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 : Impeach George W. Bush -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Neocon who wrote (2407)	4/11/2001 11:39:34 AM
From: jttmab	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93284

I certainly have no reservations in the least about promoting democratic capitalism, et al, and would view that as an active mechanism within the formulation, i.e., a preventative and/or corrective measure. Our point of disagreement would likely only be the individual cases that one selects, what constitutes an emergency, and what constitutes catastrophy. I think that the key word within your response is passivity. When one washes away the rhetoric, that perhaps is what it amounts to, an active role or a passive one. I would tend towards the passive course more when it comes to domestic policies and an active course on international. [Aside: there is a very broad spectrum attached to passive and an undefinable line that one can cross into isolationism.] The argument for a more active role in international policies is based on technology that has developed within the last ~60 years. We, globally, now have the technology and capacity teminate the planet. The obvious development of nuclear weapons, the slightly less obvious development of biological weapons and the inability of the environment to continually absorb human impact. Whether we like it or not, ownership of the technologies will expand and the ability of the planet to absorb our impacts will continue to diminish. The consequences of which will more than likely occur long after you and I are gone. National interest is a very interesting phrase. National interest as is defined by the people or national interest as it is defined by the individuals that are in power at the moment. People in power, may or may not reflect at a given moment what is reflected by the people. When government actions agree with the polls and our own particular opinion, we claim that the government represents the people. When government actions are counter to the polls, but agree with our own opinions, we assert that the government is showing leadership....if we join the poll position, then the government is not being responsive to the will of the people. Time is also a factor of national interest. What may be in the national interest in the short term, may not be in the national interest in the long term. When we choose between the two, do we rely on the short term memory of the people as the factor and let subsequent generations blame the past? Is it the responsibility of the government and/or the press to educate the populace on the factors? It appears to me that the current state of politics is to decide what is best for the people based on ideological position and then use hyperbole and fear to obtain support; preferably, by ridiculing the opposition. Pleased that you took the time to drop by. Best Regards, jttmab