SI
SI
discoversearch

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
Actual left/right wing discussion
An SI Board Since September 2006
Posts SubjectMarks Bans
10087 36 0
Emcee:  one_less Type:  Moderated
Introduction Compact
Previous 25 | Next 25 | View Recent | Post Message
Go to reply# or date (mm/dd/yy):
ReplyMessage PreviewFromRecsPosted
9562<i>I don't see why not. Endeavoring is a necessity, where as, all endeLane3-12/30/2010
9561<i>Because of A, therefore B, C, and D.</i> Huh??? We hold these [Lane3112/30/2010
9560<i>B, C, and D are natural rights to which A applies - that is, to which wneolib-12/30/2010
9559<i>"You can't claim endeavoring as a natural right without eitherone_less-12/30/2010
9558B, C, and D are not conclusions derived from a premise, A. B, C, and D are naturOeconomicus112/30/2010
9557<i> I'm opposing the idea that the statement is primarily about fairneneolib-12/29/2010
9556<i> Since that's not what "endowed by their Creator with certain neolib-12/29/2010
9555<i> If you want a central theme for all of this, try liberty on for size. neolib-12/29/2010
9554<i>"I have no idea what "power to the people" would be otheOeconomicus-12/29/2010
9553<i>"I contrast that with say, a claim that we should do X because theOeconomicus-12/29/2010
9552<i>In that case, the Devine Right of Kings was correct after all.</i>Lane3-12/29/2010
9551<i>Yet, per your statement above, they are not related at all.</i> Lane3112/29/2010
9550<i>Ah, well, that was a bit broad,</i> No kidding... <i>Do yLane3112/29/2010
9549Okay, so you said this: <i>Let me give you an easy one: "all men areneolib-12/29/2010
9548<i>I was talking about rights, not just legal rights.</i> I don'neolib-12/29/2010
9547<i>If I could either come up with some other reason for why they weren'Lane3-12/29/2010
9546Ah, well, that was a bit broad, but still closer than anything else I've seeneolib-12/29/2010
9545<i>I do very much agree with you in the sense that I don't see anythinLane3-12/29/2010
9544How else would you describe equality under the law, other than fairness? Why weneolib-12/29/2010
9543<i>But not in support.</i> We have laws supporting marriage. <ineolib-12/29/2010
9542<i> but its still an abstract philosophical concept, not something concretneolib-12/29/2010
9541<i>Where did I say that? </i> "From there you could stray intoLane3-12/29/2010
9540Err...yes, I guess.neolib-12/29/2010
9539Besides the fact that journals won't publish much like that, there is alwaysneolib-12/29/2010
9538The way you stated things, a horribly progress tax would be the right of the midneolib-12/29/2010
Previous 25 | Next 25 | View Recent | Post Message
Go to reply# or date (mm/dd/yy):
HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2026 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News