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: RMF who wrote (526624)	12/18/2012 1:27:26 AM
From: Maurice Winn	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 794501

My point was that it's perfectly reasonable to complain about governments taking opm by force then doling some of it out, with the complainant accepting those payments. Slaves also have their efforts confiscated by force [the whole lot is confiscated] but the slave owners do provide some dole payments by way of food and shelter. The slaves of course, and perfectly reasonably, complain bitterly about being slaves, but nevertheless accept the food and any other benefits they are provided. Slaves could of course refuse to accept the food, but they would get very hungry and die. That might be a good strategy overall but for individual slaves it would be fatal. People do try to survive so most will just give in and get by as best they can. The long history of slavery is proof of that human inclination to survive and accept the burden of being a serf/slave. Sometimes, things get so bad that there are riots and insurrection, but generally the slave/serf owners provide enough to keep the lid on things. Complaining about government spending while accepting payments or goods in kind is perfectly reasonable. Not hypocritical. The slaves will not protest that they are given too much. I am unaware of any case of slaves being overpaid. The whole point of slavery is that the slaves are underpaid. Mqurice