From: ARCHER@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer)
Subject: Re: = Opportunity etc.
Organization: University of Tennessee 
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 13:56:14 GMT

In article <7933@dove.nist.gov> hira@cme.nist.gov (Ron Hira) writes:
>In article <8JAN199321505673@ariel.lerc.nasa.gov>, secsu@ariel.lerc.nasa.
gov (Ralph O. Clark) writes:>|> From: secsu@ariel.lerc.nasa.gov (Ralph O. 
Clark)>|> Subject: Re: = Opportunity etc.
>|> Date: 9 Jan 93 02:50:00 GMT
>|> >What gov't spending is ok?
>|> 
>|> For things that the business of governing requires:
>|> 	national defense
>|> 	police, courts, etc
>
>Who determines the amounts? 

A legislative body with suitable checks by an executive and judicial body 
that is also immediatly responible to the electorate for how the money is 
spent.

>
>|> Not for things that fall under "really nice things for someone to do
>|> for somebody", i.e. charity. This includes
>|> 	welfare
>|> 	medicine
>|> 	disaster "relief"
>
>What about education? Medicine is charity, eh? What do you tell people
>who carry contagious diseases?

These are all services  that have to be paid for.  The people who use 
services should be the ones to pay for them.  

People with contagious diseases should remove themselves from public, as 
they present a hazard of infection.  If they refuse to do so, they are 
assaulting the people around them and should be removed.

> 
>|> The reasons for this are numerous. If you read alt.individualism (where
>|> I found this thread and am posting) or alt.politics.libertarian, you would
>|> see the arguments in gory detail. A short summary:
>|> 	1) private charities or businesses can provide the same services
>|> 		with much less overhead and much better accountability to
>|> 		the donors;
>
>Is this really true? How much did the head of United Way earn last year?>
How does one 'police' these charitable organizations? I for one don't>care 
to write individual checks to umpteen charities, as it would be >pretty 
burdensome. I guess you don't believe in economies of scale.>

If you want to trust an umbrella organization such as United Way or the 
Federal government to spend your money for you, that's fine.  I prefer to 
control how my money is spent.

>|> 	3) When the taxpayers are forced to pay taxes in order to support
>|> 		"charitable" causes, their attitude rapidly turns against
>|> 		the recipients, who are seen as taking their hard-earned
>|> 		money. Where is the charity (= love for fellow man) in
>|> 		that?
>
>This is media hype IMO. I think that most polls support the fact that 
>the majority of Americans support some kind of welfare. 

That's true, until you ask them who should pay for it.  The response is 
then "the other guy," or "the rich should pay their fair share."

>|> 	4) The whole thing encourages the notion that it takes some sort
>|> 		of government institution to solve any problem. The real
>|> 		reason we have problems with pollution, poverty, poor
>|> 		education, etc., is that, at a grass roots level, people
>|> 		don't care enough to work toward a solution. It's so much
>|> 		more comforting to throw money at the government and try
>|> 		to believe that it can solve them.
>
>When one's belly is full, one is apathetic.

So we should feed the poor, to keep them apathetic?

>|> >I agree with much of this paragraph, but could we not just substitute 
the>|> >"military industrial complex" for "social-justice-influenced system."
>|> 
>|> Except that, as noted above, the social programs amount to considerably
>|> more than the military ones.
>
>Huh? What is the military budget, 24% as you claim? Social programs were 
>just 14%. Be careful about lumping in social security as a social program.
>I'd say that the $300 bill / year budgets are lining some people's 
>pockets, namely the defense industry. 

True enought, social security is not a social program, it's a fraudulent 
pyramid scheme that is about to collapse.

>
>|> >Perhaps, or maybe they (Chrysler) would be out of business.
>|> 
>|> Or maybe they would have decided to compete with the Japanese car makers
>|> *before* they took over the market. If Chrysler was so short-sighted as
>|> to not see what was coming, they should have gone belly-up.
>
>Maybe. Where would that leave all of those workers? On the dole, I would
>guess. 

So?  And maybe some of those workers would have come up with a better way to 
compete, or a new industry.

>If the Japanese & Europeans are unwilling to trade fairly, why
>should we? 

We shouldn't.  Free trade is not a liscence for industry to act in a 
criminal manner.  Dumping, profit shifting, and other illegal acts would not 
necessarily be legal in a libertarian system.

>|> Figuring the 14% "social programs" figure as comparable (within a factor
>|> of 5, say?) to the HUD budget, in a roughly $1E12 (!) budget, that's
>|> $2.6 billion out of something like $140 billion (or as little as $28 billion,
>|> using the factor of 5). A lot of money, but nothing like what the government
>|> throws away.
>
>Don't follow your factor of 5? HUD's budget off the top of my head was
>about $8 bill/yr in 1988, considerably less than the $28 bill in 1980.
>Hey, funny thing is that I don't recall a major homeless problem in 
>1980. 

I do.  The homeless have ALWAYS been there, they just have better press now.

>
>Can't believe that you would discount what *1* man stole from the country
>and innocent people!!!! Remember that this is just one of *many* cases 
>where *deregulation* failed.

Deregulation did not fail here:  the insurance scheme did.  The system was 
deregulated and the trustees were allowed to take greater risks, but the 
state maintained the insurance scheme.  So there was NO RISK.  If the 
investments didn't pan out, the government could be counted on to bail out 
the investors, which it is.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Vote Dempublican, it's easier than thinking.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Newsgroups: alt.culture.us.asian-indian