"Elisa" > wrote in
:

> if I got a stock tip from a good friend that could save me from losing
> $40,000 the very next day, I am not sure that I am that rightous to
> ignore the information.

In this case, it's not a matter of being righteous, but sensible. You'd be
perfectly in the "right" to act on it (ie. it's not an "evil" action), but
you'd also be placing yourself at risk of prosecution in our topsy-turvy
legal environment.

A great many laws are at best unfair and at worst downright evil. They
aren't created by saints. On the contrary, they're usually created by
rapacious special interests to plunder their competitors and prevent
upstarts from toppling them from their power. Representatives rarely read
the laws their interns write for them, but there's a movement afoot to
require Congress to read every word of every new law aloud to slow down
this abuse. They would no longer be able to claim igorance when they voted
for something horrific.

ScratchMonkey > wrote:
>In this case, it's not a matter of being righteous, but sensible. You'd be
>perfectly in the "right" to act on it (ie. it's not an "evil" action), but
>you'd also be placing yourself at risk of prosecution in our topsy-turvy
>legal environment.
No, it has nothing to do with what laws are in effect. Wrong is wrong
and there's no way around it. I'm sorry you're incapable of seeing
that.

"ScratchMonkey" > wrote in message
. ..
> "Elisa" > wrote in
> :
>
>> if I got a stock tip from a good friend that could save me from losing
>> $40,000 the very next day, I am not sure that I am that rightous to
>> ignore the information.
>
> In this case, it's not a matter of being righteous, but sensible. You'd be
> perfectly in the "right" to act on it (ie. it's not an "evil" action), but
> you'd also be placing yourself at risk of prosecution in our topsy-turvy
> legal environment.

Huge difference between a stock "tip" and insider trading. One is perfectly
legal, the other is not for good reason.