From: jwh@citi.umich.edu (Jim Howe)
Subject: Re: Ignorance - Was Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 92 09:31:49 EST
Organization: IFS Project, University of Michigan
Reply-To: jwh@citi.umich.edu

In article <BxMwz5.Lo6@slipknot.rain.com>, robert@slipknot.rain.com (Robert Reed) writes:
|> In article <KVC=yK=@engin.umich.edu> jwh@citi.umich.edu writes:
|> |In article <1992Nov12.082806.15389@RedBrick.COM>, jfr@RedBrick.COM () writes:
|> ||> In article <1992Nov11.201147.12975@cbnewsh.cb.att.com> europa@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (r.j.capik) writes:
|> ||>
|> ||>     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?
|> |
|> |The Federal government guaranteed accounts up to $100,000.  This was
|> |stupid, but a promise is a promise.  The government should pay depositors
|> |according to its agreement.  Of course, after payoff, the insurance
|> |system should be scrapped for some form of private insurance, or at
|> |least public insurance with premiums based on risk.
|> 
|> You may think it was stupid, but it was viewed at the time as a necessary
|> measure (along with bank regulation) to raise people's trust of the banking
|> system following the great depression. [...]

The depression occured in the 30's.  The insurance level was increased from
$40,000 to $100,000 in the 70's.  I don't think the banking system was
so bad off in the 70's that this increase was warranted.  This is
typical government policy.  Implement a program which may be somewhat
appropriate at a given point in time, but perpetuate the program long
beyond the time that it should have been abolished.  Old government
programs never die, they just get increased funding.

|> 
|> |Corporate taxes should be abolished, therefore tax breaks would be 
|> |pointless.
|> 
|> So that we can all incorporate as individuals and thus avoid paying any
|> taxes?  Dream on!
|> 

Even if you incorporated, you would still have to draw a salary or
take a dividend if you wanted to spend money on non-business items.

|> [...]
|> 
|> |It is composed of individuals who have vastly different opinions about what
|> |is right and what isn't.  It is not the place of government to impose the
|> |will of a majority on minority groups.
|> 
|> We still live in a country of majority rule, a fact which is a direct
|> contradiction to your statement.  Surely you don't think Bush supporters 
|> don't feel imposed upon by the election of Clinton?  The majority set 
|> standards of behavior that are imposed upon the minority in many ways.  

You seem to forget that we have a Constitution which is designed to protect
the rights of *all* people.  Unfortunately, many of those protections
are simply ignored.

|> Break the law and you might go to jail.  The Right to Life movement 
|> certainly feels imposed upon by the majority who believe in a woman's 
|> right to choose.
|> 

Of course the Abolishonists felt imposed upon by the majority who believed
that slavery was acceptable.  Majority opinion is no foundation for a 'just' 
society.  

|> |People have always been free to band together to help other people out.  
|> |Charities existed *before* government got involved.  The choices are not 
|> |government charity or no charity, the choices are government charity or
|> |private charities.
|> 
|> The problem with this simplistic view is that there is no free market for
|> charity.  

How do you figure?  I can give to the United Way, I can give to the
Salvation Army, I can give to colleges, universities, private schools,
etc.  All these organizations compete for money.  What happens is that
money gets allocated according to the wishes of each individual.  If
I want to support Habitat for Humanity, I can do so.  If you want to
support some other charity, you are free to do so.  If a charity ceases
to meet its mission, funding will drop.  Look at United Way during 
their recent trouble.  Donations dropped off and local chapters
expressed their displeasure at the way the national organization was
being run.  As a result, in short order, the national organization
made necessary changes.  If United Way were funded completely by
tax money I doubt this ever would have happenend.

|> 
|> |We have been spoonfed the notion that government can solve all problems,
|> |even though the evidence is to the contrary.
|> 
|> There is evidence that government can't solve ALL of our problems, but it
|> certainly has solved more problems than the alternative.

Do you have evidence that this is true?  Are we really better off now
since the government has taken over primary responsibility for the poor?
Have we seen a dramatic decline in poverty since the insitution of massive
government programs?  Where private and public charities 'compete',
does the government provide the better alternative?  I don't think so.


James W. Howe                  internet: jwh@citi.umich.edu
University of Michigan             uucp: uunet!mailrus!citi.umich.edu!jwh
Ann Arbor, MI   48103-4943         
Xref: sparky or.politics:545 alt.politics.clinton:16697 alt.politics.democrats.d:418 alt.politics.elections:23341 ba.politics:6950 co.politics:1750 ne.politics:2852 nj.politics:634 ny.politics:157 talk.politics.misc:59337