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: Jorj X Mckie who wrote (135224)	8/30/2005 12:38:17 PM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793563

Not to worry, BW, I'm not going to forcibly take your money. I simply support tax-paid relief efforts for those who need them, i.e., the poor, usually. Taken to its logical conclusion, you and MD may think that FEMA should never have been made a part of the federal gov't. It's one thing to espouse policy arguments when they relate to vacation homes for the wealthy and are made from a position of relative safety. Your thinking might change when LA gets hammered, not that I wish it does. Disaster somehow breeds compassion.

To: Jorj X Mckie who wrote (135224)	8/30/2005 4:31:50 PM
From: Bill Ulrich	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793563

Any good idea is prone to philosophical extremes and libertarianism is not immune. The bottom line is that "we" as a nation benefit from NO despite its "warts" of being a bowl in wet boonies. "We", as a nation, paid Napoleon a lot money for it, and though it would have been much more convenient if "we" had moved it after the Louisiana Purchase to someplace more hospitable, that's just not the way history worked out. Even residents of Los Angeles, (unknowingly or indirectly) benefit from NO's presence and its role in our economy, so although it may be viewed as "forcibly taking your money through taxes to address a pet charity", I think this nation, as a whole, is rather worthwhile pet charity. "I think that this goes to the libertarian argument that if you are not willing to let them suffer, there is no reason that you shouldn't volutarily sign your paychecks over to the victims of their own stupidity (living in Los Angeles, I'll wear that hat proudly). But because you are not willing to let them suffer, does not give you the right to forcibly take my money (through taxes) to address your pet charity."