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 : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: E who wrote (3965)	1/30/2001 10:59:42 AM
From: Jorj X Mckie	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Do we have a deal?! ABSOLUTELY!!!!! No hesitation. but the notion that this particular procedure be denied to the poor I would take issue with the wording here though. Because something isn't being provided, does not mean that it is being "denied". I consider this to be a very important distinction. If the procedure was being "denied", then we (you and I and whoever else) would not be allowed to privately donate whatever we see fit to subsidize this service to those in need. If the government stopped funding for this service, would you voluntarily donate to groups that provide the service? I would, and I think that there are a lot of people that would as well. AND, I think that money privately donated would get more bang for the buck...meaning that for each dollar donated, a higher percentage would go for the intended use then if it went through a bureaucratic government system.

To: E who wrote (3965)	1/30/2001 12:30:02 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

I know where you're coming from, Jorj, but the proposal to deny this particular procedure to the poor who qualify for other medical procedures because this one offends the religious convictions of some taxpayers isn't based on a principle otherwise followed. Ever. At all. In any case. Do pacifists get to stipulate that their taxes won't go for warmaking? Do animal rights activists get to stipulate that theirs won't go for medical research involving animals? Do ethical vegetarians get to stipulate no subsidies to the cattle industry? Do Zionist American Jews get to stipulate that their taxes won't go to the Palestinian Authority, or American Arabs get an Israel deduction on April 15? Do Christian and other fundamentalists who believe divorce is immoral get to decline to subsidize the administration of that process? Sure for all of them, if they manage to get enough political power to make their view prevail. If enough people don't want government money to support somthing and they fight for it hard enough then it is unlikely that government will suppport it. Personally I would join the "ethical vegetarian" in his fight against subsidies to the cattle industry, but for a different reason. Tim