Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 09:02:14 -0500 
From: Anatole Wilson <aw3a+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Subsidizing porn?

Mark Christensen writes:
>I feel I must jump in here over this thread that has developed.  Instead of
>arguing why we should or should not fund the NEA based on moral grounds,
>let's instead look at why we should or should not fund any organization
>at all for any reason.  I do not believe it is the responsibility of the
>government to give ANY money to ANY of these organizations.  In fact, it
>is the responsibility of the governement NOT to fund every Johnny-come-
>lately group.  Our government was established to provide for the common
>security of our nation, to provide a common monetary system, and to 
>provide a criminal system.  It was not formed to provide subsidies to
>corporations, other nations, or it's own citizens.  It was not formed
>to provide welfare, social security, medical care, jobs, or any such
>thing.  Our goverment would be far better (and our taxes far less) if it
>was smaller and less intrusive.  

You're right--a small, unintrusive federal government was what the
"founding fathers" envisioned. However, they didn't envision such events
as: 

The industrial revolution, which required the government to step in and
stop factories from abusive child labor practices;

The establishment of large monopolies that threatened both capitalism
and democracy (requiring anti-monopoly regulations);

The Depression, which violated the "invisible hand" economic theories
that predominated until then;

What they did foresee is that the Unted States government, a noble
experiment, would constantly be changing and evolving, to meet the needs
of its peoples. They allowed for constitutional changes, and they made
the mechanisms for change slow enough that the stability of the country
wouldn't be threatened each time a new wave of conservative or liberal
thinking swept the nation. 

The government's role has grown because that's what was needed. I agree,
the government has become too intrusive in our lives in many ways. But
at the same time, our government has tried to become something *more*
than just the necessary evil originally conceived. It's tried to become
an agent for social change, to raise the quality of every citizen's
life, to try to promote policies that lift *everyone* out of poverty. (I
know, liberal hogwash at its finest.)  And I'll agree, the record of
success has been pretty weak till now.

Just because we're not doing it right now doesn't mean we should stop
trying. It means we should keep trying new ideas, to find out what
works, and discard the old ideas that have been proven not to work. A
Laissez-faire economy is one of those ideas. While the economy outwardly
grew for ten years, the economic infrastructure was left to decay. (For
the record, I'm not a Socialist or Communist, but I'm not a full-blooded
Capitalist either.)

I personally believe it is just and even necessary for our government to
promote our culture through the arts. I'll letyou look back on previous
posts for arguments about this issue, but I do want to note that this
post resorted to a common tactic of grouping the NEA with
"Johnny-Come-Lately groups" (whoever they are)--and sugeesting it's a
needless burden on taxpayers because other faceless groups that the
government supports are unnecessary. I call that the "throwing out the
baby with the bathwater approach."

It is the socialistic policies of our
>government which have led us to the almost financially bankrupt state
>that we are in.  It is the policies of our increasingly socialistic
>government which have taken out the incentives for businesses and which
>have taken out the incentives for many Americans to work hard or work at
>all.  We are indeed, slowly (more quickly now) approaching a socialistic
>state which will squelch any incentive to achieve more.  That's the whole
>problem of communism.  

While I generally agree with you about Totalitarian Socialism, Socialism
*isn't* Communism. The ultimate goal of Communism is eliminate
government entirely. (Gee, you'd think more conservatives would be in
favor of that :)) 


>Given the nature of man, communism can not work as
>theoretically applied.  

True Communism has never been applied on a large scale. I'm not an
economic theorist, (and I'm abot to prove it), but I do think Communism
on a small scale (maybe villages of 100-500 people) can work. (Don't
flame me! It's just a thought!)
>
If people can not achieve more wealth, power,
>or whatever personnally motivates them through their own hard work, they
>simply won't work hard or they will go somewhere else. That is what is
>happening with many of our families and businesses.  The same was true
>under communist Russia (USSR).  

Agreed. But even in even in the Union of Soviet *Socialist* Republics
(not communist), there were rewards and social classes. The USSR was
really one large, half-hearted capitalist corporation that lacked good
management.


>Why produce superior products or work
>more hours or work more efficiently if there is no reward for it except
>the "benefit of the state"?  Yes, I agree that my tax dollars should not
>subsidize the NEA because of it's backing of what I consider immoral and in
>some cases blasphemous "art-garbage".  

See previous (and future, I'm certain) posts on the subject. Again, in
my opinion, abolishing the NEA because you don't like 2% of its
decisions is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

>But more central, I don't think
>it should be subsidized because that is not the role of the government.

The role of the government will continue to evolve as long as it exists.
That's why it's so important that liberals and conservatives not only
talk about htese issues on their own newsgroups, but to talk with each
other, without pointless flaming and finger-pointing, to resolve these
issues and point the country in a direction that benefits everyone. 

My criticism of Rush is that his continuous put-down of liberals as
airheads and non-thinkers is divisive, and does nothing constructive.
(Yes, this goes for liberals who categorize all conservatives as fascist
non-thinkers as well.)

oh--to keep this thread from digressing to far--Keep the NEA!

Just my moderate opinion,





Anatole Wilson                  "If anyone objects to anything I say,
-----------------                I am prepared not only to retract it,
                                 But to deny under oath that I ever said it
                                 in the first place."     
                                                               

Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh