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.

Politics : Libertarian Discussion Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Liatris Spicata who wrote (4021)	8/14/2000 12:52:08 PM
From: Liatris Spicata	Respond to of 13060

I thought folks on this thread might be interested in a quote from a book I just read: "Indeed, the Securities and Exchange Commission has categorically refused to define insider trading- an alleged Milken offense- on the grounds that defining the offense would reduce their discretion in bringing the charge." p. 97, "The Tyranny of Good Intentions", Paul Craig Roberts and Lawrence M. Stratton, Prima Publishing, 2000 (ISBN 0-7615-22553-X). I commend "The Tyranny of Good Intentions" to all. A chapter devoted to asset forfeiture is particularly harrowing and demonstrates that the USA has developed a deeply immoral, oppressive, and even corrupt, legal system. To the best of my knowledge, Harry Browne is the only presidential contender to call for the repeal of asset forfeiture. For those who cherish what the USA once stood for, Roberts and Stratton's book is very troubling- even hair-raising. Larry

To: Liatris Spicata who wrote (4021)	8/14/2000 1:32:42 PM
From: Jim S	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 13060

Larry, I respect your opinions and regard your posts highly, but on the early colonial gun ownership issue, you are simply wrong. Guns, usually smoothbore muskets in large calibers (.60+), were pervasive, and few colonial families were without at least one. They were as necessary as an ax or a hammer. Then, as now, there were cheap models available (commonly the British "Brown Bess") either as military surplus or as "home shop knockoffs" and were not considered "expensive" by those who owned them. True, the newer rifled barrels and more finely machined locks and stocks were considerably more expensive, and ownership of those guns was more rare. Then, as now, about the only people who were without a firearm in the house were either those so dirt poor they couldn't afford their next meal and those elitists who lived in the middle of town and relied on others to protect them. If you think the early colonials, especially in rural areas, didn't mostly own firearms, then you must think they were not self-reliant and willing to protect themselves from the dangers of the day. This is not "NRA propaganda," it is common sense and historical fact. jim