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 : The Boxing Ring Revived -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: The Philosopher who wrote (3583)	1/8/2003 3:02:23 PM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 7720

Actually, they stuck quite well. Most of the leaders of the radical student groups were "red" or "pink" diaper babies, and Richard Nixon got the majority of the 18-21 year old vote, in roughly the same proportion as the middle age vote. Nevertheless, there is nothing in what I said to preclude periods of social turmoil, indeed, quite the contrary. We do not make up our individual values any more than we personally make up our language. All it implies is that as societies become similar, they will converge in values. For example, when central authority waned in Japan, it turned to feudalism, and developed a chivalric code similar to that among knights in Western Europe. Japan has, however, in the end become more like us, as it has modernized. Whatever gave you the idea that it was the stated social theory of Communist Russia that as many people as possible should be able to peaceably pursue their own ends? And what ever gave you the idea that we lived in a laissez- faire country, when we have massive government bureaus providing free education, low cost or no cost medical care, various income subsidies, imposing standards of health and safety, including pollution standards, and so on? I am not acquainted with the Oregon example, but permit me to be dubious about the accuracy of your account, considering that Oregon is one of the most liberal states in the Union. Even if you were correct, it would mean nothing about the general trend in this society. For one thing, I did not stipulate how one contributes to society. I give to charity, how about you?

To: The Philosopher who wrote (3583)	1/9/2003 1:24:14 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 7720

An interesting example of this is in Oregon, which is in terrible financial shape, and has a proposal to be voted on January 28th that would impose a small tax increase (on the order of 48 cents a year -- yes, a year -- for low income people, $16.76 a year for those in the $10,000 - 20,000 income bracket, up to $50 a year for the highest income taxpayers. Less than a dollar a week. If this doesn't pass, many bad things will happen, including major cuts in school funding, closing 8 prisons and releasing 4,300 prisoners, eliminating treatment for cancer, mental health, and other health services for nearly a half million Oregonians, and other bad things. You would think it would be a no brainer if your concept of societial development is accurate. But it is running far behind and is expected to fail. Maybe because the Oregonians are smart enough to recognize the false dilemma or "Accedpt tax increases (or forgo tax cuts) or all these popular and important programs will be slashed." Politicians do that a lot, any time there revenue is going to go down they say that it will mean the most vital and or popular programs will be cut rather then cutting less vital programs including their own pet programs and finding other ways to reduce spending. Tim