From: hira@cme.nist.gov (Ron Hira)
Newsgroups: alt.culture.us.asian-indian,alt.individualism
Subject: Re: = Opportunity etc.
Date: 12 Jan 93 19:40:24 GMT
Reply-To: hira@cme.nist.gov
Followup-To: alt.culture.us.asian-indian
Organization: National Institute of Standards and Technology

In article <ARCHER.720.726846974@utkvm1.utk.edu>, ARCHER@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer) writes:
|> From: ARCHER@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer)

|> >|> >What gov't spending is ok?
|> >Who determines the amounts? 
|> 
|> A legislative body with suitable checks by an executive and judicial body 
|> that is also immediatly responible to the electorate for how the money is 
|> spent.

The electorate is in favor of 'social' programs. As a matter of fact,
the so-called middle class are some of the biggest beneficiaries. 

|> >What about education? Medicine is charity, eh? What do you tell people
|> >who carry contagious diseases?
|> 
|> These are all services  that have to be paid for.  The people who use 
|> services should be the ones to pay for them.  

All education should be paid for?? I'm duly surprised even coming from a 
libertarian.

|> People with contagious diseases should remove themselves from public, as 
|> they present a hazard of infection.  If they refuse to do so, they are 
|> assaulting the people around them and should be removed.

The point of the contagious disease line was to illustrate that actions
and afflictions by and of others strongly affect every individual, just
like crime and poverty.

|> >|> 	1) private charities or businesses can provide the same services
|> >|> 		with much less overhead and much better accountability to
|> >|> 		the donors;
|> >
|> >Is this really true? How much did the head of United Way earn last year?>
|> How does one 'police' these charitable organizations? I for one don't>care 
|> to write individual checks to umpteen charities, as it would be >pretty 
|> burdensome. I guess you don't believe in economies of scale.>
|> 
|> If you want to trust an umbrella organization such as United Way or the 
|> Federal government to spend your money for you, that's fine.  I prefer to 
|> control how my money is spent.

I don't follow. My point was that the United Way, one of those private 
charities you suggest take over the gov't's role, is quite inefficient. 

|> >This is media hype IMO. I think that most polls support the fact that 
|> >the majority of Americans support some kind of welfare. 
|> 
|> That's true, until you ask them who should pay for it.  The response is 
|> then "the other guy," or "the rich should pay their fair share."

This gets into the question of progressivity of the tax system. Should 
we have poll taxes instead, like Maggie Thatcher tried to push thru
a few years ago and caused her reign to end?

|> >Huh? What is the military budget, 24% as you claim? Social programs were 
|> >just 14%. Be careful about lumping in social security as a social program.
|> >I'd say that the $300 bill / year budgets are lining some people's 
|> >pockets, namely the defense industry. 
|> 
|> True enought, social security is not a social program, it's a fraudulent 
|> pyramid scheme that is about to collapse.

It depends on what you mean by *about* to collapse. In 1983(?) Greenspan 
headed a commission to overhaul (reduce benefits) the system. As far as
I know, it is financially healthy for some time to come, at least until
the baby boomers start retiring. The social security system is a pretty 
silly system, and it is a prime example of what is wrong with our 
democracy today. 

|> >Maybe. Where would that leave all of those workers? On the dole, I would
|> >guess. 
|> 
|> So?  And maybe some of those workers would have come up with a better way to 
|> compete, or a new industry.

So?? Those workers when they work, generate revenue for the gov't, and 
when they don't, they live off the gov't. Who would've benefitted
if Chrysler went down the tubes?? And how do you calculate such 
benefits. I'd find it hard to believe that the nation overall would've
been better off letting Chrysler go belly up. Keep in mind that the
gov't made a pretty penny off the repayment of the loans.

|> >Hey, funny thing is that I don't recall a major homeless problem in 
|> >1980. 
|> 
|> I do.  The homeless have ALWAYS been there, they just have better press now.

Perhaps, but I would still venture to guess that the problem is much
more severe today, than 12 yrs ago IMO. The % of people under the 
poverty line has dramatically increased.

|> >Can't believe that you would discount what *1* man stole from the country
|> >and innocent people!!!! Remember that this is just one of *many* cases 
|> >where *deregulation* failed.
|> 
|> Deregulation did not fail here:  the insurance scheme did.  The system was 
|> deregulated and the trustees were allowed to take greater risks, but the 
|> state maintained the insurance scheme.  So there was NO RISK.  If the 
|> investments didn't pan out, the government could be counted on to bail out 
|> the investors, which it is.

Good answer, but I still don't buy it, the insurance scheme goes hand
in hand with de/regulation. It is the executive branch's role for 
enforcement of regulations, and frankly they failed. The watchdogs
were wined & dined by the likes of Keating, and looked the other way.
Would you suggest that the banking industry go uninsured, like in the 
20's? 

Ron
Xref: sparky alt.culture.us.asian-indian:1704 alt.individualism:6191