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: The Philosopher who wrote (4541)	12/6/2000 6:29:36 PM
From: moosebeary	Respond to of 13060

"Most tolerant? HA. With our history of slavery, with neo-Nazi groups, with gays hung on fences and killed, with blacks dragged behind trucks, with abortion doctors murdered, with anybody possessing even a small amount of marijuana for personal use jailed, we are TOLERANT? Ha." Christopher, I would submit, if I may, that in the above statement, all the items you mentioned are the result of a tolerant State, not an intolerant one, except for being jailed for small amounts of Gore's favorite vegetable. Best regards, Moose

To: The Philosopher who wrote (4541)	12/6/2000 6:36:08 PM
From: chalu2	Respond to of 13060

Most of the things you refer to as evidence of intolerance either happened 135 years ago (slavery) or were the acts of rogue lunatics (the murders of the gay man in Wyoming and the black man in Texas, the abortion doctor murdered) are not anything approved or condoned by American society. Horrible crimes even occur in the Netherlands. I've read about them. I don't know anything about Aborigines I must admit; how did they deal with dissenters, gays, marriage customs, etc? Yes, I guess primitive hunter/gatherer societies are free from OSHA regulations and marijuana laws and the like, but whether they had all the freedoms one might find in our billof rights, I don't know. It's such an apples and oranges comparison. The US is the strongest country in the known world. Who's stronger & capable of defeating us? Nobody. There was no Italy in the renaissance period. It started to take shape with Garibaldi. The average person then did not begin to have the amenities we have in even the simplest households. I cannot include slave-owning societies among the free societies we're discussing.

To: The Philosopher who wrote (4541)	12/21/2000 4:49:52 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 13060

Strongest? In raw military power, yes. In relative military power -- being the strongest country in the then known world -- absolutely not. Rome. China in the dynasty period. England after the defeat of Napoleon. Even Japan at the start of WW II. Japan at the start of WW II had the strongest Navy but they were not the obvious most dominant military power at the time. Even if you ignore economic potential as part of your military power equation (and if you don't Japan is toast in this comparison, our economy was perhaps 10 times as larger as their economy was at the time) Japan at the start of WWII was relatively less powerful then we are now. England after the defeat of Napoleon was probably comparable. Rome and China (and the Mongols, and for a brief period of time Alexander's empire) where all relatively more powerful (though of course far less powerful in an absolute sense). Most prosperous? Depends how you define prosperity. Total GNP today, probably. But not the highest average GNP or personal income, but back in history Italy in the Renaissance period may well beat us, and if you only include citizens (not slaves) in counting prosperity, many of the slave owning societies including Greece and Rome had much more leisure time for citizens than we have now. Its dificult to compare wealth with vastly different socieities but in many ways the typical middle class American is richer and more powerful then the upper classes or even the nobility was in the past. This is not true if you measure wealth by land, and even less true if you measure wealth by ownership (slavery) or control oer other people, but if you measure it on the ability to travel, or the ability to get a vast array of goods and services provided for you use, then I am richer then the occupants of Renaissance Florence or a Roman senator or a medevil barron and I am not wealthy by modern American standards. Tim