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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Ask Vendit Off-Topic Questions -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jill who wrote (6040)	3/6/2005 1:09:04 PM
From: Walkingshadow	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 8752

Hi Jill, << It is my profession after all and I know how careful one has to be sometimes. >> I'd say that mostly you are careful because you are concientious and have a sense of right and wrong, and also because you want to avoid on occasion possible legal and financial problems. All this is entirely reasonable, and is what most in your profession would do, and probably what most bloggers would do also. But that is not at all to say that you cannot write what you like anyway. In the example you gave, you could imagine a different outcome. Let's say you fact checked things, and found that it was not so black-and-white. That some of the things you wrote were of questionable accuracy, and you just didn't know. Or maybe that some of your facts were wrong. And let's say the magazine editor and publisher insisted the piece be run anyway, because it fit with their particular agenda, or because they figured they'd attract a lot of eyeballs and sell a lot of magazines. There is no law that says they can't run the piece knowing it was false. In fact, the first amendment protects their right to do so if they wish. Now, they might later be sued in civil court if it can be shown that damage was done, and that the act of inflicting damage met certain very specific legal definitions. But they can't be arrested for running the piece. I think this is exceedingly important, and is one of the more important things that has kept our society functioning head and shoulders above the rest of the world for centuries now. It is important to make a critical distinction: I might not like something somebody wrote or said for various reasons, and nearly everybody in the country might agree with me, and it might even be damaging to me and others----but the constitution says we must accept it just the same and can not persecute those who say/write such things (but under some circumstances we may seek legal redress in civil court, not criminal court). And there are tremendously important reasons why. For example, we have embraced principles now that at one time were almost universally unpopular and considered lunatic fringe: women's right to vote, outlaw of slavery, civil rights, non-discrimination... If people's opinions about how repugnant or damaging such things might be led to them not being said or written about, we might still be living in a society characterized by slavery, and persecution of people according to race and gender (case in point: Afghanistan and other middle eastern countries). Plantation owners that used slaves were certainly damaged by the outlaw of slavery. In fact, entire local economies were severly damaged, and with that, the lives of thousands or millions of people within those economies in many many ways. But thank God that criteria was not used to persecute people who spoke out or wrote against slavery. These people could speak and write such things even though damage was unquestionably done. And, damage could easily be predicted, and the people who said and wrote such things mostly were well aware that their words would lead to damage, but they were within their rights by saying/writing them with that knowledge. (and often, the things said/written were distorted or just untrue). So current views may not accurately predict the ultimate value of those views to a society at all. Because we can't know the potential value ahead of time, it is far wiser to just let everything be expressed, and trust that things will sort themselves out, since we are a society of mostly reasonable people. History has shown that this is exactly what happens. I see nothing special about blogs.... that is just another form of expression. T

To: Jill who wrote (6040)	3/6/2005 2:36:14 PM
From: Walkingshadow	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 8752

Consider this: development and continued viability of life critically and essentially depends upon continued generation of diversity on many levels---genetic variability is but one (proteomic variability is almost certainly far more important). Many of these genes are not "good", and that leads eventually to a speciation hierarchy composed of predators and prey. All are essential to the ecosystem and the well-being of its members. Homogeneity is self-destructive, and eventually lethal to all. Imagine if the world were only composed of one single species: sharks. How would they survive? They can't even prey effectively on one another. I submit that this principle works out on many other levels as well, including levels that seem more relevant to civilization, i.e., the development of ideas, principles, laws, morals, codes of conduct, policies and procedures, etc. The viability of us all depends critically on the extent to which variability in these is allowed to flourish. Taking an example closer to home from the perspective of this thread, TA critically depends upon diversity and variability in stock prices, which in turn depends upon various ideas among bulls and bears about what a stock is worth. We quantify this as volatility---the beta statistic, for example. If everybody thought the same way, the bid/ask would at the limit be fixed, just as it is in most retail situations. Bargaining would not occur, trading would be impossible, TA nonexistent, and the exchanges of the world would close. Stocks would be purchased just like you purchase a loaf of bread. My point is threefold: (1) like it or not, our viability and continued development as individuals and as a society and civilization depends upon continuous generation of variability in myriad forms; (2) this principle is the ultimate reason why the Bill of Rights has been profoundly successful to the enrichment of us all; (3) anything that tends to facilitate generation of variability should be encouraged, anything that tends to squelch such variability should be discouraged----regardless of the short-term consequences. I find it supremely ironic that generation of variability is generally and universally required, yet generally and universally resisted---not just by you and me, or entire societies, but even at the physical level: Newton's first law of motion can be paraphrased to say that all matter resists change. Were it not for the fact that thermodynamics mandates just the opposite---the preferred state of all energy is dissipation, delocalization, chaos, change---most chemical reactions and life itself could never occur. Thank God for entropy, and thank God for the Bill of Rights---civilization's equivalent of the laws of thermodynamics. I don't have to like it, but I do have to depend on it for survival. ....all IMHO, of course. T