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 : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jacob Snyder who wrote (71391)	3/1/2011 11:53:13 PM
From: Maurice Winn	2 Recommendations Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 217544

Yes: <The only way to be truly safe, is to have nobody hate you (or your country) enough to want to kill you.> And that means not going around stomping on, or bullying people, or taking their property by force. Unfortunately the actual mechanism of all governments as currently constituted is to treat citizens as state chattels, mere serfs of the state so the problem is built in, with forcible confiscation of property and person the norm. Until people have Tradable Citizenships with a reconstituted federal UN there will be quite a mess. But it's not quite that simple - while people are getting into Malthusian overload, they are forced by the exigencies of nature to fight for survival. Christian pacifism is fine in theory but in practise the tough thugs will just march in and take what they want for themselves and their tribal supporters. Most people in democracies vote for exactly that and they'll use whatever force they need to apply to achieve it. Mqurice

To: Jacob Snyder who wrote (71391)	3/2/2011 2:15:02 AM
From: Hawkmoon	Respond to of 217544

The only way to be truly safe, is to have nobody hate you (or your country) enough to want to kill you. So I guess we all should be dumb, blind, beggars.. Because few people perceive them as a threat, nor do they possess anything worth killing them for.. I truly wish the world was fit for a pacifist belief such as yours.. Sadly, it is not.. But keep trying.. Suggestion.. start with the children.. Because, most of the time, the parents are part of the problem.. Hawk

To: Jacob Snyder who wrote (71391)	3/2/2011 8:40:18 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 217544

Fighting to preserve the life and liberty of others is something that I do support. "Vietnam defeated the US" -- actually the objective of the US was to prevent North Vietnam from conquering South Vietnam. Failed because South Vietnam lost the will to preserve itself. Can't make people fight for their rights if they don't want to do it. We did not intend to conquer North Vietnam, nor did they intend to conquer us. They wanted to be left alone, and they were. That was their victory. Taliban stalemate? Well, they are no longer in control of Afghanistan. The Afghans in the liberated areas still have the will to preserve themselves. As long as the Pashtun in the Afghan-Pakistan border support the Taliban, then the Taliban has a place to hide. I don't call that victory, myself. They survive, and live to fight another day. Is there a country on earth that has not experienced terrorist attacks? Iceland, maybe? If fighting to preserve the life and liberty of others makes us targets, well, that is no surprise, and nothing to cause us to shirk our responsibilities. On an individual level, if I tried to save a woman from being raped or a child from being kidnapped or an elderly person from being robbed, I would not expect to do so in perfect safety, either. Some actions require us to step outside our personal safety zone. It is our duty. Mine, at least. You may be honest that you would never engage in such actions even to save the life and liberty of others, and you may be honest that you are not actually a coward, but if I did what you suggest, I could not live with my conscience. The blood of the guilty transgressor is not superior to the blood of the innocent.