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.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sidney Reilly who wrote (27984)	1/11/1999 10:35:00 PM
From: Dayuhan	Respond to of 108807

Bob, In Jefferson's time it was a hot issue as to whether or not the government had any business building roads. And where would we be if they had decided that government shouldn't build roads? I actually agree that government has in many ways become too intrusive, with the intrusions coming as much from rightists trying to legislate their own version of religion and morality as from PC-fanatic leftists. All we - and government - can do is to walk the line between, deciding each case on its individual merits. The more people participate intelligently, and the more people move away from the poles and try to seriously consider the other person's point of view, the easier this will be. Lumping everything we don't like into a single package and labelling it the product of conspiracy is pretty counterproductive, IMO. Steve

To: Sidney Reilly who wrote (27984)	1/12/1999 2:13:00 AM
From: nihil	Respond to of 108807

Government building roads Not in Jefferson's time (1801-1809) I think. We're talking canals, and roads, and railroads from 1820-1860 -- the National whigs and all that. The states built canals and railroads long before they built schools. The Feds paid mileage bounties for the transcontinental RR and even bought the Gadsden Purchase for the Southern route dear to the S.C. rascals. The debate was not government aid for development, but whether states or feds should do the deed. The Democrats (states rights) hated fed development, because it would be financed by the hated tariff. The Whigs (national development) wanted to use duties to back protected industries to build national manufacturing and national works. The Democrats largely won, and caused the '37 panic (railroads funded with free banking). My grandfather had a steamer trunk full of worthless bonds for the (State) Hamburg-Cincinnati Bank and RR, but he was a referee in bankruptcy and the junk had been floating around since the Civil War (anyway, I hope they were worthless and didn't have claims on downtown Cincinnati -- we chucked 'em out!).

To: Sidney Reilly who wrote (27984)	1/12/1999 1:51:00 PM
From: nasdaqian	Respond to of 108807

Bob, I think gov. belongs in some places like roadbuilding, NASA, the military. I was on one of those collectivist run freeways and it's an amazing thing. Government can do well. Trouble is, it gets bored and starts looking for more to do. It exceeds its competence. Like a huge conglomerate that does a lot and not much very well. Pretty soon, it gets destructive, with agencies run amok like the EPA. Ponzi schemes like SSI. Negative incentive welfare programs. Legislated morality which only serves to make sure violent, black markets thrive. And blah, blah, blah.