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 : Intel Corporation (INTC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Richard Habib who wrote (101094)	3/19/2000 7:22:00 PM
From: Jim McMannis	Respond to of 186894

RE:"It's not rational because it fails to take into account human nature. Without regulation there is absolutely no incentive to think beyond short term goals. A simple example - commercial fishing an industry I'm experienced with. Theoretically, any fisherman understands and supports resource management. But if I remove the fisherman from a regulatory environment (like the U.S.) and allow him to fish in a free environment (like parts of Africa), he will use the smallest mesh available and completely destroy the stocks. "... Rather interesting point. So you are saying that if there were only one breeding pair of a species left that a commercial fisherman would kill them and sell them? I see your point but the problem arises with unfair and equal enforcement of the regulaton. Let's say that our governement decided to prosecute a domestic company such as Intel or Microsoft for monopolistic practices or price fixing. On the other hand, they seem to ignore an oil cartel that raises prices purposefully by cutting production and effectively price fixing yet the said government continues to spend billions protecting the price fixers. Or perhaps a little closer to home might be the use of the Magnuson and Lacy acts to protect foreign countries against our fishermen but ingnoring other laws which actually allow our fishermen to fish in these waters. Fact of the matter is that governments are too self serving... Jim

To: Richard Habib who wrote (101094)	3/20/2000 3:32:00 AM
From: Gerald Walls	Respond to of 186894

Gerald believes that libertarianism is a rational philosophy. It's neither a philosophy nor rational. I'm sorry that I've offended any of those here who think the only rational philosophy is a welfare state or a police state. I won't bother any of you any more with nonsensical ramblings such as the right to speak your mind or the right to keep what you've managed to earn through your life. After all, an incorrect idea can be a very dangerous thing, and someone else may be more needful and deserving of the money that I've earned through both working and investing than I am. Lastly, Gerald thinks libertarianism is viable because of his very limited life experience. It's only seems viable to him because of his place in middle class or upper middle class America. The vast majority of the world's population doesn't fit within those initial conditions. If Gerald was born without those initial conditions, say as a poor Nigerian, his current "philosophy" would seem the height of stupidity. Rich I never said libertarianism would be viable in Nigeria. That's your straw man. So far democracy has yet to be proven viable in Nigeria. Does that mean that it's not viable in the US? From the 1999 CIA fact book: odci.gov Government type: republic transitioning from military to civilian rule Constitution: 1979 constitution still partially in force Executive branch: chief of state: Chairman of the Provisional Ruling Council and Commander in Chief of Armed Forces Gen. Abdulsalami