Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Discuss Year 2000 Issues -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: bearcub who wrote (7832)	8/8/1999 12:19:00 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 9818

such is our fractured society. for those of us who have provided for ourselves and our loved ones primarily, why in the name of all that's holy, is that class getting such rough treatment? Bearcub, you seem to be in a philosophical mood. Me, too, hence my comments on the above. We all operate within a shared social contract, which, like the proverbial blind men and the elephant, is viewed differently by different cultures and different individuals. One of the threads that winds through the social contract has to do with sharing. I don't think that anyone would take exception to you or me or anyone else being self-reliant, although many would say that self-reliance is not required, and particularly not required of them. There are those who think the world owes them a living and are net takers from society. There are those who are themselves self-reliant who think the world owes everyone a living regardless of contribution as a matter of principle. Society realizes each of us cannot practically do everything for himself, so we have division of labor, government, commerce, etc. In establishing these institutions we have delegated some of our self reliance, like security to the police and the army and relief work to our charities and governments, although we retain some individual responsibilities in both areas. Daffodil is choosing to personally take on responsibilities for some who are less self-reliant, both by reason of capabilities and by reason of attitude. Good for her! Does she do this out of generosity, out of compassion, out of guilt, or maybe she just has a socialistic interpretation of the social contract? I don't know. Perhaps she doesn't either. Self reliance is a continuum. While one end of the continuum is definitely desirable to civilization, taken to extreme it turns into every-man-for-himself, which is a violation of the social contract. At what point does self-reliance turn ugly? Would a Y2K disaster bring on a tilt of the continuum to dog-eat-dog, perhaps even justify one, perhaps change the whole social contract? To finally get to the point, I think the rough treatment of the self-reliant may have something to do with the fear of a slippery slope on the self-reliance continuum. Some of the doomers seem, at times, a little to willing to go there. My personal golden rule for life is "don't take more than your share." It seems to work universally, much as "do unto others" does. My golden rule covers everything from the mundane--if you're first in line at the buffet, don't take all the shrimp and roast beef leaving people at the end of the line with nothing but bean salad and jello--to the existential--don't bring more than a couple of children into the world. My golden rule would say that hoarding is wrong, me first is wrong, and not sharing my provisions with those in need who come to me in a spirit of sharing is wrong. It works for me, but I wouldn't presume to impose it on others, although I might on occasion tweek those who seem inclined to violate it. Karen