From: liberte@cs.uiuc.edu (Daniel LaLiberte)
Subject: Re: why
Organization: University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, Dept CS
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 17:07:59 GMT

You'll score pretty low for this response (not that it is a game):

   In the first place, I see government as the agency responsible for setting
   the agenda for all of society, including agriculture. 

If government could be trusted to do a good job at this, I wouldnt mind.
But the US government, for one, hasnt shown that it is trustworthy.

   It was the so-called `environmental movement' that was making the largest
   noises, and their message was that anyone who was associated with the
   industry of agriculture OR anyone who was involved with government wasn't 
   to be trusted, simply because they were the beneficiaries of the conspiracy
   that was being foisted upon the public. 

I'd say they are not to be trusted not necessarily because there is a
conspiracy (which there may be) but because the incentives are all
wrong for them to do the right thing.  Campaign finance reform will do
a lot to restore the government, but that is for another group.

   I wish to point out, however that their very existence (i.e. these
   so-called environmental groups like the green movement and
   greenpeace) was unnecessary.

This is nonsense.  The US government was designed to support popular
uprising such as the environmental movement (free speech and the right
to organize) in response to government inaction or misdeeds.  The
government has dragged its feet every step of the way on environmental
programs.  It may be the government's duty to remain cautious, but
it's gone dangerously too far.

   as I said, their continued existence serves no useful purpose...
   the changes that they are advocating are in the process of being made... 

... and unmade.  Why should the government do anything unless the
people force it to?  The environmental movement is part of how the
people force it to do what it has agreed to do.

   One person already enlightened me to the fact that nobody in the
   green movement makes more than $20,000 a year.... give me a break!
   You're trying to tell me that someone is going to organize a
   national movement, manage large amounts of money doing so, and is
   themselves going to earn poverty wages, all in the name of
   HUMANITY?? Come on... I wasn't born yesterday!

Ahem!  First you say the organizers are making too much money, and now
you say $20,000 a year is not nearly enough.  Yes, people will work
for such low wages in the name of humanity.  I worked for a few years
myself for almost nothing.  So how much do you think is reasonable,
and how much are you speculating that they really make?

   As I've said, there is no conspiracy linking government and big
   business to agriculture... the systems are the way they are because
   they evolved that way, not because someone hatched a grand plan to
   poison the world for profit.

It need not be a consciously organized conspiracy.  Conspiracies can
evolve as well as be hatched in a grand plan.  One campaign
contribution here and another kickback there, and they all add up.
OK, so that may not match the definition of "conspiracy", but it
amounts to the same thing.

You, Don, through your lack of good judgement in how you post, through
your uncalled for, insulting remarks to various people, and through
your obviously fallacious arguments have lost my trust in just about
anything you might say.

Dan LaLiberte
liberte@cs.uiuc.edu
(Join the League for Programming Freedom: lpf@uunet.uu.net)
"If we don't succeed, we run the risk of failure.
		-- Vice President Dan Quayle."