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 : Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Steve Lokness who wrote (101773)	9/9/2009 3:08:12 PM
From: Little Joe	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 116555

It is hard for me to grasp why I need to explain what is obvious to me, but when the government takes my money to spend on what it wants, I am not free to spend it on what I want. o Therefore I view government as a necessary evil, much as I view my car. I need it but I want to spend as little as possible on it. That way I get to keep the freedom to spend the fruit of my labor the way I think best. That is freedom. In fact it is what the founding fathers were referring to when they used the term "pursuit of happiness". As the government begins to take more of my money it feeds on itself. For example as the government spends more on health care, they use that as a justification to impose higher taxes and take more freedoms. The argument is if you are hurt in an auto accident that increases the cost to the taxpayer so we are justified in requiring you to wear a seat belt because you are costing us (taxpayers) more. This argument can be applied to all sorts of activity. For example sex, both in and out of marriage, homosexual sex, etc. Eventually the government begins to control our lives, instead of serving us it rules us. Myfavorite argument along this line that doesnt relate to taxes but does relate to freedom of speech and how it is perceived by the left is the McCain-Feingold bill restricting spending on political free speech. The argument is that Congress is too crooked not to be bought, so the solution is to deny our constituents free speech. Hard for me to believe you don't see that. lj