From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Newsgroups: ba.politics,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,co.politics,ne.politics,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d
Subject: Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!
Date: 14 Nov 92 00:13:42 GMT
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder

In article <1992Nov13.020626.16654@pony.Ingres.COM> garrett@Ingres.COM (WE'RE ONLY HERE BECAUSE WE'RE NOT ALL HERE) writes:
>>>It does to me. The question is, do you split a piece of bread between a 
>>>starving man and a fat man just to be "fair"?

>>If the fat man supplied the materials and baked the bread, I'd call
>>it more than fair. The question is, "whose bread is it?" Need does
>>not justify theft. 

>If you think that someone taking a piece of bread from rich man to feed 
>a starving man is theft then the law must be changed,

Are you seriously saying that the rich shouldn't be protected from 
theft? "Theft" means taking something that belongs to another. If 
you actually belives in basic, human rights then _everyone_ (rich and
poor alike) should be equal before the law.

>...because to refuse to 
>spare a man a piece of bread who is starving is morally wrong when you 
>have plenty.(I believe there is a quote by Jesus that alludes to this.
>I'm not religious, I just respect the man.)

Which is to say, you want the government to impose a Christian religous
view on the entire nation. The government has no business legislating
morality.

>>>>You mean like Oakland, California (where I'd been living for about five
>>>>years before I moved to Colorado)?
>>>Exactly. You should know then (although the Oakland hills are suburbs).
>>(The Oakland/Berkeley border, actually.)
>You mean the Montclair area which happened to be the richest part of
>Oakland before the fire (along with Piedmont).

No, sorry, I mean the area around Telegraph and Alcatraz. You can't
seriously claim that's a "rich" area, although it isn't west Oakland
either.

> People were already doing
>>a great deal of stealing, even before the California government
>>started comming unglued... I don't think the social programs had
>>much direct effect on this, one way or another.

>This is outside of my field, but I believe that you are saying that
>if poor people weren't being given help through food stamps, WIC and
>other services then they wouldn't steal more than they are now? This CAN
>be proven one way or the other. 

I'm not sure about "proven", but the real question is how much more.
(That is, if you want to use the threat of high crime to justify
greater funding for these programs.) It's reasonably argued, for example,
that violent crime would be greatly reduced by legalizing drugs. Would
the two in combination (legalization and a reduction in social spending)
result in a net increase or decrease in crime? (E.g. would the increase
in crime you refer to be significant compared to other government 
actions?) Since the rate is already disturbingly high, the effect
you refer to would have to be quite high to be noticable in relation
to the current rate.

                                          Frank Crary
                                          CU Boulder
Xref: sparky ba.politics:6919 ca.politics:9457 talk.politics.misc:59124