decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
Responsibility | 355 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
poster of original, mandatory car insurance, and tax break
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 02 2012 @ 04:15 PM EDT
I had blue cross from 1991 until 2010 when I was laid off. Unemployment was max
at $2k/month, cobra was $1100/month... I had emergency surgery 04/07/2011...
Total charge? $260k+... No 401k, etc and i'm down to around 25k outstanding
bills which i'm paying $10, $20 and $25 a month... Don't tell me about personal
responsibility. Go tell HP who bought EDS and laid off 23k people.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Responsibility
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 13 2012 @ 03:00 PM EDT
Too many have read the term 'inalienable rights' and never take it back to
Frances Hutcheson's definition of the term in the 1600's. He defined them as
coequal in power to the common good, not exceeding it. This is akin to the
'enlightened' prefix being removed from Adam Smith's 'self interest' as the
basis for laissez faire.

The U.S. Constitution is a social compact, a contract where individual rights
are balanced against the common good, or what it calls the general welfare. We
limit our individual absolute natural rights in exchange for a stable society
that secures those rights. The inherent tension between inalienable rights and
the common good should be perpetual. At least that's what Hobbes, Locke and
Rousseau tell me.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )