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 : The Residential Real Estate Crash Index -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Moominoid who wrote (30581)	5/2/2005 10:51:37 PM
From: Oblomov	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 306849

>>communists believe in revolution to achieve socialism. >>Socialists believe in achieving it democratically. There is no such thing as achieving socialism democratically. If property is not given away through free choice, then it is stolen. >>We have three alternatives: Only three alternatives? Why do such people save so little- could it be that they can safely assume that their fellow "citizens" will be forced at gunpoint to open their wallets so they can buy a retirement condo on Sanibel Island? And, the US hardly represents an "extreme" with respect to government intervention in the health care sector. Would that it were... The question is whether government intervention actually does what it is intended to do, or whether it achieves the opposite of what is intended. The least bad system is one that coerces people only insofar as it is necessary to ensure public order.

To: Moominoid who wrote (30581)	5/4/2005 2:57:11 PM
From: GraceZ	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 306849

We have three alternatives: 1. Let people be poor when they are old. 2. Tax the population to pay those old people. 3. Force people to save for their old age. You can't be serious, it's as if you think only government is able to collectively decide how to deal with old age. All people need to eat, does the government have to solve the issues of making sure food gets to those people every day? In a free market economy, people, individuals, have infinite options about making provisions for old age and for being cared for in their old age. Even Social Security when it was first introduced was billed as a voluntary program, only later when it became a sink hole did Congress change it to a mandatory program that only government employees could escape from. What I object to strenuously is to have the freedom to choose the option I think is best for me and my family preempted, to have the government make that decision for me and force me to participate in what looks to me to be a very large fiasco. Socialists believe in achieving it democratically. Both involve losing your individual right to choose what is best for you, either they take it from you in revolution or you walk into captivity with majority opinion. Our government was purposely set up to strenuously protect the individual rights and freedoms of those who are in the minority opinion. The question you have to answer is, who is better at choosing what is best for you personally, you or the government? Socialism rests on the idea that people are not capable of making these choices for themselves, this idea is inherently oppressive even if it is put in place democratically. My vote is on the individual common man deciding for themselves, not the elected official or special panel of experts or the dictatorial majority to make the best decisions over time. Where the government comes in to take those decisions away from individuals is when what they do specifically treads on the rights and freedoms of another person.