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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: DuckTapeSunroof who wrote (488954)	11/7/2003 3:36:16 PM
From: Johannes Pilch	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

Actually... with subsidies, it isn't 'Americans getting something for nothing', it is ONE GROUP of Americans getting a subsidy paid by others. Indeed, and I think it is wrong and always have. But this entitlement is made possible by the new American, who thinks it is possible to get a little something for nothing. That sentiment is what drives public funding of a host of things that ought not be publicly funded, like healthcare, abortions, rights for sodomites, "art" depicting Christ in vats of urine and Mary covered in dung. If Americans wish for such things, they may form cooperatives and fund them themselves. They have no right to force anyone's public support of such things - especially since they categorically do not serve the interests of all. Prove your fantasy or withdraw it. It ought to be self-evident to you now. And it is so clear I ought not have to do the research to show you your exact statements and spell out the thing. So I won't. Again: I am not responsible for your self-delusions. And I am not responsible for your willful ignorance. Whatever. Money is just a measure. Of power, which is why leftists so frequently attempt to steal it from those who've earned it. So you agree with me on one of my statements (easy to find plenty of EXISTING societies that function economically while permitting abortion rights)... while totally failing to provide any evidence for your wild and illogical claim that societies can exist --- and function --- stably with 100% of the wealth concentrated in 1% of the citizen's hands. You must really try harder to put it together. It is really not that difficult. The point here was that the societies to which you've referred, all, every single one of them, have acquired their 'economical function' significantly by destroying the natural human rights of others. They continue to do it today via abortion and other such diabolical sins against human nature. So when you point to all of these societies, you do no impressive thing. Concerning the possibility of "stability" in the case of wealth concentrated in 1% of the population, such a thing is irrelevant. What is most relevant is whether in order to acquire your ridiculous "stability" we must deny the natural rights of that 1%. It is most apparent you think such a thing is acceptable and perhaps even required, and yet you are so blind you cannot see that doing such a thing can itself be validly seen as unstable. So, you must be conceding that point as well. As you see, I concede nothing. You've just been blind thus far. Two points: 1) next time, define your terms: we are not mindreaders. The context was very clear. I obviously assumed too much in expecting you would be able to see it. 2) You are wrong: of course Democracy (as ALL forms of government do) 'infringes' some individual's freedoms to do or say certain things! You employ confusion here. We are not talking about a "Democracy" wherein one is not free to yell "fire!" in a crowded room (Besides, doing such a thing can itself be deemed an infringement of the rights of others), we are talking of a "Democracy" that allows a redistribution of wealth by stealing wealth from people who've earned it and giving it to people who have not. That latter "Democracy" is patently evil and needs to be destroyed. But, as my reply implied: it does less of that than other governmental forms. Other known forms - perhaps. But the term has become so elastic it is now almost meaningless. So, tell me what 'language' 'Nature' uses... so we may hear from her ourselves whether she is ever 'arbitrary'. The natural symmetry we descry via Mathematics and logic. Math is the language of all nature. Re: "I do nothing against their natural rights. I take nothing from them" --- I remain unconvinced of that assertion. Well convincing you in particular is certainly not my hope. After all, you think it perfectly acceptable to murder children. You seem to be saying that 'morality derived from nature' is absolute, and not ever 'relative' (while agreeing with me that all other sources for morality are relative). Nope. I am saying that if we are unable to discern a world outside of Nature, to benefit of its higher morality, then we are bound by the human morality that is inherent to human nature. That human morality exists and it is indeed absolute, as it is based upon upon human existence which rooted in human biological identity (which itself is rooted in the non-bio logic that describes essential humanity). So, OK, if morality derived from natural laws is not ever relative... I repeat my previous answer: tell me the language used by nature whereby we may ascertain these 'natural rules for morality'... and see them ourselves... agree what they are... and then decide if they are ever 'relative'. Math/logic is ultimately that language. Human existence is as mathematically evident as 0 and 1.