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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Neocon who wrote (54449)	10/24/2002 1:19:54 PM
From: Sir Francis Drake	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Smoot-Hawley is not a propos. There is nothing like so broad a protectionist regime today. That was not my point. My point was that it is not OK to say, "well, when we go back on our principles, that's because, you know, 'politics in a democracy'". My point was, that you can take that as far as you wish, and democracy is no protection against extreme abandonment of a principle, or an extremist policy - such as Smoot-Hawley. The reason I picked S-H is precisely to show just how far one can go, all while prattling on about "democracy". You cannot justify "politics" because of "democracy". That simply means in the final analysis you can justify anything, including doing a 180 degrees on your "principle" because "that's politics in a democracy". And, again, the answer is "current"....... Good to know - as the "free-trade" issue shows, if the present crew in charge is "current", then "current" morphs faster than most can keep up with. Or then again, maybe the "principles" that define "current" are highly flexible, because it is "politics in a democracy" and all... in which case it is surprising they make so much noise about "principle" - but then again, that's politics too. As to abortion - I'll stay away from that one for now.