel asks “does this make me look (fat, thin, ugly)" please don't have a moral hernia about telling “the truth”. A madman's property, civil, or human rights to own a gun may be forfeited by him by his actions, or preempted by the state. They are not equally coercive to freedom. “Prudential calculation” sounds like a recognition that the hierarchy of moral priorities is not fixed. Therein lies a massive problem for laws, because codifying causes a rigidity antithetical to prudence, ie., “did he lie or not?”. It fosters a legal rather moral outlook on life. In our attempt to legally perfect society, things get out of hand. I remember the first property we bought thirty years ago. We read, and largely understood several documents while in escrow, it took about one hour (we actually read all the papers we signed). We recently purchased another property. The document list was so massive, we had to sign for about an hour. There was no way anyone could have understood all of those documents, we didn't read them. So the results, of all the good intentions behind all the codes that require (directly or indirectly) that I sign these documents, is that my signature no longer means anything. As a matter of fact it winds up as coercive, “either sign or forfeit”. Ricardo