From: de5@ORNL.GOV (Dave Sill)
Subject: Re: Andre Marrou on Larry King
Organization: Oak Ridge National Laboratory
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 19:50:16 GMT

In article <1992Jul24.193517.2950@mumbo.apple.com>, wilkes@apple.com (John Wilkes) writes:
>
>Of course not.  Building codes are supposed to ensure safety, not drive up
>the cost of housing, but the simple fact is that they fail on both counts.

No, it's not a "simple fact" that building codes fail to ensure safety.  Please
enlighten me.

>>  Should people be allowed
>> to live in unsafe housing just because they can't afford safety features?
>
>Should people be forced to live on the street (or in some government-provided
>barracks) just because they can't afford the government approved and inspected
>housing?

Perhaps.  Maybe it will encourage the rest of the community to address the
problem.

>> The homeless problem isn't lack of affordable housing, it's an excess of
>> jobless, poor, addicted, and mentally or physically ill people.
>
>The jobless poor cannot afford the housing currently available under the
>government inspection and protection that you defend.  I suppose you would
>propose that your taxes be increased so that the government can build more
>barracks in which to house these people while they spend their lives waiting
>for the government pusher to deliver the monthly "fix" of a welfare check.

I don't support a free ride for those on welfare: they need to be helped and
encouraged to become self-sufficient.  Welfare and more cheap housing isn't the
answer.  They're band-aids.  They address the symptoms, but not the causes of the
problem.

>We've been doing this for almost three decades.  Are the problems of
>affordable housing and joblessness better or worse?  When what you're
>doing isn't working, do you do more of it, or do you try something different?

I analyze the situation to determine why what I'm doing isn't working.  I don't
automatically assume I need to do less of it, or something different.  I might
need to do more, less, or the same, but wait longer for improvement.  I might need
to do something else, perhaps in addition to what I'm doing.  But I don't just
assume what needs to be done based on the party line.

>According to Walter Williams, an African-American economist at George Mason
>University, government social programs in the past 27 years have consumed
>enough money to have purchased the entire assets of the Fortune 500 companies
>and most of the farmland in the U.S.

I take it Williams is a Libertarian?  What's the point?  Social programs are
expensive?  They're wasting a lot of money?  They're inneffective?  They're a
total failure?  What relationship do you see between social programs and Fortune
500 comanpies and farmland?

>Should we do more of this, or should we look for new and innovative ways to
>address the problems? 

I don't know for sure.  I think we should try to spend our money more wisely, try
to get something back from the recipients of our generosity, and, certainly,
consider new approaches.  I'm just not convinced that we need to do what the
Libertarian party suggests.

-- 
Dave Sill (de5@ornl.gov)           For every Bill Joy there is a Kirk McKusick.
Martin Marietta Energy Systems     For every Bill Gates there is a Richard
Workstation Support                Stallman.                     --Paul Graham
Newsgroups: alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.elections