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 : Bill Clinton Scandal - SANITY CHECK -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: jbe who wrote (7881)	10/8/1998 9:34:00 AM
From: j_b	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

OT*** <<there is no single, universally accepted philosophy, >> Thank goodness! This would be a boring place to live if everyone agreed on everything. However, in the past there was far more homogeneity of opinion and general philosophy than there is today. For the most part, people were constant in their support of our form of government, the vast majority supported the direction the country was going in, agreed on a work ethic and public morality, etc. We were not as Balkanized as we are now. People that misbehaved (did drugs, were violent, dressed funny, etc.) were looked down upon as members of some fringe group or as part of the Hollywood social elite. Everyone seemed to be able to not only define the problems of the day, but they found a way to come to an agreement over what to do about it. That solution seems to have revolved around what was best for the country - until the New Deal. Once people found out they could vote special privileges for themselves, and that the government would pay for it (as if the government had an independent source of funds) things started to go downhill, IMHO. Instead of keeping the good of the nation in mind for policy issues, with individuals and communities taking care of themselves, the focus of government shifted to handling the issues of the individual. Instead of creating a general environment where individual possibilities flourished, the government now controls those possibilities. <<the notions that one should place the greater good above one's own; that the more fortunate should feel an obligation towards those less so ("noblesse oblige"); that empathy is the cardinal social virtue>> What's really sad, is that people still say they hold those views, they just feel no obligation to act on them because the government is now responsible for those issues. If it's legal, it must be okay. Don't worry about taking care of the downtrodden, that's why we have welfare, food stamps, Medicare and Social Security. The individual is no longer responsible for the welfare of the community, leaving them in the position of having to be selfish in order to be on an even footing with the other people that are getting something from government. <<philosophy should be mixed with a little astringent realism>> Absolutely - If the philosophy is well thought out, it must also deal with the daily realities. You have to weigh your vision of utopia against the realities surrounding you. However, you should never stop trying to move the world (one person at a time if necessary) toward your vision.