Alberto Monteiro wrote: >Jim Sharkey wrote: >> >>>Ok, so you aren't really sick of laws protecting people from >>>themselves, right? >> >>I don't believe I was making that point at all by saying >>there are limits. >> >Those are your words. Should I tell you to get back >and read the files? :-P
I think we're misunderstanding each other here. I was saying that I was not backing from my original statement that I am sick of some of these laws. Perhaps adding the word "some" makes it more clear? >>You don't believe that a law that protects a dwarf's >>dignity by making him give up his job is a ridiculous >>example of protecting people from something they don't >>need protecting from? >> >I don't know It is a tough question, isn't it? I mean, suppose that this fellow doesn't have any other skills that would allow him to support himself as well as his chosen "profession?" Is it then incumbent on the government that took his job away with this law to train him in something else? > > > Admitting that there are times when the needs of > > society outweigh the needs of the individual does > > not equate with saying there are also times that > > society has its head up its collective ass. > > > So, the problem is just how much or how less should > society interfere in peer-to-peer relationships, > right? Yes, I'd say so. > > The dwarf case *is* something that should go to the UNO, > because there are dwarfs all over the world. I'll grant you that point. I just don't think that it is up to the UNO to decide what an individual should do for his employment, at least as it regards negative social stigma. Think about the jobs in your country that carry one. Should they stop being performed because they do? Jim ------------------------------------------------ Changed your e-mail? Keep your contacts! Use this free e-mail change of address service from Return Path. Register now! _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
