From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Ignorance - Was Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!
Followup-To: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.elections,ba.politics,co.politics,nj.politics,ny.politics,talk.politics.misc
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 18:27:09 GMT

Follow-ups directed away from or.politics and ne.poliitcs. 

In article <1992Nov12.082806.15389@RedBrick.COM> jfr@RedBrick.COM () writes:
>>> Ok, I should have, I suppose, said "bad judgement or bad luck." I
>>> don't feel I (directly or theough the government) have an obligation
>>> of insure everyone against all forms of misfortune.

>  Okay Frank, just to be consistent here, I want to make sure I have
>  this correctly:

>    1) You would not want to bail out any S&Ls (I might even agree
>       with you on this one).  Let ALL of the people who were suckered
>       or slickered by the curse of S&L deregulation go broke, right?

Unfortunately, the S&L mess is a commitment the government made, and
we have an obligation to bail them out. I don't think we should have
made that commitment, and we should avoid future commitments of that sort.

>    2) You would not want to give any business ANY kind of tax break
>       or incentive or subsidy, right?  Get rid of the subsidies
>       given to the tobacco farmers (hey, even I'd go along with
>       that one!) and all the other farmers who have had "misfortune".

The idea of farm subsidies is a little warped: That the price of
food should remain constant at 1920 levels. Honestly, that's one
of the most regressive things the government does: Keeping food
prices artifically high hurts the poor worst of all. 

I'm not sure how "tax breaks or incentives or subsidies" qualify
as "protecting someone from bad judgement or bad luck" (which was
my remark.) They are usually a way for the government to control
or influence industry, for whatever purpose. Although I don't see
the relevance, I am in favor of fair and equilable tax codes, and
this would imply eliminating such tax breaks and incentives (as
well as eliminating the so-called "progressive" tax rates.)

>    3) What about deposit insurance?  Should that be banned also? 
>       After all, if you can't choose a good S&L or Bank, to hell
>       with you when it crashes, right?  (BTW, I also might be
>       in partial argeement here, requiring banks and S&Ls to
>       offer private insurance and letting depositers pick and
>       choose between levels of insurance and their risk and return).

I'd agree with than, although I don't like the idea of _requiring_
private insurance: I'd prefer to have uninsured banks required to 
clearly and specifically inform customers that the bank isn't
insured and they would have no protection in the event of a crash.
(That alone would scare off enough customers, that most banks _would_
get insurance...)

>    4) How about safety legislation?  Should companies be permitted
>       to just forget safety (since it clearly impinges on profits)
>       just to make a bigger buck, and let the workers be damned?
>       Back to the sweatshops of the 1890s, huh?  

Worker safety? I don't see why we really need laws for that: Unions
can and have done a good job in this respect. I'd much rather see
worker safety assured by pressure from the workers than by government
intervention.

>  Frankly (sorry about the pun :-) this all makes me nauseous.  We
>  are a society of people who are supposed to care about our fellow
>  man, and yet you advocate returning to the dark ages when everyone
>  was out only for himself.  No, check that, even in the dark ages,
>  tribes took care of their own.  This is more like a pack of animals.
>  No, check that too, even animals take care of their own.

I never said "every man for himself." I said that no one has a moral
responsibility to care for _every_other_member_ of a nation of 300,000,000
people. I'm all for "taking care of your own." But I don't think everyone
else in the nation is "my own" nor even (in any real sense) part of
the same society. I'm just saying the government should stay out of it,
and let individuals decide who is to help in times of need.

                                         Frank Crary
                                         CU Boulder

Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:16782 talk.politics.misc:59489