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 : Did Slick Boink Monica? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: DMaA who wrote (15794)	6/9/1998 3:38:00 PM
From: Jacques Chitte	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20981

The answer is right there if you only take a moment and read. "What does society get out of it?" Whatever, no more and no less, than its participants get out of it. I already delineated the benefits for a representative participant. Your post contains (aside from an unwarranted evaluation of my cognitive state) a faulty premise. That is that there is more to "society" than its individual participants. What else would there be? Some sort of shadowy superimposed entity? An occult conspiracy? Puhleeeeze.

To: DMaA who wrote (15794)	6/10/1998 11:44:00 AM
From: WalleyB	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20981

It's also in the individual's best interest to be able to keep the 30%-50% of his income that's extracted from him by threatening him with the loss of ( whats left) of his freedom but there you have it. I'm late on this subject but I have to toss in my two cents. If its bad news to give up your hard earned coin to the Govt at the tune of 30 - 50 percent (and I agree, it's the pits). Then why if this govt. can take your money would you give up more freedom by letting the same govt take your attorney client privilege from you? The argument as far as I can tell is that the privilege does not extend to the clintons because the lawyers where not their personal attorneys but were in the employ of the White House.