Subject:
|
Re: Government's role [Was: Re: What happened?]
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 19 Jul 1999 01:09:39 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1116 times
|
| |
|
|
> > No way. Leaving Christianity aside for a moment, *anyone* would see the • folly of allowing a
> > homeowner in a "nice" neighborhood to exercise his free rights as property • owner to open a
> > brothel (which I assume you think should be legal; contracts, no victum, no • crime, etc.)
>
> I am someone, therefore part of "*anyone*", and I do not see the folly,
> assuming his property covenants do not prevent it, of engaging in a
> business in which no rights are violated. Sorry if your hidebound
> morals have a problem with it, but there it is.
That one is possibly a bad example - since arguably if you open
a brothel in a residential neighbourhood you are affecting the rights
of the people who live around there - simply because if you buy a
house in a residential neighbourhood you probably bought it to live there
peaceably - not to have a business open there which results in lots
of people coming in there with all the associated noise etc. That's got
nothing to do with the morals of a brothel - which I have no problems with.
I'd be unhappy if a brothel opened opposite my house - but then I'd be
even more unhappy if a factory puffing out lots of noxious fumes opened
there!
Simon
http://www.SimonRobinson.com
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Government's role [Was: Re: What happened?]
|
| (...) What gives the government the right to discriminate among contracts? It is then making a moral judgement that one sort of free will behaviour non rights damaging behaviour is better than another. Please address this fundamental point. (...) No (...) (25 years ago, 17-Jul-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
433 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
