From: jwh@citi.umich.edu (Jim Howe)
Subject: Re: To the Clinton supporters
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 92 09:59:11 EST
Organization: IFS Project, University of Michigan
Reply-To: jwh@citi.umich.edu

In article <1ds7nvINNj3b@morrow.stanford.edu>, silva@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Holly Silva) writes:
|> dscharfe@dptspd.sat.datapoint.com (David Scharfe) writes:
|> >eisimps@cie.uoregon.edu (Eileen Simpson) writes:
|> >
|> >>[What] did you do to change the realities that gave rise to Rodney
|>  King's beating?
|> >
|> >Nothing, so far as I can tell.  What do you propose, throwing my money
|> >at such irrefutable successes as the Welfare program?
|> >
|> 
|> 	Throwing your money at Head Start programs might however, be
|> an excellent idea. 

Even though studies have shown that Head Start does not accomplish
its goals?  Head Start is an example of a well-intentioned program
which continues to draw money even though it hasn't been shown to
work.

|> And almost any conglomeration of 'Tax-and-Spend
|> Liberal' programs would be cheaper to than the current 'system' we
|> have: ignore and neglect the urban poor until they get caught killing,
|> robbing and stealing, then leave them to the tender mercies of our 
|> revolving door 'justice system'.

Much of the current crime and violence we suffer from is a direct
result of our current drug prohibition.  Another example of a
well-intentioned program causing far more harm than good.

|> 	For ideological reasons our society _has not dealt with_ the
|> underclass for at least a decade. The only conservative who's espoused
|> good, vital programs and ideas in regards to them has been Jack Kemp,
|> and he's been frozen out of power in the Bush administration. It's
|> probably due to his excessive enthusiasm. Even when he's only standing
|> around breathing he outshines most of his colleagues.

I agree with your comments about Kemp.

|> 
|> >You are frightening.  Any time you look around you and see someone 
|> >in trouble, you immediately look to a stranger to shake down in order
|> >to fund some social program.  If you think this is such a good idea,
|> >then explain to me how our situation is so grim (as you would no
|> >doubt claim) after trillions of dollars of government spending.
|> >
|> >Could it be that many of these programs just don't work?!?!?
|> >
|> 	Yes. You seem to imply that the ineffectiveness of many of
|> our current social programs is in itself sufficient reason to scrap
|> all and any such programs. 

Seems like a reasonable thing to do.  When programs don't work its
time to scrap them and try something different.  It doesn't do anybody
any good to perpetuate programs whose only benefit is to soothe
the national psyche.  At an enormous cost.

|> Yet this type of socialism characterizes 
|> the very successful economies/societies of Japan and the nations of 
|> western Europe. It does _not_ appear that government spending on 
|> social issues is necessarily money ill-spent. I see no reason to 
|> believe that the governments of these other developed nations are 
|> necessarily 'better' or more adept at management than our own. If
|> they can provide for their people, to the betterment of their 
|> societies, then we can do the same.
|> 

I would not trade our economy, standard of living or most importantly,
level of freedom for any other country.  In addition, a naive comparison
of our country to others simply excludes the fact that our culture is
vastly different from others.  Japan is highly ethnically cohesive and
has a different set of values from most people in the U.S.

|> >Do you believe in forced "charity"?  Is this your notion of freedom?  
|> >Is this your notion of "equal opportunity"? 
|> 
|> 	In a word, yes. I believe in forced charity. 

Charity isn't charity if its forced.

|> It works, and
|> it works better than any hodgepodge of private volunteerism can over
|> a sustained period of years. 

I would agree that some level of public 'charity' may be necessary to
overcome the free rider problem inherent in private charitable giving.
However, I dispute the fact that massive public 'charity' works and
works better than private charity.  Private charities can support a
multitude of needs whereas public charity can only support politically
popular needs.  I would much rather depend on a system of diverse
charities than a monopoly.

|> Freedom, real freedom, requires some
|> education and freedom from fear for the majority of people. Our 
|> government is the only social organization which can provide a 
|> baseline level of education and basic need fulfillment for the 
|> population as a whole. 

Wrong.  Private organizations were helping people get education and
basic need fulfillment long before the government decided to get
involved.  In addition, are you aware that the government actually
makes life *more* difficult for poor people through various laws?
Trade restrictions artificially raise the price of goods that are
primarily purchased by poor people.  The government artificially
raises the price of food, which is one of the largest items in
a poor persons budget.  Perhaps if the government stopped punishing
the poor, less money would be needed for charity.


James W. Howe                  internet: jwh@citi.umich.edu
University of Michigan             uucp: uunet!mailrus!citi.umich.edu!jwh
Ann Arbor, MI   48103-4943         
Newsgroups: soc.culture.usa