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: Maurice Winn who wrote (256963)	7/6/2008 10:55:39 PM
From: skinowski	Respond to of 794267

Gina, socialism is communal ownership such as roads, hospitals, schools There is really nothing "communal" in that ownership. In a mature Soviet style socialist system everything is under absolute control by party and government bosses. If a director of a factory receives a phone call from the central committee with some suggestions, you better believe that those "suggestions" will be followed to the letter. If a judge receives an "opinion" about a pending case from "above", that will decide the case. They "communally" own the judges too. And the teachers and doctors as well. and taking money away from one lot of people to give to others who "need" it Not quite. Why go through the trouble of taking away money from people if you are in full control of what they get paid in the first place....

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (256963)	7/6/2008 11:06:37 PM
From: gamesmistress	Respond to of 794267

Your definition of socialism is a bit of a stretch. Classical socialism is when the community (really the gov't) owns the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc. Lots of people object to being taxed, and lots object to tax money being spent on things they don't like, ie. B-1 bombers instead of education. In the case of the Irish famine, the British government's policies in Ireland before and during the famine made bad worse, even if they didn't mean to. You don't think they had a responsibility to try to alleviate the suffering they contributed to? That's your prerogative. As far as I'm concerned, for both political and humanitarian reasons, they should have helped or facilitated private helpers. You obviously don't understand the way the ethanol industry, economics and the political controls work, not to mention border controls and import regulations. Well, I wasn't planning to write a dissertation on the subject any time soon. And how did we jump from the ethical position of a person driving an SUV today, using ethanol, to this? Joe SUV Driver should walk up to the guy behind the counter at the Shell station and demand to know if the percent of ethanol in his fuel is negatively impacting our border controls and import regulations?