由 bunacko » 週四 2月 4日, 2010年 9:05 am
我諗主要要令果條靚明白既係佢住緊果間屋唔係政府俾佢住既, 係個業主租俾佢既, 棟野lum左都好可能係人為問題, 政府冇責任俾番間屋佢住, 石籬只係因為呢個悲劇盡點仁義, 幫下你過渡未搵到屋時候既苦況既姐, 你唔鐘意冇人逼你入住既又.
叉開話題. 不過, 搬左甘生幾十年前果句野, 今時今日對我d咁既逆民(唔多順
) 黎講真係有d沉重,
尤其當年讀到阿friedman 呢個死鬼自由派果時寫既一段文字, 已搞到我就更加迷惘, 雖然我並非完全接受佢所講既野, 但係都可以睇下有d鬼佬諗乜.........
In a much quoted passage in his inaugural address, President Kennedy said, “Ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country.” Neither half of the statement expresses a relation between the citizen and his government that is worthy of the ideals of free men in a free society. The paternalistic “what your country can do for you” implies that government is the patron, the citizen the ward, a view that is at odds with the free man’s belief in his own responsibility for his own destiny. The organismic, “what you can do for your ‘country” implies the government is the master or the deity, the citizen, the servant or the votary.
The free man will ask neither what his country can do for him nor what he can do for his country. He will ask rather “What can I and my compatriots do through government” to help us discharge our individual responsibilities, to achieve our several goals and purposes, and above all, to protect our freedom?
To the free man, the country is the collection of individuals who compose it, not something over and above them. He is proud of a common heritage and loyal to common traditions. But he regards government as a means, an instrumentality, neither a grantor of favors and gifts, nor a master or god to be blindly worshipped and served. He recognizes no national goal except as it is the consensus of the goals that the citizens severally serve. He recognizes no national purpose except as it is the consensus of the purposes for which the citizens severally strive...........
純屬個人意見,並非買賣邀請或建議.
'I know u believe u understand what u think I said, but I'm not sure u realise that what u heard is not what I meant. '......alan greenspan