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 : A Neutral Corner -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Mary Cluney who wrote (102)	9/13/2005 1:52:51 PM
From: Constant Reader	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 2253

What might happen 4 or 5 thousand years from now doesn't concern me. After all, eventually the sun will probably swallow up the earth before exploding and everything will be for naught. It sounds like you are making an excuse for the status quo and I do wonder about that. Yes, we as a society have a responsibility to help those who cannot help themselves. We don't, however, have the same responsibility to those who choose not to help themselves. In a free society, people are entitled to make that decision but we are under no obligation to aid and abet their self-destruction. When we distinguish between the two, more assistance is available to those who genuinely need it but less is available to those who don't. What Rambi is talking about is the failure of our various methods of assistance. Throwing money alone at the problem doesn't work. If it did, the Washington DC school district would be turning out Rhodes scholars right and left, for example. It isn't. Just because we've done something one way for 40 years doesn't mean we have to continue doing it the same way for the next 40 years, especially when it is obvious it doesn't really work. If this were a given (that's the way we've always done it and so always will) then there are a whole lot of programs that started in the last forty years that should never have started because before they started there was something else that was "the way we've always done it" and we should have continued doing whatever that was instead of developing the new plans which are now the old plans. I agree that is far easier to continue throwing money down the drain pretending we are trying to do something about this or that when in reality all we are doing is assuaging our consciences that "that's the best we can do" when deep down we know its not. Is radical change always a bad idea? Not necessarily. Is there some happy medium between the status quo and radical change? Probably? Is there anything wrong with taking a look at new ideas and implementing some of the best ones on a limited basis?