From: bzs@ussr.std.com (Barry Shein)
Subject: Re: Smaller government means MORE money for the poor
Organization: The World
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1992 10:03:02 GMT


From: cory@enigami.mv.com (Cory Kempf)
>	Case 1:  Person gives money to local charity of choice.  100% of
>			money given goes to charity.  Person giving has choice of
>			what causes are "just", and gets good feeling from being
>			charitable.
>
>	Case 2:	Government takes money from person.  IRS takes some. 
>			GAO takes some.  Bureaucrats take some at each level (several


This is flawed, charities have their overhead also. At best you can
claim that giving directly to a charity is perhaps more efficient. But
note for example the recent scandal claiming that the Chairman of the
United Way was living high on the hog, taking all sorts of perks.

But that's not really the important question.

More important is the question as to whether or not people will give
voluntarily without knowing whether their neighbor is also giving.
That's important to people, and if they believe that everyone around
them is making excuses not to give (more important to replace the
furniture or whatever) then the system can easily collapse.

In the past giving, up to some level, has generally been involuntary
in large-scale societies. Typically in Western European and Muslim
societies the religions enforced the level of giving to some specific
percentage (tithing.) Other societies have had taxations much as we do
here in the US, many had both tithing and taxation.

So it's hard to think of an example of a society where your completely
voluntary scheme has ever worked.

Now, you will no doubt jump up and down at the implication of the
opposite of voluntary. But the assumption is that the current system
is voluntarily involuntary. We all sign into this "contract" which
requires us to provide taxes, and thereby at least try to feel the
situation is equitable (if not ideal.) Our neighbor by and large pays
as much as we do, and we all get to argue about where it all goes. We
even get to argue about how to make it more equitable.

A much more serious problem, IMHO, is that we all know that
politicians are crooks and the money doesn't go where it was
advertised to go by a long shot.

The cynical manipulation of the populous is just mind-boggling (e.g.
whenever there's a serious shortfall they close schools and police
stations etc to get the point across when clearly that's not where the
fat would be rationally trimmed, it just scares people and makes them
submit to whatever is coming next, cut what can't possibly be kept cut
and maintain the fat quietly.)

There are serious problems with our current government, the most
serious perhaps being that people are generally beginning to figure it
all out and get disgusted. So I am not surprised that the current
situation is breeding attitudes like Cory Kempf's. I think he's wrong
in his conclusions, but I do note that the motivations are not of his
making. Another side of it is Mr Turner's, who believes deeply that
everything a govt leader does or says is a priori a lie and has some
other conspiratorial and evil motivation.

Unless this current situation changes we are indeed in trouble, people
are reacting irrationally to an irrational situation. That usually
does not lead anywhere good. And most revolutions are only really
supported by about 10% of the populous...Look at all the radical right
wing and just plain Nazi stuff going on in Germany right now. It is
not a good portent.

--
        -Barry Shein

Software Tool & Die    | bzs@world.std.com          | uunet!world!bzs
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202        | Login: 617-739-WRLD