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: epicure who wrote (9804)	3/26/2001 9:01:30 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

We are more than individuals- we are a collective as well. We are first and foremost individuals. We can choose to act in collective ways and normally we do this because it can have great benefits. If my neighbor drives his motorcycle without a helmet and has a brain trauma that renders him incapable of working he will either a) collect disability, or welfare, or assistance of some sort to support himself OR b) he will starve. I prefer to live in a world where those who are indigent and needy need not starve or beg so I approve of a certain amount of state welfare. Because I (and a majority of other people) approve of this, we want some control over how people live so that we do not have huge numbers of people drawing on these services. The motorcycle rider without a helmet could have private insurance, or be part of a government run insurance program that he pays in to. If he is not or if this is not enough then he can receive charity. The fact that you give charity to person A, doesn't entitle you to control person B. If the government gives money to help him the principle is the same. Things could be otherwise- but the majority of people want order more than they want freedom. Freedom tends to be rather nasty when applied liberally. Freedom isn't so great when you are free to starve or beg or be sick without the hope of care, or be ignorant without the hope of education, or the freedom to be worked to death in unsafe conditions. Order is necessary in order to maintain freedom, but order requires only the most minimal of controls. You can have a very orderly society in which people are not ticketed for riding a motorcycle without a helmet or in a car without a seatbelt. The other situations you are talking about are not really a case of freedom vs. order but rather of individual freedom vs. the practical benefits that can be obtained by government social programs. As I said before I am not an anarchist so I am not against all government, I just want it to be as small as reasonably possible. To the extent it does subsidize food and education so that they will be available to all, I would merely say if it is necessary then the government should do this in such a way that infringes on people the least, and gives people the most individual choices. Tim