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: LindyBill who wrote (282829)	12/3/2008 4:42:51 AM
From: Maurice Winn	1 Recommendation Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 794144

I used to believe that too Lindy: <There is an axiom here you must not forget. People whould rather suffer under the worst leader of their own than a benign foreign one. > But that belief is part of the post British Empire liberal lefty socialist racist collectivist ideology which says local yokels are always best to run themselves according to their stone age territorial alpha male dominance society tribal mores than post-Enlightenment concepts. Having lived under various rulers in different countries, I do not in the slightest prefer to have a local thug [aka Helen Clark and cronies] robbing and bullying me. In my younger days, I was all for a republic and ditching the monarchy and olde Englishe rule. Now I quite like to have Queen Elizabeth II as final arbiter of who is boss. The Privy Council was no bad thing as an arbiter of common law. I prefer to have my assets guarded by King George II and the Statue of Liberty than the greedy depredations of the Kiwi Kleptocracy. I like to be able to flee NZ and live in other countries where I have no say in the government. Local mob rule is not at all preferable to me than a more civilized government run in a federal manner as was the British Commonwealth when we were still British Subjects. The British were able to take over a great swathe of Earth because they brought greatly improved conditions in all sorts of ways. They did not do a Japanese style or Third Reich variety of murderous militarism based on race. Quite the contrary. When the local yokels started getting stroppy, the British politely bowed out and left the local thugocracy to murder their way into possession of whatever assets were left behind. Look at India and Pakistan for example and the bulk murder Ghandi's rule brought. Look at the half century of go nowhere stagnation and grinding poverty in India. Look at the horrors throughout Africa. Mugabe still blames Britain. Mqurice

To: LindyBill who wrote (282829)	12/3/2008 4:51:12 AM
From: Maurice Winn	1 Recommendation Respond to of 794144

Yes Lindy and even apart from that process, there is the ethical danger of feeding an unsustainable population dependent on charity. < We feed these kind of conditions in Africa and Palestine with our food aid. Gives the bastards a base of groceries to get by on. They steal it from the NGO's and end up running things. Don't have to spend time stealing crops from their farmers.> It's okay as long as the charitable people have resources to give away with nothing in return. But one day, after the free resource has enabled growth of large proportions, the charity will run out, due to death of the donors, financial problems, change of ideology, or something. Then there will be a population living somewhere, dependent on charity, with no means of support, and they will die en masse. It's also a lot safer to steal donated food supplies than the hard-won crops of local farmers who tend to get angry and wield their pitchforks in threatening ways when push comes to shove. Mqurice