From: cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok)
Subject: Re: Negative Income Tax (Was: Social programs)
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 06:03:55 GMT

In article <1992Dec29.184547.13533@news.columbia.edu> gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare) writes:
>cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok) writes:
>>jmorriso@ee.ubc.ca (John Paul Morrison) writes:
>>>Basically, a certain amount of social programs,
>>>ie. the rich/middle class paying money to people who are poorer/haven't
>>>earned it, is NOT altruistic, and therefore makes sense (if improving
>>>your self interest is your prime motivation). Why? because you have to take
>>>a long term view with some things: subsidize a small amount to the poor,
>>>or pay more for a police state needed to preserve your own security
>>>(drastic), or wind up guilloutined with the aristocrats? Paying a certain
>>>amount to the poor can actually advance your self interest.
>>>(that 'certain' amount is open for study...)
>>
>>that is a classical argument.
>>
>>two problems with it: first, it is a post hoc justification for social
>>spending, i.e. when social spending was implemented, "protection of
>>the rich" was not on the list of objectives. but that is not really
>>*that* big of a deal.
>>
>>second, and more importantly, you are confusing slavery with
>>free action. if the "rich" and middle class want to ensure that 
>>the poor don't attack them, they will protect their own self-
>>interests by doing exactly what you suggest, or they will suffer
>>the consequences. those are the responsibilities that come with
>>wealth. but *forcing* people to do that cannot be justified. you
>>can't tell someone that you are taking their money "for their
>>own good". if that is true, let them decide, it's their money!
>
>Since the parties instituting such policies are linked to The
>Establishment (Liberals and Conservatives in Canada, Gaullistes in
>France, British Tories, etc.), it gives credence to that classical
>argument.

gives credence to what? that it is a classical argument, or that
the classical argument is valid? i'll accept the former, but
not the latter.

>Couple to that the fact that business likes social peace
>and helmeted cops on every corner with semi-automatics does nothing
>to foster the stability that commerce requires ...

oh boy, here we go again...

give me a break. 
that is just your bias. and it makes no sense to suggest that
business would *want* to waste resources on police.

>>oh, also, if it was a "small amount" which was given to the poor,
>>you'd probably not see much complaint. the "small amount" part
>>died long ago.
>
>Since the Canadian Establishment and their running dogs (-; did not
>anticipate downturns, we all got caught.  As has everyone else.

bull. the social spending was ridiculously high before the downturn
and you know it.

>And
>not even extreme fiscal conservatives like Ronnie Reagan and Mags
>Thatcher could put a brake on things ...

"Ronnie Reagan" was not a fiscal conservative. unless you mean 
the *son* of the president, i don't know much about him. the statement
above, combined with your previous suppositions that you are a
fiscal conservative (while supporting ridiculous deficit spending for
social programs) makes me wonder if you even know what the term means...

to suggest that Reagan and Thatcher were in the same class fiscally
is a joke of epic proportions. you don't really believe that, do you?
i challenge you to back that up with numbers. i have mine.

>they threw up their hands
>halfway through their first terms.

total, unadulterated bull. Reagan's deficits were horrendous all
through his terms.

--
charles