From: brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.usa,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.perot,alt.politics.election,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: To the Clinton supporters
Date: 9 Nov 92 03:52:20 GMT
Organization: Quake Public Access

In article <1992Nov8.090916.23179@wam.umd.edu> sorsha@wam.umd.edu (Laurie Beth Brunner) writes:

>1)  People live in societies, not as hermits who all happen to
>live in the same area of land.  You can't live in a society and
>expect that everything will go your way 

Does that include the potential that you won't make as much money as the next
guy?  

>and that everything
>that happens is for the individual's self-interest alone.  

That's not the question at issue here.  The questions is whether or not 
people ought to be allowed to pursue their self-interest or not.  Of course
not everyone will be successful every time they try, but preventing people
from even trying is not an improvement.

So, tell me.  Can you prove this assertion?  Can you even define what you
mean by it?

>To
>keep a society going, each member has to sacrifice something.

Why?
 
>Believe me, life is much easier when you can depend upon other
>people than when you only care about and rely on yourself.

Sure, life is easy if you are a master and slaves take care of your every
need, but I don't want to be anyone's slave or master, and no society can
be composed of nothing but masters.  A society of children being cared for
by watchful parents is impossible, and wouldn't be desirable if it were.

>2)  In the last 12 years, and in other administrations too, 
>the government HAS done un-Constitutional, immoral things.  

Sure, including taking the property of citizens without their concent, slavery
of blacks, and a host of other things.  So?  does that make it OK?  Does that
mean we ought to expand the role of government, and force people to "sacrifice"
more?

>The Supreme
>Court just ruled that the gag order on gov't family-planning
>clinics is un-Constitutional.  

I disagree.  If the doctors are being paid for by governemnt money, the
government has a responsibility to make sure it is well-spent.  With
government money comes government control.  Tell me, do you think that 
government restrictions against policemen calling people "niggers" is a
violation of their right to free speech?

What is unconstitutional is the fact the the government pays for these things
in the first place.  When I read the constitution, I don't see any mention of
the creation of health clinics in the list of government powers.

Just to make myself clear on this issue, I think people have a right to have
an abortion if they want. I just object to having the government force people 
to pay for other people's abortions.  Just one consequence of such things is
impossible problem of how to resolve the "gag rule" issue.

>Need I also mention Watergate
>and the Iran-Contra scandal?  If you have evidence that C/G
>are going to try something illegal and immoral, then say what
>it is and name the source.  If not, then don't sling accusations.

well, they want to further erode my right to make contracts with others in
every respect I can think of.  They want to force me to make certain things
part of every employment contract (even against the will of those making the
agreement).  They want to (further) poke their noses into the businesses of
drug and insurance companies in such a way as to further limit their ability
to deliver medical care to me.  I consider this to be VERY immoral.  They 
also want to take away even more of my income to fund their little pet 
projects.  Practicqally everything they have promised to do is immoral.

>3)  I find it amusing that the Rep. party keeps talking about
>how they want to reduce gov't, and that C/G want to expand it
>into our personal lives.  This, from the party of the president
>who wants a Constitutional amendment banning abortion.  

True enough.  The Republicans ARE hypocrites, but that doesn't mean that the
Democrats are not guilty of what the Republicans accuse them of.

>They
>want to put gov't in my uterus, and this is supposed to represent
>their commitment to reducing gov't?  I think not.

True enough.  We could discuss the faults of the Republicans all day, but 
that doesn't absolve the the Democrats of their faults.  I should also
point out that the kinds of nonsense the Republicans promote have for the
most part been impossible to put into practice (ie. porn censorship, 
banning abortion, etc.) while the intrusions of the Democrats are running
rampant over our paychecks and everything else.

--Brian