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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: rich4eagle who wrote (128928)	2/24/2001 5:32:14 AM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

I agree that the United States has a heavy historical burden to fulfill, and that one of the primary lessons to be taught is that cooperative action is preferable to coercion. That, however, is one of the reasons that limited government is important: social arrangements should be voluntary as much as possible, rather than directed by a central authority with the power to compel. On the issue of "military threats": it is the duty of the government to anticipate and prepare for threats to national security. There may be debates about how best to discharge this duty, but there is no doubt that it is a primary task of the federal government. That always means that we must have the strategic ability to counter challenges from potential adversaries, preferably through alliance structures and burden sharing. On social and religious intolerance: I agree that there should be a fair degree of tolerance of the views of others, but this cuts both ways. Evangelical Christians are one of the few groups that it is okay to bash for their beliefs. As much as possible, tolerance means "live and let live", trying not to step on one another's toes. Sometimes choices are inevitable, and it is not necessarily intolerant to make them. For example, on the one hand, I agree with the notion of public accommodations that makes discrimination on the basis of race by a business impermissible, because the racial problem was so severe, and required aggressive measures. On the other hand, I am against certain forms of affirmative action, like the "race norming" of examinations, or the establishment of quotas covertly by putting the legal burden on a business to prove that it has a legitimate reason not to reflect the racial composition of the community. A lot depends, I think, on one's view of social evolution. Of course, the government can play a positive role in encouraging certain behavior, and discouraging other. But there is a limit to social engineering, as was evidenced by the resumption of religious and ethnic identification and even conflict with the fall of the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia. All of the effort to eradicate religion, or create a Soviet or Yugoslav identity, went for naught. Similarly, with the "marketization" of China, the Chinese penchant for business, which is noticeable throughout the world, and seems to be an integral part of their culture, reasserted itself. In countries like Malaysia, business is dominated by those of Chinese descent, despite their minority status, that is how culturally engrained it is. Thus, while is fine to preach tolerance, one must be careful about trying to force people to act too much in contravention of their core beliefs, or the backlash may become more significant than the social engineering gambit.......