Subject:
|
Re: IP ( was Re: LP POINT 1
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 2 Dec 2000 19:00:04 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
3534 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> > But, I am happy with what you call "government intrusion" and I'd be happy
> > to pay more tax if my $$ is used well.
>
> If I can give you all the benefits of your system but with less costs, why
> would you be against it? Or is it that you like the government intrusion of
> saying whether the populace can own Clockwork Orange or not, to pick a
> random example?
And even if you do like it, what gives you the right to foist it off on your
fellow? If you want your life out on public display, that's fine. But why
force my life to follow along?
Now, my stance that that government should stay the heck out of our lives does
have some problems, but they are the exceptions, not the rules. I believe that
since parents are in a unique situation enabling tremendous abuse potential,
that some degree of non-privacy is acceptable to ensure that kids are not
abused. But how much? And that's an exception.
Chris
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: IP ( was Re: LP POINT 1
|
| (...) Without getting into the question of which is better, it nevertheless still begs the question of why. WHY are you less interested in fun toys? Is it proper for a government to arrange its affairs so that people HAVE to be less materialistic to (...) (24 years ago, 1-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
78 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
