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 : Al Gore vs George Bush: the moderate's perspective -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: cosmicforce who wrote (2027)	10/10/2000 6:07:32 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10042

But circling back to politics, you have to ask yourself what will your world in 10 years look like. I'm inclined to think that institutionalized loss of personal freedom is more likely that my need to fight in an armed resistance. I agree but I see the increased regulation of or even possibly an attempt to ban guns as part of that institutionalized loss of personal freedom. Until you face their concerns, you will never understand why so many people are reluctant to change the restricted rights you have (as interpreted by the Supreme Court) in terms of gun ownership. Or abortion. But if you really care about the number of civil liberties taken from people, you better count the number of times peoples rights have been taken by gun-related confiscations and those who were in interment camps, discriminated against, denied jobs, given urine tests, beaten senseless in protests and denied abortions. The internment camps are not currently happening and they are not likely in the near future (less likely then gun grabbing by the government). People who are discriminated against by the government have a legitimate case, but most unjust discrimination is by private individuals and in many cases outlawing it is actually a further reduction of personal freedom. (For example if I own a restaurant and I said that I don't want any asians in it then I would be a racist jerk, and I would probably lose most of my non-asians customers as well. However in my opinion I should be allowed to control who is allowed on my own property. Boycotts are fine (and I cerntinly wouldn't go to a restaurant like that myself) , but the government shouldn't be allowed to control who I can, can't, and must allow on my own property. As for urine tests, I personally am against them in most circumstances, however if a a potential employer wants to have them they should not be illegal. You are free to not take the job. I would have a problem if the government just started randomly testing its citizens. I am certinly not for beating people senseless when they are enganged in non violent protest and are not abuseing anyone. However violent protests and riots may require harsher measures. As for abortions, I consider that a more complex issue. It can be argued there the rights of more then one person are involved. BTW, where were those gun owners when the Japanese Americans were hauled off by the authoritarian government? Or the dogs were set upon women and children in Selma? Or other demonstrations were met with police brutality. You know what, they supported it or were silent. So much for armed populace equals freedom. Having the right to be armed does not insure freedom, but it is part of being free in and of itself, and it also can help protect freedom. Tim