Not necessarily [a finite point]. During one of the debates in the 1920s or 1930s (or was it even earlier?) one US Senator observed that the people would "revolt" if the income tax was raised above 3%. At the time he was speaking, he was probably correct.
Lowell C. Savage It's the freedom, stupid! Gun control: tyrants' tool, fools' folly. Travis Pahl wrote, replying to Robert's expansion of my argument to Frank: > Define rock bottom as the point when people rise up and fight. That > is a finite point. > > On Wed, 1 Dec 2004 15:11:17 EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > "Lowell C. Savage" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in part: > > > > >So, apparently, you look at the same situation and decide that it means > > we, > > >as a society, need to "hit bottom" before we can work our way up. > > > > That always presents a problem because, practically, there is no bottom. > > For just about any credible situation, one can imagine still worse. > > Absolute rock bottom would be the extinction of humanity, but there's no > > recovery from that. > > > > > > > > >If people cannot be convinced to take a small chance with change in > placid > > >times, what makes you think they'll take a big leap of faith when all > > around > > >seems to be falling apart? The greatest friend of authoritarian > > governments > > >is a catastrophe. Even if you can make the argument that the > government > > >brought the catastrophe about, people are instinctively likely to > believe > > >that "more government" will be the solution. > > > > And that's another reason there's never such a thing as rock bottom. _______________________________________________ Libnw mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] List info and subscriber options: http://immosys.com/mailman/listinfo/libnw Archives: http://immosys.com/mailman//pipermail/libnw
