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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (85290)	11/10/2004 7:49:26 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 793809

I just saw a promo on next Tuesday's Frontline, which will be about whether Walmart is good for America. Since that topic's been discussed here, thought that some might be interested.

To: Lane3 who wrote (85290)	11/10/2004 12:38:59 PM
From: Mary Cluney	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793809

I'd like to see the liberals turn their approach into a coherent whole and then tell us how it makes sense and why we should adopt it. Wrt investments, Peter Lynch once wrote that individual investors should be able to explain their investments in a way that reasonable people can understand it. In that vain, let me see if I can quickly explain my liberal views as I perceive it: First of all, I believe that the founders firmly believed in the separation of church and state. That is one of the core principles on which this country is founded. It is quite obvious that whenever a country is run by religious people - it just does not work. It is also quite obvious that the United States is arguably the most successful nation ever because we guarantee that people can worship or not worship God in the way they believe or not believe. To mess with that is foolish. Second, I do not think that we can ignore our Judeo Christian foundations. But this does not mean that we are limitied to Judeo Christian truths. We must embrace truth and knowledge whereever it comes from. We, as a civilization, do not know it all. We must continue to learn and grow. Third, just like what they teach to doctors, we must not do harm. This is in keeping with our traditional value sets. We can not go around torturing, killing people, and destroying the environment. The bible does not have a section on enforcement. We do not have to force people to believe in what the bible teaches. All we need is the opportunity to enlighten people. If they don't buy into it, then the case goes to a higher authority (that is if you really believe). But, you don't have to buy into the bible to not do harm. It just makes sense. As regards to government and handouts - that is bit trickier. As an example in the early days of aviation, pilots could do anything they wanted. They didn't have regulations to bother with. But the realty is - that has to end. Somebody has to direct traffic. There has to be rules and regulations. The rule should be however, that there should be as few rules as possible. Rules beget rules and pretty soon things get much too complicated. We are not going to ever get away from rules, but we just have to make it more sensible. Finally, with regards to handouts. Inevitably there will be those that can not help themselves. There has to be some enlightedned bifurcation on this. We should allow people to do what they can do. Not put any ceilings on what they can do. They can get as rich as they can. However, those at the very top will have to help those on the bottom. We can't wait for that day in nirvana when all the rich people will voluntarily help all the poor people. IMO, they day is far off into the future - if ever. IMO, most people want to be self sufficient. By poor people, I mean all those that can't help themselves and those that run into a streak of bad luck, or in some way need assistence to to get them going. Of course, there will be people who are slackers and want to do as little as possible and get as much as possible. So what? That is going to happen. But, by hand outs I don't mean that they have everything that other people have (lot of stuff). If they are satisfied with a subsistence level existence (although they should be able to survive with some amount of human dignity) - they are not going to have all the things most people want to aspire to (aspirational consumption). If we were an unsuccessful country, we couldn't afford to do this. But because we can do this, we will be a successful country. Success breeds success. If we want to feel like a country under siege and evey man for himself, then we will fail. And, we will not be able to be genereous. Failure breeds failure. That in summary took about 15 minutes. I could have spent more time on it and perhaps be more coherent. But, that is my take.