From: J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: Ignorance - Was Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!
Date: 13 Nov 92 16:16:16 GMT
Organization: Lockheed Missiles & Space Company, Inc.

In <1992Nov12.195909.9113@informix.com>, David Kosenko writes:

>Frank Crary writes:
>[responding to:]
>>>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?
>>

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."

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."

>>In general, no. I think it is the responsibility of every individual to
>>take care of himself (as opposed to depending on others to take
>>care of him.) I do think the government should protect
>>people from criminal invasions of their rights, and (I suppose,
>>although I can't think of an example) this might be considered
>>protection from misfortune, in some very limited cases.

>"Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses?.."
>"I pay taxes to support these institutions.  Those
> who are poorly off must go there."

>"But some would rather die than go there!"

>"If they are to die, then let them do it, and decrease
> the surplus population."

>From "A Christmas Carol" by Charles Dickens

>Mr. Carey, it would seem, would have found a kindred spirit in
>Mr. Ebeneezer Scrooge.

It's Crary, not Carey.  Anyway, even if he *is* acting like Scrooge, he's
clearly within his rights.  Even if you think that Scrooge is a tightwad and
a jerk (many do), Scrooge knows his rights.

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

WHen a bunch of people demand a bunch of money from a rich man, threatening him
with loss of liberty in some way, we call either call that a gang robbery...or
government taxation.  Don't get me wrong here; I may be a Libertarian, but I'm
not a fanatical "all taxation is theft" type--at least not in the extreme.  But
I do agree that we have asked the federal government to do *far* more than the
Constitution empowers it to do.  Did someone make the 10th Amendment null and
void while we all slept?

Scrooge has every right to demand that the "gang robbers" leave him alone.  Yet
when the government forces him to pay taxes for any reason (especially those
which the Constitution attempts to forbid), somehow we think that it's just a
good old American "soak the rich" policy and should be advocated.  This comes
not from a rich, callous Republican...it comes from a single-income couple in
an outrageously high-cost area who are in the 15% tax bracket, and who are
strong believers in free markets and individual liberties.  I don't think that
"soak the rich" has done anything but create yet another political division
between Americans (actually, it has also succeeded in losing jobs).

Tim Irvin
******************************************************************************
Xref: sparky ba.politics:7018 talk.politics.misc:59652 alt.politics.elections:23515 co.politics:1814 ne.politics:2903 alt.politics.clinton:16890 alt.politics.democrats.d:461