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 (3468)	11/2/2002 6:24:07 PM
From: Solon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 7689

"Nice out of context quote." The quote was in perfect context. I dealt with the part succeeding the conjunction immediately after because they involved separate issues. All you did to dispute my response was to quote further into your post. You did not demonstrate how a Constitution and laws make your relationship with government arbitrary. "Changing the law to something unconstitutional but then being able to get away with it allows for arbitrary government" Sorry. If you know of an illegal law it is still not arbitrary...it is criminal. Or did you mean by "the law" that the entire law was unconstitutional? "but violating an arbitray or unjust law should not carry with it the normal conotations of the word criminal." Apparently, you think each individual is to define what is criminal for the whole? So if we think a law is just, and we call you a criminal for breaking it, we should not be doing that if you claim it is unjust? "It is the extensive welfare state that lowers the incentive to create wealth" What you said was: "If you take from those who work and/or invest and give to those who don't you lower the incentive to create wealth." Your next sentence referred to the ability to have a safety net without an extensive welfare state. "Not giving generously from her meger wealth would not have caused her to face hell" Yes it would. Those who did not give generously were indeed threatened with Hell...that was the whole POINT. She was the only one there who gave generously: "This widow, although poor, dropped in more than they all did." Should the rich have paid 100% as she did? Is the same percentage FAIR?? 24 “But woe to YOU rich persons, because YOU are having YOUR consolation in full. 25 “Woe to YOU who are filled up now, because YOU will go hungry. “Woe, YOU who are laughing now, because YOU will mourn and weep. Ha! Ha! Ha! :-)