SI
SI
discoversearch

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: willcousa who wrote (42259)2/15/2001 4:29:24 PM
From: Jacob Snyder  Respond to of 70976
 
way OT:

re: "liberals don't see economic freedom as important". Liberals see one person's freedom to use his money however he wants, as inevitably restricting many other people's freedom. That is, they see money as a coercive tool, and a tool available only to a tiny elite. One person's freedom should end (in a society attempting to maximize freedom) when it restricts another person's freedom.

Example: In spite of what the Supreme Court has said, the freedom to use your money any way you want (like buying a Presidential pardon) is not what the Founding Fathers meant by Freedom Of Speech. Why should one person get out of jail because he can "donate" (=a thinly disguised bribe) a half million dollars to a (soon-to-be-Ex-)President? That is a "economic freedom" available to very, very few people.

Example: The period of 1865-1914 in the U.S. was a period on near-total economic freedom. The result was a tiny elite who owned everything, a huge hungry mass of poor people, a powerful Socialist Party, and constant social unrest. The Progressives, led by the first Rooseveldt, ended Socialism in the U.S. by co-opting the socialist ideas. Since then, we've had less freedom for money, and more freedom for people. Following this reasoning requires being able to make a distinction between a person and their money. They are not identical, and should be treated differently.