From: 4224_5201@uwovax.uwo.ca (John LaRocque)
Subject: Re: NDP "communism?" (was Re: A vote for Reform...)
Organization: University of Western Ont, London
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 00:10:10 GMT

In article <93011.0024112893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>, Andy <2893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> writes:

> The Communist Party has always seen elections as a propaganda device,
> Eurocommunists started to take them seriously which is why they became
> more democratic socialist than communist. Read what Lenin says about
> parliament if you want the communist line.

I am well aware that the communists will use any means to get what
they want. That also includes running for parliament. Ultimately they will
do away with our system and replace one even worse than the one we have
now or the one the NDP wants to give us. That being said, their ideological
foot soldiers often seen at university campuses or handing out leaflets
are for the most part harmless dupes who couldn't hurt anybody if they
wanted to.

> (sigh) the NDP is for reforming capitalism to make it more equitable
> and to reform society to ameliorate the advantages and disadvantages class
> has on individual opportunity.

> The NDP is not in favour of abolishing capitalism which is what Marxists
> advocate as a minimum.

We have never had real capitalism in North America. Only Hong Kong (and
that for a little while longer) really practices capitalism. No regulations.
The market decides. People are generally content. And people don't have to
worry about too many broken laws because there are so few to enforce.
And politicians are not as common. Not a perfect system - but one to
admire. I prefer economic freedom over the right to vote any day.
Remember, a powerless government doesn't really need to be democratic to
carry out its few duties. Too bad there are too many politicians,
police, lawyers and laws in this country.

As for your left-wing fantasy world, you would just make the poor
pooreer by taxing the middle class to fund your precious programs. Oh
and don't whine to me about how you really are going after the "wealthy".
They have always found ways and means to avoid paying taxes. Which means
that the middle classes have to pay. I have an upper-middle class relative
who is paying almost 70% taxes. That is obscene. It's no wonder there
is so much poverty. There are too many programs!

> I'm speaking of Ontario which has had its transfer payments cut causing
> the Ontario deficit to increase accordingly, a result thus not of NDP
> policies but of a decision by the Tory government in Ottawa.

Maybe it is time all of the provinces learned to live without them. Besides
it would allow us to invest in the jobs of the future instead of bailing
out the jobs of the past.

> And you want the government to decide who is worthy of health care, literally
> who can live and who can die. Once again, it is highly simplistic to equate
> any policy of government intervention in the economy with Communism or
> Fascism.  The NDP does not speak of a "planned, centralised economy"

Have you read the Waffle Manifesto or the Regina Manifesto or early CCF
literature? It scares the shit out of me thinking that there are people who
actually want to control the destiny of 27 million people with that ideology.
As for who is worthy and who is not - a new private insurance scheme would
deliver where the government hasn't. As I said, you are basicaly uninsurable
if you are stupid enough to smoke a pack a day (as a compromise I would
drop some tobacco taxes so they can pay for their hospital beds when the
time comes...:-) ).

> I'm saying that not only do individuals benefit from healthcare and
> care for children, society benefits too.

I love kids too. I say - love those kids by making sure that the are 
looked after with the money that is saved by taking it from scum like
that pack-a-day lung/heart transplant asshole in London.

>No, few people sink that low:) In any case, while I believe in equality before
> the law I am not arguing sameness, I am just saying that all people should
> start from a level playing field and thus have the equal opportunity to
> succeed or fail on their merits, not start with marks against them because
>they grew up in poverty, in poor health and without an education. 19th century

Or laws that ban competition in the marketplace because the industry leaders
do not want to have competition. It works both ways, buddy.

> liberalism aimed to remove legal and social disabilities which inhibit equal
> opportunity and the ability for individuals to reach their potential,
>social democracy aims to remove the economic barriers as well so that children
> from a poor and disadvantaged background have as much a chance to succeed on
> their merits and reach their full potential as children of privledge.

One way to do this is to do well in school and to abolish the current system
of government financed universities. Have private business fund academics
of all colors and backgrounds who deserve to be at university because they
have the smarts. Scholarships for real people, not like 90% of the rich
scum at Western who party and graduate with useless Social Science degrees.

>As I've said before, social democrats aim not to abolish capitalism, merely to
> try to make it fairer.

Is punishing success fair? Why not remove obstacles to the next generation
of people. Like removing laws that prohibit comptetion. The only way to get
ahead in your system is to be a failure. That is right - instead of
rewarding sucess you punish it and reward failure. Why raise the taxes on
rich people when you can eliminate econmic factors like taxes on poor
neighbourhoods? There is my way and there is your way. Mine is better. Get
used to it.   :-)

> So instead of state socialism you advocate corporate socialism? Instead of
> the state running our lives it should be corportations?

With laws against competition and the free movement of goods and services,
the world will no longer be that of just big business. Corporate socialism -
come on now - we already have that in Canada.

> You said a lot of this stuff is here today because parents didn't know, what
> do you suggest they do?

I read of this region in Quebec where they have a higher rate of certain
diseases because of poor gene stock. They either got sterilized or made
babies with non-region Quebecers or had outright abortions. Things like
that reduce the rate of genetic ailments. Diluting the gene stock. 
(no flames on abortion - I don't like it much either)

Whether you like it or not DNA research is here to stay (coming soon
Ethics 323 - Genetic Ethics). The cure to cancer or AIDS could be right
in your own DNA.

> Their is no social responsibility? Do you really think charity is the answer.
> Certainly we can decide on a policy as a population and not leave it to
> the private sector.

Is God going to send me to hell because I didn't give some drunk wino
some spare change? Come on. I recommend charities becuase unlike governments
they know when they are getting hosed by people who take advantage of them
and can adjust their policies to reflect that - unlike those government types.
And charity is entirely voluntary. Are people that scummy that you have to
legislate being a human being? That is what Welfare and UI is all about.
Keeping the slave folk fed and housed on the plantation. My plan is for real
human beings - not serfs.

> Why get in the way of forced sterilisation? Because it prohibits choice.

Sorry - I meant to say voluntary sterilastion. But the argument still stands.

> The US' "competitive free enterprise" medical system spends much more per
> capita on health care while providing adequate care for a much smaller
> percentage of the population than our system. This makes sense? This is
> economical?

A lot of that has to do with lawyers who sue doctors with their goddamn
human rights in the US constitution. Oh you hurt my toe - I will sue you
for $20 million. The US is not an ideal situation. Too many lawyers (and
laws), almost as bad as Canada.