From: de5@ORNL.GOV (Dave Sill)
Subject: Re: Andre Marrou on Larry King
Organization: Oak Ridge National Laboratory
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 19:30:41 GMT

In article <1992Jul24.193624.2602@cbnews.cb.att.com>, jap@cbnews.cb.att.com (james.a.parker) writes:
>
>It is not "looney fringish" to suggest we try and learn; and once success is
>seen, people will naturally tend to adopt those solutions.

It is when the method legal involves discrimination on the basis of race,
religion, sexual preference, age, etc.

>>That's it?  He plans to dump trillions of dollars of prime real estate onto the
>>market to pay off the debt.  Why don't we cut out the middle man and trade our
>>land to our debtors directly?
>
>Fair response, and one that could certainly be implemented.

Yeah, but my point, which was obviously too subtle, is that a good portion
(perhaps most) of our debt is owed to foreign lenders.  If we suddenly start
selling off this land, who's going to have the money to buy it, and do we
really want to sell off such prime land to foreign interests?

>Not to mention returning some land to Native Americans, opening up some for
>homesteading, etc.

Neither is exactly a great way to pay off debt, although I'd support them
both if done right.

>My view is that Andre did not mean this to be the complete solution, but
>rather to show that the orders of magnitude of Federal holdings were sufficient
>to meet the deficit.

It ain't that simple.

>Norplant is legal, but regulated, making it harder to obtain.

Norplant is surgically implanted.  It *needs* to be regulated.

>RU-486 (not 440) is correct; however I understood that rather than inducing
>abortion in the traditional sense, it prevents the fertilized ovum from
>embedding itself in the uterus.

Traditional or not, it's still terminating a pregnancy, not preventing one.

>Not so; the codes are often "sold" to ensure safety, but their real purpose
>is to drive up costs, and hence profits of those who meet state licensure.

You have proof of this national conspiracy?  Or even convincing
circumstantial evidence?  Don't confuse their purpose with their possibly
flawed implementation or abusive manipulation by those with vested interests.

>As for the costs, they could be reduced by far more than 30%; an extreme example
>would be along the lines of some inexpensive Japanese hotels, where a "room"
>is 4'x8', and 4' high.  Cramped?  Yes.  Better than living on a steam grate,
>in a refrigerator box, or in an open shelter?  Definitely!

If they're safe, they ought to be legal.  If they were safe and cheap, some
homeless people would, doubtless, take advantage of them.  I'm not aware of
any federal restriction against such accomodations.

>...  We would eliminate the heavy regulation of medicine, allowing for
>cost-effective treatment for the poor.

No doubt a conspiracy by the AMA and drug makers to keep themselves rich
under the pretense of patient safety, right?  Sorry, I don't buy it.  What
level of regulation would you support?  Be specific.

-- 
Dave Sill (de5@ornl.gov)           For every Bill Joy there is a Kirk McKusick.
Martin Marietta Energy Systems     For every Bill Gates there is a Richard
Workstation Support                Stallman.                     --Paul Graham
Xref: sparky alt.politics.marrou:244 alt.individualism:4644