From: chased@rbbb.Eng.Sun.COM (David Chase)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: Ignorance - Was Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!
Date: 14 Nov 92 01:55:39 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: rbbb

In article <92318.28799.J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM> J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM writes:
>In <1992Nov12.195909.9113@informix.com>, David Kosenko writes:
>>>> ... Can I thus infer that as a member
>>>>of a (large) modern civilization/society that you [someone else]
>>>>DO in fact feel that you DO have an obligation to insure some
>>>>people agianst some forms of misfortune?

>Obligation?  Legally, no.  If I wish to participate as a member of a caring
>and compassionate society, I will put my money where my mouth is and give
>to charities whenever I can.  At least through the Red Cross, 85c of my dollar
>goes directly to aid, compared with the 30c-50c that manage to "trickle down"
>after bureaucracy and fraud take their share from government agencies.  In this
>sense, Bush was right on target when he spoke of "trickle-down
>government."

( As opposed to turning off the tap altogether? -- Cheap shot, but I
  couldn't help myself. )

I think there are at least four counter-points to argue.

First, you have the problem of "social dilemmas" and "social traps"
(the "tragedy of the commons" is one; there are other variants,
including "freeloaders").  If the government uses our tax money to
perform some basic charitable functions, there are no freeloaders.

Everyone pays for the police, everyone pays for the military, everyone
pays for some basic services provided to the poor.  This is a separate
issue from what is a "basic charitable function" -- perhaps we provide
too much, too little, or pay too much for too little.  

Second, does fraud really play that large a part, or does it just
sound good?  (Yes, there is fraud.  How much fraud is there?)  Perhaps
it is just bureaucracy.  If it's just efficiency that you're after,
maybe our government should give money to poor people.  None of this
food-stamps-and-subsidized-housing crap -- just give them money, and
let them spend it as best they can.  I believe that is more efficient
both in terms of delivering the benefits, and in terms of their
utilization.

Third, you are choosing a best-case charity, namely the Red Cross.
There are others that spend more on overhead, and less on charity.
And, if more people are spending money on charity, there will be more
opportunity to make money running a bogus charity that is less
efficient than our current government.

>Of course, with almost 50c of each dollar I earn going to the government, I
>can't do much at all for the Red Cross, can I?  I have no say in what *I*
>feel are the most critical issues to deal with, do I?  Isn't that what the
>goons in Washington are for?  After all, we need them because we're a bunch of
>fools who can't do anything ourselves without their "guidance."

I dunno about this "no say" stuff.  We do vote.  You do have the
option of trying to convince people to vote one way or another.
Presumably, I can vote for someone to "cut spending" if I think that's
what is important, and I can try to convince other people to vote in a
similar fashion.  If it bugs you that much, get active.  Contribute
money, contribute time.  The fundamentalist right within the
Republican Party provides an example of how a motivated minority can
get things done.

>Our Constitution doesn't allow the type of wealth transfers and federal "safety
>nets" (read as hammocks) that we have practiced since FDR.

Not to sound too pink or anything, but where exactly are wealth
transfers ruled out?

David Chase
Sun