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 : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (92283)	10/28/2008 4:34:41 PM
From: cnyndwllr	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 541695

Lane, re: "[argh--how about "reasonable"? <g>] Every objection you have to the use of the word "fair" would also apply to the use of the word "reasonable." In fact, "reasonable" is often used in conjunction with, or as a synonym for, the word "fair." Each requires that we apply our values to balance competing interests before reaching a conclusion. So every time I use the word "fair," think "reasonable." g. And, by the way, you can't "demonstrate" either fairness or reasonableness. It's a little like pornography, you might not be able to define it and your definition can change over time, but you know it when you see it. "I do not have to attribute negative intent to them to retain the thought that they are not an asset." They're not an economic asset and it's hard to see how, in our foreseeable economic future, they'll become an asset, but that's not the issue. And the fact that some people have negative views of them because of their acceptance of assistance is not the issue either, but it certainly can be a political factor and it can generate votes for, or against a candidate. "When the contributors are in the minority, then what?" Then we'll have arrived at a level of technology where the means of production are almost exclusively machine based. In that event will we say that those who own or operate the machines are entitled to live high while those who, through genetics, luck of birth or otherwise, do not own or cannot operate the machines are condemned to live marginal lives? Will we recognize that our economy has progressed to the point where the labor of most people is neither needed nor possible and will we therefor provide a non judgemental right to some decent level of subsistence for all? And will the people who are not needed for production find satisfaction in their lives? Of course history indicates that whenever one species becomes too prevalent nature balances the map through disease or some other catastrophic event and then we can start over again. That's where (when?) I'd do pretty well, or would have done pretty well. g. Ed