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 : The Residential Real Estate Crash Index -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Reilly Diefenbach who wrote (263258)	7/23/2010 1:05:08 PM
From: koan	Respond to of 306849

koan: It seems your arguments are honestly held and without malice, so let me give you a liberals response, with all due respect. >>koan: Tejek is a good guy. He cares about people. He worries about things like injustice and the poor and downtrodden. Not everyone does.>> Reilly: ""It's incorrect to assume that those of us who don't happen to subscribe to your liberal, or progressive (or I'd call social democrat) world view DON'T care about other people. As for myself, I find it far better to teach a person to fish than to hand that person a fish. It creates a much healthier situation overall for everyone when people are able to take responsibility for themselves and we don't have people on a permanent dole." koan: 1) The first sentence speaks to tejek and no one else. He is a good and smart guy who cares about other people. And when I followed it with, "not everyone does" that was not directed at anyone in particular. Just that not everyone does care what happens to other people. MOst of history is replete with bad people who did not care about other people e.g. wars, all the people who used to keep slaves, or feudal lords who used to make life hell for the peasants, cultures who make hell for women, men who did not allow women to vote, people who ran sweat shops, or people who used to support the chain gang system for free black labor in the south. 2) Regarding the old "teach a person to fish" saying, I agree with that. But the people I am talking about are the 85 year old woman who has debilitating arthritus for example and no one in the world to care for her. A civilized society makes sure she is well taken care of. I am sure you would agree we, as a civilized society, should make sure she has not only a fish to eat, but sheltor and safety. Reilly: >>And the danger to this country is coming from the large corporations, and the rich, not government. We are a democracy and we can vote out governments any time we want, but we have no control over corporations and they are increasingly buying our congressional representatives through huge campaign contributions and lobbbyists. I have a couple of points to make here: 1) I think that the danger question is sort of a chicken-or-egg thing. If the rich or large corporations are able to exert so much force on government (and I'm not arguing that they don't), I blame government through our elected officials for the situation. Elected officials receive their votes from and are morally bound by their oath of office to represent the views and needs of their electorate. I agree that the way that we treat corporations is screwed up, but this needs to be addressed legislatively, not by a court essentially writing legislation from the bench. 2) Both you and tejek seem bound and determined to ignore the fact that we are a DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC, not a democracy. We don't have elections "any time" but only as prescribed by the law. And the instructions for governing are based on the constitution and our laws, not whims. Your lack of respect for these facts parallels the lack of respect for the law we so often see from activist judges who tend to disregard the law and the constitution when it interferes with their agenda and/or world view.>> koan: A couple of things: 1) Do not blame the politicians, blame the people who elected them. People say they hate congress, but usually go on to vote for their own congressperson over 95% of the time. See the disconnect there? The words Democracy and Republic pretty much mean the same thing i.e. rule by the people and not a king, dictator or tribal chief. There are a zillion variations of both Republics and democracies. The ancient Greeks around 400 BC, first explored Republics or rule by the people and not one person or group of people. It was a very novel idea at the time. The constitution has been reinterpreted and changed since its beginning as society evolves. Both Jefferson and Washington had slaves and the constitution did not protect them, or women or many other people. Surely you do not think we should keep those aspects of the constitution? Last, unfortunately, in the end, all law is existential in nature. Go look at how many 5/4 decisions there are on the supreme court. Both right and left judges on the SC interpret much of the law according to their belief system as there are so many ways one can interpret the constitution. And if modern ideas bring new ideas to society the constitution and our laws needs to be amended. The law allowed segregation until 1964. Where was the constitution and our legislators during that time? When a court finally said this was wrong, was that "activist" court wrong? Cheers,