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.

Pastimes : My House -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (2937)	10/29/2002 1:00:03 AM
From: Solon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 7689

"I will have made an agreement when I actually agree. Not when some person or some political philosophy assumes that I have agree" Of course; but have you not?? If you don't have a deemed agreement with your Government which confers upon you legal rights and freedoms, and demands from you legal obligations...then what keeps your relationship with your Government from being entirely arbitrary? I know that new citizens must voluntarily state their agreement by taking the pledge of allegiance--where they make certain promises (in return for consideration of the benefits of citizenship). This is an agreement, of course. Is it your position that people born into citizenship do not have that same agreement? If such is the case, then what prevents the relationship between you and all other citizens (as well as the citizen group comprising at any one time the "Government") from being entirely arbitrary? And what is it that all of you rely on to justify enforcement of fairness and decency within the social structure? By the way, Tim: I am not unsympathetic to your comments about how business investment is affected by taxation. I understand your turf; but I also remark a significant difference between the "cost of doing business" per se, and taxation on actual net profit. Conversely, I appreciate how poverty and discontent lead to social problems and crime which entail massive tax increases that would be unnecessary were society addressing basic values at a grass roots level. Absolute principles don't always work well in dealing with the realities of social and economic life. Democracy requires a great deal of compromise, and capitalism needs to embrace a great deal of pragmatism if it is to survive in a democratic form. There is a huge difference in merit between removing a pie from someone who has four pies--because it will keep someone who had no pies from robbing your house and taking your jewellery--than taking a pie from one who has only one, in order to institute the same prophylactic measure. It is the same with coats or with anything. Taking away one coat from ten does no practical harm. Taking one from one, however, does a great deal of harm. If we agree that a pragmatic society will wish to keep the peace, and that a civilized and charitable society will prefer to do this by creating opportunity for people, then it should not be arguable whether or not we should get together to get shoes to people without shoes, or milk to people without milk The question becomes: should we solicit the shoes from the person who has only one pair? Or should we ask the person who had 10 pairs to give one? I am not talking about FORCE. I am talking about people with equal voices in a free society USING THEIR BRAINS WHEN THEY MAKE THEIR DEMOCRATIC CHOICES, Do you remember the fable of Jesus and the lady who gave all she had? What she gave was practically nothing...but relatively speaking it was far far more than all the rich men had given. But just because she gave 100% of her income did not mean she was being treated unfairly? It was a choice... Your insistence on a same percentage for taxation, simply misses the point that equal is not FAIR. Perhaps if I put it another way: Society requires people to carry guns and back packs and to place themselves in the way of harm in order to preserve the safety and freedoms of the country as a whole. Should each body give equally to the common good? Should old people with malaria strap on a gun? Should children set aside their schoolbooks and strap on bombs? That is the way uncivilized cultures do things, Tim. The wonder of Western Civilization is that we have come to respect that every member of our society is integral and valuable, and that we have become willing to share resources in order to give basic needs and some little hope for opportunity to those who will hold up their side of the bargain and will meet conditions of fair effort. Of course, many people have little economic value, but we still wish them to live and to die as human beings...knowing we would want the same for ourselves, and our children. I just want you to know that I am not necessarily being dismissive of your more encompassing principles or concepts when I wrestle with you on narrow details or aspects. I entered this discussion on a peripheral point, as you remember. A teeter totter never works with all the weight on one end. So I admit to trying to temper most discussions I enter into with the other side of the story.