From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: A new political platform: your comments please
Organization: The University of Tennessee, Knoxville
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 04:35:20 GMT

In article <1992Sep1.004840.27664@leland.Stanford.EDU>
muaddib@leland.Stanford.EDU (Rob Dorfman) writes:

>
>In article <168541234.PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu> PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Val) writes:
>>In article <1992Aug31.010359.16604@leland.Stanford.EDU>
>>muaddib@leland.Stanford.EDU (Rob Dorfman) writes:
>>
>>>
>>>In article <1992Aug30.000208.21614@oracle.us.oracle.com> mfriedma@uucp (MichalFriedman) writes:
>>>>In article <1992Aug29.173057.5640@leland.Stanford.EDU> muaddib@leland.StanfodEDU (Rob Dorfman) writes:
[My, the attribution lines are getting out of hand...]

>>>>>	d> Only US citizens and US corportions may invest in any
>>>>>	   dept incurred by the federal government.
>>>>
>>>>Why?  Also, please define a US corporation.  How much foreign
>>>>ownership is allowed?  How do you plan to prevent a foreigner from
>>>>buying one last share?
>>>
>>>now in a prvious posting i claraified this but what i mean is new debt
>>>aquired 10 years after the adoptions of this program which would be quite
>>>small if all things work out.  however, you are correct one woudl have to
>>>define what is a "US corporatioon". and as for controlling who can aquire
>>>the debt that can be done buy the treasury department not selling it
>>>to those that do not qualify.  as well as enact laws which prevents others
>>>from reselling to non-US parties
>>
>>     You still haven't answered why non-US citizens and companies shouldn't
>>be allowed to buy.
>
>i thought i had explained. the idea is to reduce foreign influence
>on US fiscal policy.

     If we're going to eliminate the debt, then this is a moot point.
However, I was of the impression that it was generally good to have
someone investing in your country.
     What, currently, are examples of foreign governments exerting
undue influence on the U.S. because of how much of our debt they
finance?

>>>>>	c> Adopt national auto emmisions standards. Goal is to have
>>>>>	   no emissions in 20 years, each year lowing the standard.
>>>>>	   Cars made before adoption of this law are exempt.
>>>>
>>>>No emissions?  Nothing does that.  Not even electricity from nukes -
>>>>there is still waste.  Maybe from hydro, but do we really want to dam
>>>>up every single river in the US?
>>>
>>>you are wrong about this. there are currently electric cars on the market
>>>that have no emissions. and in fact los angeles has adopted special
>>>auto emmision goals that are similar to the one above.
>>>and i mean emisions directly from cars.
>>>and you are making needless assumptions as to {hat will happen.
>>>i never mentioned anything about nuclear or hydroelectric power.
>>
>>     You really can't just eliminate car emissions and sit back and
>>feel all warm and fuzzy about what you've accomplished.  You've still
>>got to *charge* those batteries, and we still produce most of our
>>electricity burning coal.  Running all the cars off of electricity will
>>immensely increase the demand on electricity.
>
>this is obvious. my government will attack the problem one step
>at a time.

     In that case, I think we should install *my* government.  Not only
will I promise to at least address one step at a time, but I will ocassioanlly
address problems *two* steps at a time.
     This is something that should be considered *before* we embark on such
a path.
     Instead of just imposing emission regulations (although those aren't
all that bad an idea) why not also include big tax breaks for companies which
spend money on researching other ideas to replace the internal combustion
engine (say, $1.25 or $1.50 write-off for every $1 spent on research).

>>>>>6> Promote famly values by:
>>>>>	a: must show proof of counciling before marraige license
>>>>>	   can be obtained.
>>>>
>>>>Seems to me it isn't any of your fucking business whether I get
>>>>counseling or not before I get married.  And if you think my response
>>>>is intemperate I guarantee you will not appreciate some other peoples'
>>>>responses.
>>>
>>>for sure i only appreciate only rational responses. for the emotional
>>>ones say nothing except you feelings are hurt. however my goal here
>>>is to engage in rational discussion on these issues.
>>
>>     While I don't exactly agree with the wording, I most certainly
>>agree with the attitude.  I don't even like the idea of marriage licenses.
>>I personally dislike the whole psychology/psychatric/counseling
>>profession, and want nothing to do with them.
>>     It is none of the government's business who I decide to marry, or
>>for what reasons.  I am certainly not going to appreciate the goverment
>>ordering me to go seek counseling on the subject at my expense.
>>
>>>however already most states require proof of blood test befroe
>>>one can get a marraige license. also there is the interest of the state
>>>which here in america is also the interst of the peopel.
>>
>>     Having an interest in something does not confer authority to order
>>people around.
>
[Ahhh, but the government can do what is in the interest of the people.]
(I accidentally deleted this line, but I think I got the wording right...)

