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.

Strategies & Market Trends : ahhaha's ahs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: GraceZ who wrote (90)	9/28/2000 2:16:53 AM
From: Keith Monahan	Respond to of 24758

My contention is that while, in theory, you may in fact be right that people would act locally to deal with social problems if there was no government intervention, I don't see that it has happened on a large scale in any country. It does work on a small scale in closed homogenous societies like, for instance, the Amish in Pennsylvania In Africa, there are many towns that use the same water source to drink, to wash, and to go to the bathroom. When they go to get drinking water, they will push the raw sewage away as if this somehow will keep the bacteria out. The same town will get periodic visits from people from AIDS organizations (driving up in their new sport utility vehicles) to distribute boxes of condoms and safe sex literature. This is this most glaring example I have seen of a large institution not understanding the nature of the problem. Now at the same time there is a very small group of people trying to fund and build a new well in one of these towns so people can have clean drinking water. I'll support the people building the well every time. Unfortunately, you are right, this type of local action does not happen on a large scale. We can only hope that it becomes more commonplace in the future and that those "charitable" institutions that are guilty of feeding at the trough are exposed as the pigs they are.

To: GraceZ who wrote (90)	9/28/2000 10:19:38 AM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 24758

The children who worked in the mills were not, for the most part, homeless. They worked alongside their families. Their parents did not think that child labor was wrong, because they were from the agrarian tradition. What made it terrible was the working conditions. Textile workers tried to unionize for decades, generations, centuries, but the government you think is so benevolent worked hand-in-glove with the mill owners to outlaw trade unions and sanctioned violence against people who tried to organize strikes. I suggest you study the history of labor in the United States, paying attention to such incidents as the Tompkins Square Riot, the Haymarket Massacre, the Bayview Massacre, the Pullman strike, and so on and so forth. We are talking about strikers, seeking better working conditions for themselves and their families, who were killed by soldiers and policemen with the express approval of your benevolent government. I don't think it's a coincidence that after laws which prohibited trade unions were taken off the books, and laws which permitted unions were put on the books, working conditions improved. But this has nothing to do with making money, and even less to do with @home.