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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Brumar89 who wrote (216756)	2/7/2007 12:43:42 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

I think there would be some horrible results, and there would be some pretty good results. And on balance I think the security engendered by a rigorous system would make the results better, the further forward in time you went, and the more consistent world governments were. If it didn't work, I'd be happy to change, but it would be nice to try (imo) a firm rule. I think people, and countries, respond better to solid rules, than they do to unknowns. Human life is not my primary goal. International stability is. I think it probable that the greatest safety to humans long term is in international stability, even though along the way to that goal there will be people who die in the service of the idea. That's the way it goes. People will die either way. I think fewer would die if my way were in operation, but it isn't. I can't really prove that it would work, and you can't prove it wouldn't. And there we are. Hardly folly though, I would have thought.