On 12/4/05, R. Quenett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> There is, however, at least one strong moral prohibition (the one
> against theft - remember the comment way back in the beginning of
> this thread about respect for private property?) against an
> individual, absent the their explicit consent, being compelled to
> help someone else, whatever their situation.
>
> " the current system. OTOH, the answer is not a Hillary care system
> " where the individual has no choice and where procedures can be termed
> " "elective" at the whim of a governmental body.
>
> I completely agree that the above sort of system is no answer -
> except for the bureaurat/politician seeking a lifetime sinecure and
> may everyone else be damned (and we most likely are ,-).
>
> In fact, the situation is quite black and white: either the legal
> system (usually and incorrectly referred to as the 'justice' system)
> recognizes the inalienable moral right of the individual to do as
> they choose with their own property or it does not.
>
Wow, R. Pigs do fly, and I'm skating on Hell's ice rink! I can find
nothing but agreement in what you say. Individual liberty vs. coercion
is the eternal struggle.
--
Collins Richey
Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code ... If you write
the code as cleverly as possible, you are, by definition, not
smart enough to debug it.
-Brian Kernighan
_______________________________________________
[email protected]
Unsub/Pause/Etc : http://mail.linux-sxs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/general
