From: silva@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Holly Silva)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.usa,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: To the Clinton supporters
Date: 9 Nov 1992 07:36:42 GMT
Organization: Stanford Univ. Earth Sciences
NNTP-Posting-Host: pangea.stanford.edu

>brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder) writes:
>sorsha@wam.umd.edu (Laurie Beth Brunner) writes:
>
>>1)  People live in societies, not as hermits who all happen to
>>live in the same area of land.  You can't live in a society and
>>expect that everything will go your way 
>
>>and that everything
>>that happens is for the individual's self-interest alone.  
>
>That's not the question at issue here.  The questions is whether or not 
>people ought to be allowed to pursue their self-interest or not. 

	And the answer is _no_, when their self-interest is in gross
conflict with good of society at large. This is _the_ basic tenet 
which underlies any pluralistic system of government. 
	I.e., I am not permitted to kill you in order to aquire your
money. If you agree that it is both right and necessary to prevent
such 'eventualities' as the one suggested above, then the question
is not one of whether people should be allowed to pursue their self-
interest, but one of defining the extent to which, and the manner in
which it is acceptable for them to pursue it.

>>To
>>keep a society going, each member has to sacrifice something.
>
>Why?
> 
	Because otherwise we all live badly and die quickly (idiot).

>>Believe me, life is much easier when you can depend upon other
>>people than when you only care about and rely on yourself.
>
>Sure, life is easy if you are a master and slaves take care of your every
>need,

	This is a specious red herring, put forth due to your 
inability to formulate an intelligent, coherent argument against her
statement as it stands. Interdependence is not equivalent to a 
master-slave relationship.

 but I don't want to be anyone's slave or master, and no society can
>be composed of nothing but masters.  A society of children being cared for
>by watchful parents is impossible, and wouldn't be desirable if it were.
>
	A society of co-dependent equals is the essential ideal 
upon which our democracy is based (refs., The Declaration of 
Independence and the Constitution: seen opening sentence of 
each). Neither of the authoritarian end-members you've
described above is desired by the original poster, and neither
is a likely result of pro-active government when said 
government is constrained by its people. Stop teasing your-
self with horror-story scenarios, and stop using them as fodder 
for otherwise unsupportable arguments.

>>2)  In the last 12 years, and in other administrations too, 
>>the government HAS done un-Constitutional, immoral things.  
>
>Sure, including taking the property of citizens without their concent, slavery
>of blacks, and a host of other things.  So?  does that make it OK?  Does that
>mean we ought to expand the role of government, and force people to "sacrifice"
>more?
>
	BING.BING.BING.	Bad logic alert! Expanding the role of 
government is not necessarily accompanied by 'more sacrifice'
on the part of the people. If you want us to accept that this
is a necessary or primary outcome of expanded government involvement
in our lives, try making a _logical_ argument to that effect, complete
with supporting documentation, examples, etc.

>>The Supreme
>>Court just ruled that the gag order on gov't family-planning
>>clinics is un-Constitutional.  
>
>With
>government money comes government control.  Tell me, do you think that 
>government restrictions against policemen calling people "niggers" is a
>violation of their right to free speech?
>
	Hell, no. Life is lived in the gray areas, not in the 
black and white. The issue she's citing above is one in which
medical personnel are/would be potentially impeded from offering 
accurate, perhaps even life-saving medical advice, if they hewed
to the letter of the law. The issue you cite is one in which 
public servants, who are funded entirely by the state, are being
required to refrain from being assholes. It is an annoyance and 
a pain for the officer on the street, but probably a benefit to
the force in the long-run, if all its members adhere to high 
standards of decency and conduct. Moreover, it's not too damn
likely that any officer will have his health and well-being 
endangered by enforced civility. The only issue I can see here
is that the penalty for such speech should be in accordance
with its impact. I don't want to see cops further hampered in
their efforts to maintain the peace by excessive application of
such restrictions. The idea that such a restriction should be 
part of policemen's code of conduct is not however, disagreeable.

>Just to make myself clear on this issue, I think people have a right to have
>an abortion if they want. I just object to having the government force people 
>to pay for other people's abortions.  Just one consequence of such things is
>impossible problem of how to resolve the "gag rule" issue.
>
	Wake up and smell the coffee kiddo. Its been nearly ten years
since Medicare/Medicaid paid for abortion. The 'gag rule' issue goes
one step beyond this, and entails denying accurate information to
people who use clinics that receive even partial federal funding.

>>	If you have evidence that C/G
>>are going to try something illegal and immoral, then say what
>>it is and name the source.  If not, then don't sling accusations.
>
>well, they want to further erode my right to make contracts with others in
>every respect I can think of.  They want to force me to make certain things
>part of every employment contract (even against the will of those making the
>agreement).  They want to (further) poke their noses into the businesses of
>drug and insurance companies in such a way as to further limit their ability
>to deliver medical care to me.  I consider this to be VERY immoral.  They 
>also want to take away even more of my income to fund their little pet 
>projects.  Practicqally everything they have promised to do is immoral.
>
	And no doubt, they also act in support of you insofar as they
support the legal system which permits you to get your own back from
employees that steal goods and data. They act in support of you when
they institute regulations and/or sponsor legislation which would permit
you to redress wrongs done you by well-organized, government-supported
foreign competitiors who might seek to employ the afforementioned 
thieves. They might even improve your competitive position vis-a-vis
such competitors by making health care a basic infrastructure item
like roads and sewers, provided by the state rather than the employer.	

	I hate to be the one to break the news to you, but 
government actions which impede your ability to do whatsoever
you damn well please are not immoral in any a priori sense.


--
======================================================================
|| Holly Silva			I have nothing terribly clever to say||
|| Applied Earth Sciences	today.  You're in luck.		     ||
|| Stanford University						     ||
Newsgroups: soc.culture.usa,bit.listserv.politics