From: cory@enigami.mv.com (Cory Kempf)
Newsgroups: ne.politics
Subject: Re: Smaller government means MORE money for the poor
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 92 12:50:31 EST
Organization: EnigamI, Inc., Nashua, NH
Reply-To: cory@enigami.mv.com
X-Mailer: uAccess - Macintosh Release: 1.6v1


In article <BZS.92Aug25170526@ussr.std.com> (ne.politics), bzs@ussr.std.com (Barry Shein) writes:
>
>The problem is you cannot so easily, as you seem to represent,
>separate your personal needs from those around you.

Perhaps not in every case.  There are many cases though, where the
government is making transfer payments.  In otherwords, the government
takes about 40% of our income.  There is very little left for charity.
I think that murph's point is that if the government were smaller
(e.g. if I were allowed to keep more of my paycheck), charity would
most likely become afordable for common people (e.g. people who make
less that $100,000 / year).

Further, than without thousands of over paid mouchers between the
giver and the givee, the contributions would be MUCH more effective.
(e.g. has it occured to you that the current welfare state pays people
to run it?  And that these people have a vested interest in expanding
the system?  That these people may not have any real concern for the
recipients?  That perhaps they might not be acting in the best interests
of the aforementioned downtrodden?)

>You don't drive the bus you ride to work, you most likely didn't build
>your house, or the roads you ride on, nor grow the food you eat, etc.

Actually, we do.  Not directly, but by exchanging our labour for the
labour of those who provide those goods and services.  Money is a
media for making such exchanges more efficient, but barter would work
almost as well (I will help build your house if you help build
me a car).

>Your problem is that you assume that even in the face of excessive,
>almost medieval, selfishness all this would remain constant or perhaps
>even improve.

>Let's start with something easy and 14th century, since you don't seem
>to have quite caught on to what's happened since:
>
>Do you see any value in public health measures (i.e. tax dollars
>spent) to eradicate rats, tuberculosis and other health hazards from
>poor neighborhoods?

Is this necessarily a justification for a large government?  Or perhaps
a good justification for a small one that can contract out large jobs
(such as hiring a piper to eliminate the rats :-) ?  There are some
things that, by their nature, require collective action.  These actions
can really only be undertaken by a government body.  I don't think
that anyone is advocating complete anarchy, but rather minarchy: 
Reduce the size of the government down to something reasonable (ever
hear of the Grace commission report?).  Eliminate all of the pork
projects (like the entire state of W.Va. :-(  ) and reduce the deficit
(e.g. eliminate it!).  Lower taxes, and allow people more freedom.
The vast majority of the things that the government is getting into,
they really have no business doing.  Most of the rest of the work
of the government can and should be farmed out to private industry.
What remains should be national defense (to protect us from outside
threats) and a police / judiciary system (to protect us from other
members of the populace).  I would probably include the public health
portion (with very strict limits as to what it can / should do) to
a portion of the national defense system (which already has those
functions).

I don't think that these goals are too extreme:  Personal Freedom:
the freedom to do what you want, so long as it does not harm another
person and Economic Freedom: the freedom to earn a living, to make
a better life for oneself, the freedom to make money.

+C



-------------------------------------------------------------
Cory Kempf                    EnigamI, Inc.
cory@enigami.mv.com           ...!decvax!enigami!cory
Annon:	wi.5036@wizvax.methuen.ma.us

"F' cryin' out loud, it's *your* life; shouldn't you at least examine 
your lifestyle values to see if they are really what *you* want."
										--Keith Lim
Newsgroups: ne.politics,ne.general,talk.politics.misc