tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6557458849091969678.post1698123585644460897..comments2023-06-15T09:13:45.467-04:00Comments on Liberty's Torch: What Does Not Change: A Slightly Early RuminationFrancis W. Porrettohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05862584203772592282noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6557458849091969678.post-41727184600249956302019-12-07T16:04:44.924-05:002019-12-07T16:04:44.924-05:00Two points: I generally agree that technology has ...Two points: I generally agree that technology has driven us further apart from those physically closest to us. However, it too has brought closer together, us for example, those that we might not otherwise ever had the opportunity to know.<br /><br />Second. To your first item and your comment, I am reminded of what drove ME to define my first principle's root conclusion - in holding that principle I must acknowledge and protect that each other person on this planet has EXACTLY the same 'right or principle even if they never assert it'. The reasoning, the statement that FINALLY gave substance to my principle that I lacked (it was floating there in my brain, untethered to a foundation, unclarified or well defined) was:<br /><br />"That principle is, that the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinions of others, to do so would be wise, or even right. These are good reasons for remonstrating with him, or reasoning with him, or persuading him, or entreating him, but not for compelling him, or visiting him with any evil, in case he do otherwise. To justify that, the conduct from which it is desired to deter him must be calculated to produce evil to some one else. The only part of the conduct of any one, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. <b>Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.</b>"<br /><br />I leave you to find the source though I bet most here know it.Tracy Coylehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13396494193507308556noreply@blogger.com