From: larocqu@gaul.csd.uwo.ca (JOHN LAROCQUE)
Subject: Re: NDP "communism?" (was Re: A vote for Reform...)
Organization: Computer Science Dept., Univ. of Western Ontario, London, Canada
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 05:08:59 GMT

In article <93010.2300022893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> Andy <2893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> writes:

>Where did I say they did? All I said is that Communism aims to abolish
>capitalism through revolution, that doesn't mean a communist can't be nice,
>it also doesn't mean you don't want to bring about a type of democracy.

There are some communists who actually believe (how deluded they are)
that Canada will get communism at the ballot box. No I am not kidding.
Not all of them want to start the kind of revolution that you are
implying (although some of them might have no problem joining one).

>The NDP is against revolution, violent or not. They are not aiming to
>abolish capitalism by overthrowing Parliament or by winning a majority of seats

Then what is the NDP for? Or are they not sure themselves. The object of
politics is to get the policies you want passed in the legislatures. And
those policies are based on party programmes with some limited consultation
with party members. And the only way the NDP will ever get its policies to
become law is by getting a majority of seats - something they have done
in every provine west of Quebec at one time or another. (oh what a piss
poor job they are doing to Ontario)

>The Tories have cut transfer payments, this has increased provincial
>deficits, in any case that has nothing to do with nationalising the means
>of production,something the NDP has no intention of doing. Tories and Liberals
>have increased taxes far more than the NDP, are they communists too?

They do behave communistic when they raise taxes and introduce expensive
programs and tell us that this is what we want or need. As for transer
payments - its that corporate welfare bum situation. If it is bad to bail
out big business gone bust, why continue to do the same vis a vis the
poorer provinces. Hell, NFLD will never make any money of cod or offshore
drilling.

>No, it doesn't. Five year Plans and Hitler's new order were geared towards
>increasing production, not improving the lot of the poor and disadvantaged.

What both you and they want is the government on the hands of all the
economic levers. No difference. 

>Fine, let the kids starve, not only does that result in a less ethical
>society, it also results in a less competitive, less productive society.

Hey, you just whined about productivity vis a vis Hitler. Maybe you ARE the
same.

>But they are part of society, they have a right to be treated fairly and
>to have an equal opportunity.

Equality - what a repugnant concept. I certianly do not consider anybody
my equal. We are all different, with different abilities and needs. Any
plan to make us equal will fail because we are not robots, but human beings.
This is my proposition for equal opportunity. End restrictions on all 
entereprises. More often than not current restrictions - like against
unregistered taxi companies - are passed into law to put down the 
entrepreneur and kill competition. Essentially to keep the rich rich and
the poor poor. Yes, economic restrictions are a cause of poverty. Not the
solution.

>Who decides who is worthy of health care and who isnt?

Private insurance companies who know what a liability smoking and heavy
drinking is....

>>Have you heard of genetic ailments? A lot of this stuff is here today
>>because the parents just didn't know. Genetic research is moving
>>places.

>Ah, eugenics, what a pleasent Nazi concept you espouse.

Genetics is not eugenics. Unless you regard David Suzuki as a Nazi. No I 
didn't think so. As hard as you may want to admit it - the answers to a 
lot of diseases are IN YOUR GENES. If curing illnesses is a Nazi concept
then I guess I am a Nazi, and so are you.

>What if individuals aren't to blame for their situation but were born into
>it, are they still responsible for it?

That is for private charities to decide. Certainly not bean counting
bureaucrats. 

>You dodge the point, you cant retroactively abort the children, what do you
>do with children born into poverty, or do you advocate that other great
>Nazi concept, sterilisation of the poor?

Or having Planned Parenthood preaching much the same in the Third World.
Forced sterililisation is like taxes and rape - against freedom of choice.
But if people want it or seee the need for it - why get in the way. And I
don't believe in subsidizing people who are just going to ask for more money
with each new member of the family.  

>>How about rewarding people who look after their health?

>Your dodging the issue.

Private insurance not public is the answer. And much less intervention than
in the "evil" US of A. If Doctors cost too much, than find someone who can
cure you for less. I read in Actualite about Montreal's underground economy.
A qualified medical professional chose to look after people with no hassles,
and no medicare - all underground - and give quality care. The
way I see it - restrictions on the other end are forcing costs up. Patients
are not always to blame (although in the case of the heavy smoker, they
definitely are). My solution is to ease control of this sector. Government
is not always the answer.
-- 
***FEAR*AND*LOATHING**FEAR*AND*LOATHING**FEAR*AND*LOATHING**FEAR*AND*LOATHING**
**  John LaRocque         **   "If you're the new messiah.. I'm going to be  **
**  marshall.law@uwo.ca   **   the one to drive in the nails"  MARSHALL LAW  **
***FEAR*AND*LOATHING**FEAR*AND*LOATHING**FEAR*AND*LOATHING**FEAR*AND*LOATHING**
Newsgroups: can.politics