From: jfr@RedBrick.COM ()
Subject: Re: Ignorance - Was Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!
Organization: Red Brick Systems, Los Gatos, CA
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 08:28:06 GMT

In article <1992Nov11.201147.12975@cbnewsh.cb.att.com> europa@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (r.j.capik) writes:
>From article <1992Nov11.165425.14512@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>, by fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary):
>> In article <1992Nov11.152245.2895@gvl.unisys.com> yavo@sdosrv1.gvl.unisys.com (Steve Yavorski) writes:
>> 
>>>>Fine: Why should they be made immune from the consequences of this
>>>>choice? If they want to have more kids than they can afford, that's
>>>>fine. But they should live with the result: Poverty. We are under
>>>>no obligation to save them from their own bad judgement.
>>>                                           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>Maybe they could afford it before they had the kids.
>> 
>> Ok, I should have, I suppose, said "bad judgement or bad luck." I
>> don't feel I (directly or theough the government) have an obligation
>> of insure everyone against all forms of misfortune.
>            ^^^^^^^^         ^^^
>>                                                  Frank Crary
>>                                                  CU Boulder

  Okay Frank, just to be consistent here, I want to make sure I have
  this correctly:

    1) You would not want to bail out any S&Ls (I might even agree
       with you on this one).  Let ALL of the people who were suckered
       or slickered by the curse of S&L deregulation go broke, right?

    2) You would not want to give any business ANY kind of tax break
       or incentive or subsidy, right?  Get rid of the subsidies
       given to the tobacco farmers (hey, even I'd go along with
       that one!) and all the other farmers who have had "misfortune".

    3) What about deposit insurance?  Should that be banned also? 
       After all, if you can't choose a good S&L or Bank, to hell
       with you when it crashes, right?  (BTW, I also might be
       in partial argeement here, requiring banks and S&Ls to
       offer private insurance and letting depositers pick and
       choose between levels of insurance and their risk and return).

    4) How about safety legislation?  Should companies be permitted
       to just forget safety (since it clearly impinges on profits)
       just to make a bigger buck, and let the workers be damned?
       Back to the sweatshops of the 1890s, huh?  

  Frankly (sorry about the pun :-) this all makes me nauseous.  We
  are a society of people who are supposed to care about our fellow
  man, and yet you advocate returning to the dark ages when everyone
  was out only for himself.  No, check that, even in the dark ages,
  tribes took care of their own.  This is more like a pack of animals.
  No, check that too, even animals take care of their own.
>> 
>Frank, good choice of words there. Can I thus infer that as a member
>of a (large) modern civilization/society that you DO in fact feel
>that you DO have an obligation to insure some people agianst some
>forms of misfortune? 

  Unfortunately, I don't think he does.  I think this was actually
  a poor choice of words.  

>Must we only talk in universalities here, ad infinitum, ad infinitesium,
>ad nauseam....
>You can't fool all of the people all of the time, but there's a
>sucker born every minute.
>
>(I have no idea what I'm talking about)

  Neither, unfortunately, does Frank Crary.
>
>Ron Capik

  Jon Rosen
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:16779 alt.politics.homosexuality:7024