From: pelton@ecf.toronto.edu (PELTON MATTHEW ALAN)
Subject: Re: NDP "communism?" (was Re: A vote for Reform...)
Organization: University of Toronto, Engineering Computing Facility
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 18:54:52 GMT

In article <1993Jan11.211540.1@uwovax.uwo.ca> 4224_5201@uwovax.uwo.ca (John LaRocque) writes:
>In article <C0pBA3.Cxz@ecf.toronto.edu>, pelton@ecf.toronto.edu (PELTON MATTHEW ALAN) writes:
>
>
>The Great Society failed. Social help cannot work. Only decent American
>enterprise can. And as long as black people are told to expect that kind 
>paternalistic help from the white-majority government they will continue
>to be looked on as charity cases and not human beings. Malcolm X was right
>- you can't rely on the white man, only on yourself.
>
  
   What about government interventions to help out disadvantaged black
businesses?  You can't believe that a black business starts off or operates
on a level playing field with other businesses on a continent where the 
business world is run by WASPs.  A truly helpful government initiative would
give disadvantaged people the support they need to get started -- like
education, startup costs, and so on -- so that they can support themselves
better in the future.  That way, the hard work they invest would have some
effect.  We all know that it's easier to turn $1000 into $10000 than it is
to turn $1 into $10.  Once the black (or other disadvantaged) businesses
got running -- and I'm not saying all will, but at least some -- the initial
>
>Help is always a little nice. But I have a counter example. A friend of my
>parents has a very large family but the father does not earn a lot of money.
>They just get buy but would begrudge it very much of someone came up to them
>and made a charity case out of them. No, that sort of thing goes against 
>pride - to be told that your government considers you unemployable and thus
>is obligated to give you welfare.
> 
  As far as I know, nobody is required to accept welfare.  Correct me if
I'm wrong, but I think the government would be perfectly happy not to support
somebody who did not want to be supported.
  And well-guided government aid (not necessarily what we have) is intended
to help people only to the extent they need, not to make eternal charity
cases out of them.  The real idea behind government support is to help get
people back on their feet and keep them afloat only as long as in necessary
before they can support themselves again.  (UIC gets cut off after a while.)
  Of course, I'm talking about ideals here.  But so are you.

>
>FDR was a president who used war to rebuild the economy. Too bad Americans
>only remember those fireside chats. The US has been in a war ecomony for the
>last 60 or so years. So much for intervention. And that stuff about him
>saving America from a longer depression - that is just propaganda from FDR
>apologists. 

  FDR was scum.  But the American government did intervene economically.
What about the highway construction plans?  And the Depression was when
the U.S. became a welfare state.

>Technology improves lifestyle, not government programs.

  Technology is a tool, not a savior.  It doesn't necessarily improve
lifestyle, unless you think we're all better off for the nuclear bomb.
It's no end in itself -- it's good if used properly, and bad if used
badly.  And the government is often the one too decide how it should be
used. (Of course they don't always make the right decisions.  But 
somebody has to decide.)
  And this is coming from an engineer.
>
>I despise the current system which was originally designed to treat poor
>people as people who would never be productive members of society and
>thus did not design programs that would help them become productive.
>We live with that system today. Victorian attitudes in the late 20th
>century. "You will never be of useful help, here take some money, because
>this is our Christian duty". An evil system that denies what these people
>really are - human beings who can be productive once you unleash what is
>within them. So many people out there are willing to work and do something
>with their lives.
>
  But that's just the point.  The programs are designed to help people
fulfill their potential, and overcome the restrictions and disadvantages
they were born into.  Welfare was never meant to be a crutch.  If it is,
it's just being implemented wrong.  That doesn't mean the entire concept is flawflawed.



Newsgroups: can.politics