From: ECL4JN2@MVS.OAC.UCLA.EDU (Jack B. Nimble)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Re: Social Democracy
Date: 5 Nov 92 06:41:12 GMT

In article <1992Oct29.134433.13709@macc.wisc.edu>, on 29 Oct 92 13:44:33 GMT,
anderson@macc.wisc.edu (Jess Anderson) writes:

>
>
>In article <19921029005434ECL4JN2@MVS.OAC.UCLA.EDU>
>ECL4JN2@MVS.OAC.UCLA.EDU (Jack B. Newsbaum) writes:
>
>>In article <1992Oct21.204617.5968@tc.cornell.edu>,
>>shore@dinah.tc.cornell.edu (Melinda Shore) writes:
>
>>>But thanks for stating so succinctly why the marginalized
>>>and disenfranchised members of our society will be
>>>damaged by libertarian social policies.
>
>>I wasn't aware that any particular group of people, except
>>perhaps for convicted felons and non-citizens was
>>disenfranchised these days.
>
>I have no difficulty believing you.  Those disadvantaged by
>virtue of racism, sexism, and homophobia are not
>disenfranchised, you say.  You say that, I suppose, because
>they *could* vote.  But you ignore therewith all the ways in
>which these forms of discrimination amount to _de facto_
>disenfranchisement.  And god forbid you should go where they
>are and ask them what they think of your argument.
>
I'm still waiting for you to show actual instances of disenfranchise-
ment or even discrimination. In fact, due to reverse discrimination
under the guise of affirmative action, minority set-asides, quotas,
and preferential governmental contract awards, it is frequently
people who are not in any of the protected classes who are discriminated
against. 

Going out to people in the lower economic echelons and asking them,
"Say, do you think you are where you are today because society has
victimized you, or do you think you could be better off if you had
concentrated more on self-advancement and taking personal initiative?"

Well now, what do you think people would say? It is human nature to seek
out external causes for our shortcomings and to harbor resentments
towards others for their successes. Everybody looks for a scapegoat.
"What has the government done for me lately?" It's really easy to play
the blame game, but until people take charge of their own lives they
will be stuck exactly where they are.


>>Libertarian social policy represents the greatest hope for
>>people in poverty to escape the welfare trap.
>
>Funny how few of them know that.  You think they're dumb or
>something, that they don't line up for your "improvements?"
>
Actually, it's not funny that they don't know that; it's tragic.

>>Unlike the welfare plantation system run by the government
>>today, where more than 2/3 of the money extorted by the
>>government is used to maintain the bureaucracy and push
>>paper, in a libertarian order, welfare would be privatized
>>and called by its proper name -- charity.
>
>Oh sure.  Charity begins at home: 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
>I'm sure lots of people living within a few blocks of that
>address can't wait for charity.  Is charity your approach to
>a remedy for the 35 million of your fellow citizens who
>don't have health insurance, too?  No one claims waste is
>justified.  Privatization of social services has never worked
>before.  What makes you think it could work now?
>
Because charity works and institutionalized governmental welfare
is a failure. ANd it's easy why. The people who run the welfare
plantation have a vested interest in maintaining the system; their
jobs depend upon it. In contrast, people who contribute from their
wealth to charity are interested in seeing that the recipients are
truly worthy of the assistance and that they view it as temporary
assistance for people who are looking to be self-sufficient again.

Figure it out for yourself. As a rough calculation, assume that the U.S.
has 7.5 million families below the poverty line and that on the average
it would take a $12,000 income supplement to bring those families above
the line.  Both numbers represent the high end of the povertyproblem as
it has existed in the last decade. Thus to eradicate poverty should cost
$90 billion. Yet according to the federal government's _Statistical
"cash and noncash benefits for persons with limited incomes" exceed $150
billion. This is a difference of $60 billion. If you want a real example
of trickle-down economics, here it is.

>I think it comes back to your (mis)understanding of
>"benefit," which seems to be based on more benefit for you
>and less for other people.
>
I reject your implicit assumption that I am not entitled to the product
of my own labor, and that my earnings belong to the government and are
thus a benefit given by others to me.


>--
>Jess Anderson <> Madison Academic Computing Center <> University of Wisconsin
>Internet: anderson@macc.wisc.edu <-best, UUCP:{}!uwvax!macc.wisc.edu!anderson
>NeXTmail w/attachments: anderson@yak.macc.wisc.edu  Bitnet: anderson@wiscmacc
>Room 3130 <> 1210 West Dayton Street / Madison WI 53706 <> Phone 608/262-5888
>
        =Jack=

---

Jack B. Newsbaum             You have rights antecedent to all earthly
Library Information Systems  governments; rights that cannot be
University Research Library  repealed or restrained by human law.
ecl4jn2@mvs.oac.ucla.edu               - John Adams
Newsgroups: soc.motss