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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (124025)	1/30/2004 2:21:25 AM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

You'll probably appreciate this. From den Beste's blog: This takes my breath away: In her new book, Danish Liberal EU spokesperson Charlotte Antonsen questions the use of referenda as a useful way to build up European democracy. The book - "Towards the European Constitution" warns that the EU could fall apart if the Danish practise of consulting the people in referenda over important EU treaties is copied by other member states. "Referenda have a very conservative effect on development. If the other countries copy us, the EU will fall apart", she writes. Mrs Antonsen, a member of the Danish Parliament for the ruling Liberal party, argues that representative democracy is just as democratic as referenda. "Referenda are in fact pure gambling. There is no guarantee of a positive outcome, unfortunately". Think about what she's saying here. These questions are far too important to trust to the voters to decide. We cannot do what we need if we consult them in order to find out what they really want. "There's no guarantee of a positive outcome." You should never hold a referendum unless you can be sure ahead of time that it will result in approval. You should not consult the people and actually let them decide because they might choose the wrong answer. The purpose of elections is to permit the people to rubber-stamp what their rulers have already decided, thus making the people feel as if they participated in the decision – even though they didn't really. Ms. Antonsen is referred to as a "Liberal", but her opinion sharply diverges from what has traditionally been known as "liberal democracy". It is yet another demonstration of the way that modern "Liberals" are deeply illiberal. denbeste.nu

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (124025)	1/30/2004 7:46:05 AM
From: Sig	Respond to of 281500

<<Nadine, being an ardent capitalist [as far as I understand the term], I don't see that as incompatible with Left Wing, which I think of as individual versus the state, ruling class, dictator or whatever crushes the individual. The ruling class, dictators and royalty represent the Right Wing. In my book.>>> Left and right are rather confusing terms to me, since there is such a distinction between what various leftist groups stand for. What if the far left won the election? Do we stop cutting trees, building dams, go to isolationism, and provide free acreage to everyone?. It seems they have no center nor feasible ways to keep our economy running. However, I care little because they will not win.At least not this election, My thoughts on the USA and the future would be these. 1. Opportunity: The US is still the great land of opportunity where anyone can progress if he tries hard enough and learns the rules. We have the land, the natural resources, the technical knowledge and a common language which most countries in Europe do not. 2. We are overspending, spoiled and not doing enough to conserve or replace valuable resources. But a lot of work has been done on using energy efficiently, replacing forests, growing crops efficiently. The direction to take is clear, but the fact that people want and can pay for big powerful and uneconomical cars or trucks caused industry to avoid the economy rules of CAFE set by the government. 3. One thing concerns me is the deficit spending, but that has gone on since the invention of the home mortgage and the credit card. Perhaps it will catch up to us in 20 or 30 years, or sooner if the economy retracts. But the government and the bankers know that very well and have done/are doing all they can to keep the economy moving and the money in circulation. That is a major problem with many countries- the failure to leave common citizens with enough money to spend. Japan would be a good example, where bankers churned investors money for fees and left nothing for the investor. Iraq would be another example, where Saddam used the oil income to support only his buddies, and left practically nothing for the average person. The situation in France is none too good either. 4. Nuclear power: The fearsome long range A-bomb on a missile is practically useless as a weapon - use one and everyone dies. It is a fierce deterrent tho. Its what Saddam wanted most, after the power he had. Any system is subject to human error or accidents or the type of stupidity exemplified by Saddam so it seems right that much work is being done on non-proliferation treaties. 5. Poverty and hopelessness: (I have run out of time so you can fill in the blanks) Sig