     "In the interest of the people," is a fairly vague concept that could
be considered to extend from your marriage counseling to outlawing fatty
foods to prevent heart attacks or outlawing political speech to promote
political stability.
     The government may act in the "interest of the people" only where it
does not interfere with individual rights.  My ideas might cause all kinds
of uproar (though I don't flatter myself that they do) but the government
can't show up and make me stop writing them because "it is in the interest
of the people" that it do so.
     Granting the government power to do things solely based on "the interest
of the people" requires that a decision must be made as to *what* the
interest of the people is.  Allowing the government this kind of subjective
power is dangerous.

>in this case i think improving family life is of important enough interest
>for the government to play a role. what it comes down to is balancing
>the righs of individuals vs that of the people as a whole.

     "The people as a whole" do not have rights.  There is no "collective
right" because the collective has no singular existance.  All rights
belong to individuals.
     When the rights of individuals conflict with even the good of the
whole, the rights of the individual must hold sway.  If you suppose that
a group has rights, then it logically follows that the right of the
group outweighs the rights of the individual, as you do above, based
on nothing more than there are more people involved.  This means that
an individual only has rights where they don't conflict with
the "rights" of the group.  And *poof* your individual rights are
suddenly your individual privilages, held at the pleasure of the group,
and the government.
     *My* right to see, marry, sleep with whomever I choose, is not
for the government to review one way or the other.  It may be in the
public interest, for instance, for me to marry one girl over another,
for whatever reason.  The public, however, is cordially invited to
keep its nose out of my business.
>
>
>>
>>>as i said in the
>>>platform failed marraiges and families are costly and drain resources.
>>
>>     This is one of those situations where "society" has chosen to take
>>it upon itself to pay for something, becuase it doesn't like what happens
>>when it doesn't.
>>     That failed marriages take up "resources" (whose?) is just one of
>>those chances "society" is going to have to take.
>>
>>>>
>>>>>        c: must show proof of counciling to obtain dependant tax
>>>>>	   deduction when filing tax forms.
>>>>>		-no one looses any rights. this is just to discuss
>>>>>		 information. that is proper diet, health care,
>>>>>	         responsibility and costs.
>>
>>     You just have to pay more money to the government unless you decide
>>to go to somebody who wants to take a pry-bar to your brain.
>
>ahhh nothing liek assumptions.  i think i expalined clearly what the role
>of the counselors are.. their role is to give out information not to
>"pry-bar" peoples brains

     I've dealt with too many "counselors."  They come in all sorts of
flavors, and too many of them as more interested in playing games with
your head than giving you any information.
     If their role is simply to give out information, why not just write
up a pamphlet or something?
>>
>>     If the "counselor" decides you won't make a good parent, do they
>>get to take your child away?  What limits will the be on such a thing?
>>
>
>i beleive i have answered this already. howeever the counselors have no
>rights over anyone. they just essentialy give out information.

     Yet you're going to *require* that people go to these people?  Why?
Some of us aren't all that impressed with the general science of
psychology.
     Are these "counselors" going to have to be licensed?  Can I,
for instance, go to a priest instead of one of your counselors?  (A
number of churches require you and your prospective spouse require
you at least chat with the priest/pastor to make sure you know what
you're getting into before they will let you use their church for your
wedding.)

>>
>>>>
>>>>>16. eliminate the death penalty in the united states
>>>>
>>>>Why?
>>
>>>the death penalty serves no useful purpose. it does not
>>>prevent other murders it does not save us court costs.
>>
>>     This is an implementation problem rather than one inherent in the
>>death penalty.
>>
>
>lets assume that it is a good idea to value human life above all
>things then one cannot under that assumption have a death penalty.
>(what i mean is that it is contradictory). X

     Human life has immense value.  However, not all human life
has equal value.  For instance, if someone is making an effort to
kill me, I most certainly am going to operate under the assumption
that my human life is more important than his human life.
     If a human being has, for instance, killed several people, I
am not all the interested in keeping him around, especially if he's
just going to rot in prison and I'm going to have to *feed* him *and*
he's taking up prison space where we could put somebody else.

========================================================================
| David Veal  PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu                                  |
|             University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education |
========================================================================
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush