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 : Bush-The Mastermind behind 9/11? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sidney Reilly who wrote (3424)	10/13/2003 10:51:10 AM
From: Rock_nj	Respond to of 20039

Those are certainly difficult questions to answer. In the Libertarians and purely class-oriented person's view, it doesn't matter, all that matters is that there is an opportunity for free enterprise to make money. They utilize this rationalization all the time, why do you think so many of our jobs are moving to Mexico and overseas? They feel no loyalty to this country. They are loyal to the almighty profit motive. Which tells you a lot about their stance on patriotism. Obviously, a person who trades with the enemy during wartime would be a traitor by any measure of the term. I mean, your own countrymen are off fighting a war and you're trading with the people they are fighting against and helping to bolseter their war effort? It's insane. But, from their POV it doesn't matter, they are loyal to the profit motive and to their class interests, which has nothing to do with the outcome of the war. It's cold, but that's the reality of the way the world works. We, after all, armed Saddam Huessein to the teeth in the 1980s, only to send our troops in to take his war machine, that we helped build, apart. The wealthy play everyone off as pawns in their game of world domination chess and profit. Read my take on the CFR and the past century of American history, that is the cold hard reality of the world we live in. We're all pawns to be used and disposed of in the CFR's worldview.

To: Sidney Reilly who wrote (3424)	10/13/2003 10:58:11 AM
From: LPS5	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 20039

Even in time of war? Corporations in the US are not obliged to obey the laws about aiding and abetting the enemy? No, not during a time of war. Of course, we aren't at war with Cuba - at least as it has historically been defined - but American interests are legally prohibited from transacting business with them. And, to be sure, a Libertarian government would harbor a far smaller definition of what justifies war than we've seen on the American political scene this century. I believe that, under that philosophy, we'd have attacked Japan after the attack at Pearl Harbor and targeted al Qaeda/the Taliban after September 11th, but I'm quite sure that American troops would not have seen World War I, the European theatre during World War II, Korea, Vietnam, either of the two Gulf Wars, or any of the smaller conflicts we've become embroiled in. What about the Constitution? You are right to ask that question, especially if rhetorical. Does a corporation in the US have the right to violate the constitution? No one, individual or corporate, has a "right" to violate the Constitution. Are you being facetious? What about individual rights? Individual rights and corporate rights are essentially the same in the eyes of the Constitution. They both contemplate private property rights, albeit on different scales, and I can't think of anywhere in the great document where the Framers singled out the product of private capital decisions for higher government scrutiny. Do corporations have the right to violate an individuals rights when a government does not? No one has a "right" to violate an individual's rights, but a private contract entered into by, say, an employee (individual) and an employer (corporation) is just that: private. It is unconstitutional for the government to interfere in such relationships, unless law is broken. I think a corporation should have less rights than an individual, not more. And Libertarians think that one is essentially a manifestation of the other, just as the Constitution has it. The Constitution does not provide for or sanction penalties for size, success, or influence. Those concepts, as well as the spectre of entitlement at the expense of the successful, are new philosophical paradigms in America, constructs of and progressions from Roosevelt's New Deal socialism. LPS5