To me, this is retarded. "Freedoms" can collide. Whose freedom bounds whose. If I say I have the freedom to take your widget, and you say you have the freedom to prevent me from taking your widget, whose freedom prevails if the majority of the world says the widget goes to the person who can take it and keep it -- first possession and/or 'lawful acquisition' means nothing. Might makes right? From a practical perspective, we are all born with equal claims on continued existence. I do not believe you could identify a characteristic of an individual at birth that would make one more worthy of continued existence and one less worthy.Since we all have equal claims to existence, it follows that there is no source naturally granting one individual moral authority over another without the other person's consent. As such, might does not make right. Might can certainly accomplish what you describe (taking the other guy's widet), but "can" and "ought" are two different things. Even if might could let one individual manage to wrest the widget from another, it would not be "Right" because the "mighty" one would be assuming for himself a supremacy over the other guy that does not fundamentally exist given the equivalency of each at the time of their birth.In a nutshell, my freedom to swing my fist ends at the tip of your nose. Just because I can probably knock you down with the punch doesn't give me the right to throw it in the first place.Steve
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |
BATS data provided in real-time. NYSE, NASDAQ and NYSEMKT data delayed 15 minutes.
Real-Time prices provided by BATS. Market data provided by Interactive Data.
Company fundamental data provided by Morningstar. Earnings Estimates, Analyst Ra