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: budweeder who wrote (4051)	8/22/2000 7:55:47 PM
From: dave rose	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13062

<<.I doubt very much that many of the SEC laws will ever infringe on my rights......my neighbors, yes, but not mine.....but I don't think you believe either that those laws should not be enforced........or do you?>>> I myself do not believe these laws should be enforced. I think that if everyone was made to think for himself and take the responsibility for his decisions the world would progress beyond most peoples expectations or imagination. I am reading a book "God of the Machine" by Isabel Paterson which explains many of the things that government is doing to restrict our freedom. The book was written in 1943 but everything she said could be applied today. If you are truly interested in finding out what true freedom is and its potential, try reading this book. Regards daverose

To: budweeder who wrote (4051)	8/23/2000 12:01:07 AM
From: Daniel W. Koehler	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13062

<<I doubt very much that many of the SEC laws will ever infringe on my rights......my neighbors, yes, but not mine.....>> Bud That statement reminds me of the old Huey Long populist jingo , "We ain't gonna tax you, brother. We ain't gonna tax me...we gonna tax that guy beside the tree." But you do pose a relevant question - the trade-off in our society between security and freedom, which are inversely correlated. You can't have security in a society without imposing restrictions on individual liberty and property nor can you enjoy freedom without a sense of personal security. That is, the more free you are, the more paranoid you are. The more security you have, the less freedom you have. Somewhere in the middle is a proper equilibrium between the two - which is what the US Constitution contemplated. I think that the Federal government in 20th century "tipped the balance" on the side of more "security" through proactive government redress of group issues rather that protecting the PRINCIPLE of the individual's right to redress via due process - which is best treated on a case by case basis. As a result, the US Government has successfully "balkanized" our citizenry through the politics of envy, entitlement and class hatred. Assuring we stay "stirred up" benefits no one save the bureaucrats. And a tax system that treats citizens differently under the law based on income strata is hypocritical to the extreme. And while it is illegal for private citizens to discriminate based on certain arbitrary attributes like race, sex, religion, etc, is it perfectly acceptable for the government to discriminate in its tax laws based on income? With respect to the progressive income tax structure, there is a conflict of law IMO between the 14th (equal protection under the law) and 16th (progressive income tax) Amendments. IMO, the 16th utterly vitiates the 14th Amendment and is more in tune with the Marxist-Leninist dictum of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need". We should endeavor in the 21th century to err on the side of less government meddling in income redistribution. In the 20th century, allowing the government to redistribute income via the tax code has proven to be a political payoff system based on the theory of group rights The market over time will effect the same redistribution based on productivity and individual effort. Less government is the only way I believe this can be done. Less government is only possible by restricting the power of the public purse. Restricting the public purse is only accomplished by a new tax code. A radically new tax code can only be achieved by consolidating political power. Once the code is reformed to the original intent of the Founders, then can we begin dismantling the excesses of the state. Ciao, Daniel

To: budweeder who wrote (4051)	8/23/2000 11:23:50 AM
From: The Philosopher	Respond to of 13062

.I doubt very much that many of the SEC laws will ever infringe on my rights......my neighbors, yes, but not mine.....but I don't think you believe either that those laws should not be enforced........or do you??????? how "open" a society do you want?? That's too complex a question to get into when I'm supposed to be working, but in general: Anybody should be able to do what they want to when it doesn't infringe on somebody else's rights. People should accept primary responsibility for their own health and safety, not rely on government to do the whole job for them, or cry to government when they were stupid. People must be held accountable for their actions. This includes accountability for telling lies about your stock, for selling dangerous and defective products, etc. More specifically, yes, most of the SEC laws should be abolished. If they were, people would quickly learn to do their own due diligence, not rely on others. The police power should be limited to punishing for lying and outright dishonesty. For example, if IBM doesn't want to release financial information at all, that should be their choice, and it would be your choice whether or not to buy their stock. If they did choose to release information, though, it must be honest and accurate, and they should be held accountable if it isn't. Regulation should be by the stock exchanges. If the exchanges want to be trusted, they will make sure that the companies on their exchange will act appropriately. Otherwise the investors won't invest in their companies. (There are some exchanges I simply won't trade on because I don't trust their rules.) It doesn't require federal regulation, just citizens who are responsible and careful about how and where they invest their money. One advantage might be the diminishment of huge corporations and the encouragement of local businesses where people can invest with people they know and in plants they can actually go and visit and see for themselves. As it is now, people are deluded into thinking that investing is an easy, totally safe activity. They are lulled into stupidity and unquestioning acquiesence. The government is trying (quite successfully) to create non-thinking citizens who believe that just by being born they have a right to a safe, easy, secure, healthy life. End of tirade, for now. Gotta go get some work done.