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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (158046)	1/15/2003 12:21:59 AM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1580050

If it "came back strong", then that would mean that the people living under that system are of a very different mindset than you. Not necessiarily. It could be imposed by force from a minority or it could win support from people who don't have to live with and don't understand the consequences and then be maintained by force. I was assuming a democracy. If it came back strong it would cause suffering whatever the mindset of its proponents. Only those people with your mindset. It isn't stealing....the majority have agreed that those who have the most must give up some of it to help those who have less. If the majority vote to steal from one and give to another its still theft. Majority agreement doesn't change it. Even if everyone but the victem agrees with it the moral nature of the act is unchanged. Like I have said to you before, I think you would do well in the Outback. <g> And do you think that your comment that claims those opposing what you refer to as socialistic party planks because of their desire "for freedom and economic benefit to the country" is based on fact and is free of emotion. I, for one, don't think so mostly because the inverse of that comment does not result in less freedom and less economic benefit. The inverse (more socialism or getting close to socialism if you like the wording better) does result in less freedom and reduced economic growth but that doesn't matter even if this was not true, and the motivations of those who oppose socialism were based on an incorrect theory that would not mean that they are not based on that theory. I was talking about the emotion behind your words, not the theory. Are things perfect? No. However, their socialistic tendencies have helped them, not hurt them... You have not demonstrated that. You have not even demonstrated that they are above the rest of the country in terms of economic well being but even if you can demonstrate that, it isn't the same as showing that the socialistic tendencies have helped them. They can be above the national average (if they are) for any number of reasons, and it can be inspite of, rather then because of their tendancies. In any case the majority of taxes in the US go to the federal or state governments. Mpls St Paul could have more local taxes and regulation without totaly throwing into a situation of having much higher taxes then the rest of the MN or the country. When you compare countries on the other hand the more socialist they are the worse they tend to do economically. First of all, the taxes I was referring to do not go to the state or the Feds. Secondly, I suspect if I set up a thesis that was ironclad tight and showed you how effective the socialistic tendencies were in assuring the well being of a city state's citizens, you still wouldn't believe it. As for countries tending to do worse than cities when they have socialistic components, that too is not true. Countries like Sweden, Norway and Denmark have some socialistic components in their economy and do very well economically. China has more socialistic components then many countries, and is doing well for a second tier economy still in development. Parts of Israel...the kibbutzim are very successfully socialistic entities. Sorry....but after posting with you for over a year, your motivations tend to be tranparent. I'm not so sure that motivations really are transparent. In any case you ignore my whole point. If you understand my motivations better then anyone else has ever understood the motivations of anyone, anwhere; you still have not dealt with the issue just by explaining my motivations. That's true.......but motivations sometimes get in the way of the truth. When a rich society refuses to prevent starvation and homelessness for all its people, then it only weakens itself. Most people would define "a decent life" to be a level beyond prevention of starvation and homelessness. Then too many people in this country fall way short of a decent life. Its not wrong; its the law. Something can't be wrong if it is the law?!? It takes more than one person posting on a thread to determine if a law is wrong......sorry. "Things will never be totally fair and equitable, and the attitudes that led to the riots are a large part of what keeps the rioters from having a decent life." That's right.....the people in power do not want to share their power and/or wealth. And when the people not in power can't get a piece of the pie through normal means, they resort to violence. That given has been true as long as human society has been in existence. The attitudes behind the riots are the sence of entitlement and the lack of desire to work hard for a long time to slowly move out of poverty or at least to a better situation even if it would still be called poor. That is what keeps some of the rioters from having a decent life. Others did have a decent life but saw there chance to grab some free things and to hurt some people that they don't like. You may be surprised.........but there are many people who work their asses off and barely have enough to survive. Mostlikely, they have worked harder than many people on this thread and have much less to show for it. They know its wrong to riot but sometimes people get desperate......that's why M. Antoinette lost her head. ted