Wed, Aug 27, 2014, 7:29 PM EDT - U.S. Markets closed


% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

Berkshire Hathaway Inc. Message Board

  • sometomfool sometomfool Jul 4, 2003 1:04 PM Flag

    I'm pushing the issue.

    Because I just need to hear these smart educated guys through...if I can keep them on the issues I'm asking about I just might learn something!

    Of course they seem alfull iritable trying to get to the point of how a generous non vidicitive person like christ (except when it come to the after life where he's allowed that he's allowed to be vindicitive if we want to get through his narrow gate) would see himself ok with making rules for people out of force of imprisonment or seizure of their worldly goods, or force others to essentially enact the same fate on them.

    Sure seems like there is plenty of time to be judged later. (like when he pops back down here to judge the living or the dead, or when we get hit by a truck or something)

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • "come on pat....

      The law has to fit with your view...
      The law has to fit with my view...
      The law has to fit with the view of everyone and everyone disagrees..."

      Worldly law is based on ignorance.
      It sickens you because you understand that a bad norm can dictate how you live.
      Thus I agree by stating that in this way it is untenable to say the law is fair.

      "Then out of necessity we pass some laws"

      We pass some laws based on ignorance.
      It sickens again because some new bad norms can dictate how we live.
      I just wanted to make the point that by keeping passing such laws we don't have the right answer.

    • Having the government do such other than the police power conflicts with liberty.

      If we speak of the actual form of government, I agree with you.

    • "You have chosen to ignore my distinction time and again as has mule that I believe as phoolish philllip so eloquently spelled out that there is a destinction between the police power of the state used to keep people from shootingl, raping, blackmailing and stealling from each other"

      Phoolishphilip doesn't seem to have studied about ethics and thus he appears to have no valid basis to discriminate between secular law and ethics.

    • "but elightened people don't make laws and unenlightened people can't guess who is enlightend or not, but they can somehow make social laws to fit the enlightened?)"

      The social laws are not made to fit the enlightened. They don't need them at all.

      The social laws should be made to fit ordinary people, trying to help them as much as possible in order that they attain happiness.

      The way the laws are presently made, they do mostly hurt people.

    • "I said either come out and say its ok to be your brothers keeper or say one must not be ones brothers keeper."

      At a certain level of understanding, one has to do
      whatever is possible to help any sentient being, without any discrimination.

    • "to understand if you guys really have a rational system or one built on feeling"

      Rational system, not built on feeling.
      Secular laws are based on the feelings of the majority of people.

    • "Even though you believe outlawing adultery wouldn't be prudent, your idea of government does allowed those entitled to make the rules of governmetn to punish such acts?"

      Not exactly. Notice that whenever I've been talking about governments, I've been talking about modern governments. A modern government isn't my idea of an ideal government.

      No, my ideal government wouldn't be the kind of power-hungry monster that would outlaw adultery. However, governments are suited to particular states, and this ideal government exists in the context of a population that has a more or less united understanding of what it means for human beings to flourish--everybody would have a certain kind of "American Dream" if you take my meaning. My government would be extremely decentralized, not federal, and would govern only small local communities.

      My government cannot likely exist in today's world. The governments of the here and now are the sole grantors of "rights." If they want to take those "rights" away, there's no fundamental reason that they can't other than internal restrictions that can be changed by a tyrant. So yes, the modern state, because it doesn't start out with eternal rules and is the holder of all of the cards in the rights game, can do whatever it damn well pleases about adultery. However, quoting Bush Sr., it wouldn't be prudent.


    • So yes, in that loose sense, they would have the "right" to make adultery illegal.

      I don't like to put eroneuos words in peoples mouths NLH...but if I put words in ones mouths that they say YES to, words that aren't wife beater one offs but at the very heart of the issue of what I am seeking answers too...I just don't see it that way.

      If I was using that as hearsay to make you come off as an A-hole I could understand it.

      But the very essence of my probing is to understand if you believe you logic would allow that sort of intervention. That is what I am interested in.

      You have answered it I believe and I don't think its too much of a jump that some people find that logic dangerous to rights of the minority.

      Out of courtesey (even though I had just quoted your own words abover my statment) if starting fresh, would it be unfair for me to say.

      "Even though you believe outlawing adultery wouldn't be prudent, your idea of government does allowed those entitled to make the rules of governmetn to punish such acts?"

      Would that be an unfair sumation of a diffence of opinion as it relates to something pretty near and dear to my ideal of liberty?

    • >>>Claerly you think that if you felt so, you (or whoever you think is entitled to make the rules of our government ) would have the Right to make adusltry illegal.<<<

      Tom, you are usually really good at not putting words in my mouth. Don't mess up that record now. I have tried to approach this discussion without the hostility or shackles rising up that it is natural for me to have. I appreciate your normal courtesy and ask that you continue it.

      As government currently stands, they have the right to make anything illegal that is not specifically protected by the constitution. If a truly powerful government took over, they likely wouldn't have much difficulty changing that, either. So yes, in that loose sense, they would have the "right" to make adultery illegal. Do I think, on the other hand, that it would be PRUDENT to make adultery punishable by law? Probably not.

      Truthfully, rights-talk isn't particularly useful in discussing what the state can and cannot do, since generally speaking the support that "rights" had in enlightenment philosophy has been radically undercut by quite a few thinkers, especially Nietzsche. As it stands, rights are fiat sorts of things created by the state. It is therefore somewhat absurd to speak of what the state does and does not have the "right" to do, in an absolute sense, since present-day "rights" are granted by the state--e.g. the "Civil Rights" movement of the '60s.


    • <<<The law has to fit with your view...
      The law has to fit with my view...
      The law has to fit with the view of everyone and everyone disagrees...>>>

      Even though I have recognized your logical contructs might be corect and rational despite my digreement I have never once heard you recognize my logic as possibly being correct except for the fact you disagree.

      Why? I supsect that if you recognize that others might have ideas of enlightenment that are polarly different from your own, that you would recognize that you ideas might be such that they are denying others truth with the operational word *might*.

      If you recognized you *might* be wrong, as I recognize I *might* be wrong I'd think a rational personal would strike a middle ground allowing for the maximum rights of others to pursuie seperately their ideas of enlightenenss without interference from the law.

    • View More Messages
204,741.00+164.00(+0.08%)Aug 27 4:00 PMEDT

Trending Tickers

Trending Tickers features significant U.S. stocks showing the most dramatic increase in user interest in Yahoo Finance in the previous hour over historic norms. The list is limited to those equities which trade at least 100,000 shares on an average day and have a market cap of more than $300 million.