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 : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TobagoJack who wrote (17288)	4/17/2007 12:35:58 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 220282

TJ, we arrive at the question of the relationship of the individual to the state. The state is just the gang of people who for the most part have power over individuals in their overall sphere of control. The individuals are not the property of the state, in my book. The state is the property of the individuals. Just as QUALCOMM management do not own QUALCOMM, or me as a shareholder. I hire them. While I agree to be part of QUALCOMM by way of voluntary share ownership, management controls what happens to my property. Similarly, when I choose to own part of a country, the government decides what happens to my property [collectively owned]. But they don't own ME. If I choose to go somewhere else, it's not the government doing the going. If somewhere else doesn't want me, then the relationship, or lack of it, is between me and them, not me and the government I have previously hired, or which holds me prisoner. If I haven't hired the government, but they have simply forced me to act as a chattel, then they are nothing more than a garden variety enemy, to be destroyed as possible. It is interesting that you choose to live in Hong Kong and are proud of your British inheritance which makes it so good compared with the alternatives. The difference is philosophical. You think people are merely state chattels to be disposed of by the state, shot by the state if non-complying and generally like sheep to be fleeced. Hence you are shocked by panty sniffing but phlegmatic about back shooting of escapees. You have trouble understanding the difference between shooting somebody in the back to stop them leaving and shooting them in the front to stop them coming. Since you Chinese all think the same, according to you, it is as well that the USA has nukes to do shooting in the front, to stop you coming. Meanwhile, while you are planning shootings in the backs, that wondrous CDMA stuff is suffusing the aether, bringing peace, light, harmony, happiness, health, prosperity, longevity, fun and love. Chunghwa of Taiwan is wanting Message 23464822 to make phragmented photons in China. If we can get enough CDMA going in China, of the real kind, not that lethal TD-SCDMA "Made in China" variety, things should be hunky dory and you will lose the desire to shoot people in the back. You will probably still have a weird fascination with panty sniffing. Have you tried it? Perhaps you secretly have a bit of a desire to pop some coins in the vending machines yourself. Mqurice