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.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Michael M who wrote (82014)	6/18/2000 11:35:00 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 108807

But is it necessary to have the kind of social order we have, or that is present where huge divisions exist between haves and have nots? Many societies have social order that is fairer- where most people are constrained or none are. Where the leadership feel the need to play by the same rules as the followers. Some societies are particularly unfair and hypocritical. And some societies tout their fairness when they are actually very structurally unfair.

To: Michael M who wrote (82014)	6/19/2000 12:45:00 AM
From: Dayuhan	Respond to of 108807

I would agree that social order is a good thing. I would agree that the ability of the wealthy to avoid the restrictions of the law to a certain extent is probably inevitable. But I would suggest that if that ability is pushed beyond the most minimal degree, it actually becomes a threat to social order. The wealthy tend to feel that "social order" means the wealthy should always be wealthy, and everybody else should stay where they are. But imposing this sort of "order" will inevitably cause a degree of tension that will provoke extreme disorder. A well-ordered market economy allows the competent to rise, whatever their origins. It also allows the incompetent to fall, whatever their origins. If the wealthy use their exemption to the law to hold onto positions their competence does not warrant, disorder results. Change is not the enemy of order. An order which cannot accommodate change will not survive. The ability of the rich to avoid restrictions on abortion is of course a very minor part of all this. It will be interesting to see how the situation hashes out here mainly because this is a society where the rich have badly abused their ability to manipulate the law, and any time the discrepancies in enforcement are underscored the results are interesting. Ferdinand Marcos, a vocal believer in law and order, was once accused of "imposing order at the expense of law". I think we all saw where that tradeoff led, and I suspect that such tradeoffs will usually end that way.