[lifeisstillgood]

In a free society, he is free to write as much as he likes and you are free to neither read nor reply to it.

The base of his argument is offending a persons preferences is not sufficient to self censor ones own actions - and I agree.

I also agree where he said any legal start up is fine and free of guilt - but don't worry I would be behind any start up or government initiative that gave away heroin to Junkies. The so called British System worked very well for many years, until the Puritan guilt pressure ended it in spite of empirical evidence that harm reduction did in fact reduce harm

so convert your start up to social entrpreneur status, and go make something to be proud of

the only reason to feel guilty is to have talent to create and not do so.

[freshhawk]

"I also agree where he said any legal start up is fine and free of guilt"

Really? The law, for very good reason, lags behind societal developments and shifts in social norms. Conflating "legal" with "ethical" shows a pretty profound misunderstanding of the two concepts.

[lifeisstillgood]

This is I think the crux of the problem. Most of us live in the large intersection of legal and ethical.

Some exist, like Greenpeace perhaps, in the ethical if not always legal. i suggest the British System sits there too.

But we argue here not over what is legal but what is ethical. Many things are agreed upon worldwide as unethical, rape murder etc. But a whole raft of other issues are ethical preferences - selling mortgages to high risk payers with two year low rates. It's legal. It may be ethical. Do you agree?

Btw I used legal there as the usual, large intersection meaning, as I think most of us do in daily lives

[moocow01]

"I also agree where he said any legal start up is fine and free of guilt - but don't worry I would be behind any start up or government initiative that gave away heroin to Junkies"

And if the government does make it legal to give away heroin? While that is seemingly improbable I think it can get dangerous to assume that laws are representative of ethics or humane behavior.

[lifeisstillgood]

Err - the British system was a compromise where it wa legal for doctors to prescribe herion to patients under their care - ie junkies, so they stopped petty crime to feed their habit and started getting some strucutres back in their lives

so I was in favour of that system, and think it ethical to look to harm reduction as opposed to all out prohibition. Which I think means we agree - but maybe not. I am not too sure

[corporalagumbo]

As I argue in my other reply, legal and ethical boundaries on the internet are still poorly if at all defined.

[zingahgud]

That is the understatement of the century.