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 : Formerly About Applied Materials -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Cary Salsberg who wrote (38198)	10/12/2000 4:46:51 PM
From: jmac	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 70976

so, why is amat going down in after-hours?

To: Cary Salsberg who wrote (38198)	10/12/2000 4:55:11 PM
From: Liatris Spicata	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 70976

Hmm, Cary- OT- Rand would have said the "fit" have no moral obligation to provide food or other necessities of life for the "unfit". Nor would any individual or group have the right to force the "fit" person to do so. So yes, the "unfit" would have no legal or moral claim on the rightful property (including food) of, shall I say, the producers. From a Randian point of view, it would not be immoral to fail to provide them with food. They would have the right to earn their daily bread. Failing to provide for other's needs is not what is typically referred to as "extermination", Cary. I might expect you to be more precise with your use of words. I don't know that Rand addressed the difficult issue of children- they were in some sense incidental to her philosophy. I suspect that in the case of those who were made unfit by accidents of birth, that she would have considered such people to be legitimate objects of charity, but not that they had any moral claim on the assets of their benefactors. Larry