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: TimF who wrote (130177)	8/6/2005 3:09:58 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793755

To the extent that the government actually subsidizes the production of meat I'd share PETA's desire to remove the subsidies. Of course they subsidize it. There are all sorts of extension programs for producing food products, they directly and indirectly kill all sorts of animals, like horses and wolves, and even by inspecting meat they recognize and support the killing of those animals. We are talking about PETA not "the Siberian tiger defense association". You're just muddying the waters. Its also not "no federal funding of meat/leather/fur/animal experiments/ect.", but rather support for a ban on such things. Of course they support a ban. Just like pro-lifers support a ban on abortion. But the latter also support the incremental step of halting government funding because they can't get a ban. Just because PETA hasn't taken advantage of that particular interim tactic yet doesn't make them different. Of course if say 20% with really strong beliefs can stop government action in peripheral areas than you are indeed limiting what the government can do. But I would consider that a plus not a minus. Great. Then I suppose you're cool with bringing the troops home from Iraq right now. Clearly there are more than twenty percent with really strong beliefs about that. If we're going to cut the federal government back to strictly authorized ones ON PRINCIPLE, I'm fine with that. But I think issue by issue reduction based on the strength of the interest group would be a real mess. There are lots of people with really strong beliefs about all sorts of issues. Every PC issue imaginable, for starters. If they see it as a successful strategy, there will be lots of comers, a lot more polarization, and their issues would have to be sorted out one at a time. We really don't need that.