On Sat, 26 Feb 2000, Xenophon wrote:
> Bowing to the majority rule of democracy is not something we should
> have to do in a republic. 51% should not be able to successfully
> implement a campaign of theft.
Of course, but far more than 51% of the American people in every state
of the union, support the existence of social programs (they also
support reform of the ones we have). In any democracy, there will always
be a fringe element that needs to give in.
> > If every sanctimonious asshole who would steal my money for the sake of
> > the "less fortunate" would simply find one person, just one, and do
> > something to improve that persons life, the so called problem of
> > poverty would be eliminated. But that's too hard. Better to hire a
> > group of mercenary terrorists to steal other peoples money and then
> > dole it out...
>
> >On behalf of everyone how has done volunteer work: go fuck yourself.
>
> You speak well for other people. Had your reading of the post been accurate, it would
> have led you to conclude that I advocate individual good works, being based as they
>are,
> on the idea of consent. What I condemn are people who, rather than doing the work
> themselves, hire thugs to steal my money to do it for them.
Ok, so am I correct in saying that your condemnation for social programs
is limited to goverment funded, sponsored programs?
If so, do you condemn a standing military? Do you condemn the post office?
Do you condemn paying politicians?
All of these are paid for by your taxes, and all of them offer a service
to the American people.. as do our government-run social programs.
The only difference between any of these that I can see is that you and
I personally reap the benefits of some of these institutions, and reap no
personal benefit from the existence of social programs.
> People who advocate a welfare
> state don't really give a shit about the poor. They are more interested in feeling
>good
> about themselves. As such, it's never surprising to hear them reciting a litany of
>their
> good works...
Yes yes, because if we really cared we'd let them starve.
Caring is starvation.
Freedom is slavery.
War is peace.
....
And I mentioned my former volunteer works to illustrate that I have a leg
to stand on when speaking of the views about government programs from
a volunteer's perspective.
I would love to see organized, wide-spread social programs without
government involvement. I really would, because I have first-hand
experience that local typically church-run groups help people a lot
more than government programs.
I would like such groups to be interconnected, sharing information,
resources, and funds, but each small enough to be able to know the people
they are helping by name and face, not by a fucking file folder.
I don't think there is a volunteer out there who would disagree.
Unfortunately, that is difficult. To get interconnected and maintain
that level of organization requires money; and they typically don't
have it .. and that is, for better or worse, where the government
comes it and fucks it all up.
> Occasional anomolies don't disprove my submission.
A counter-example does well to illustrate that your submission is not
global, nor as strong as you made it sound.
> I said "worth to society". Michael
> Jordan makes more than a schoolteacher because we place more value on the NBA than
> reading. A programmer makes more than a shoe shiner because we have deemed that work
>more
> important.
Maybe I misunderstood you.
I would submit that Jordan and programmers make more green because those
_abilities_ are more rare than other _abilities_ such as being a good
teacher, and shining shoes.. and as such, if we want to benefits those
rare abilities give us, we have to pay top dollar for it. Hey.. its
supply and demand.
It is completely devoid of the individuals involved.
If the ability to teach were as rare as a good jump shot, teachers
would be making Jordan's salary because they could demand it.
But, there are a lot of people who can teach, and a handful of them will
be willing to work for just a little less than others. Who are you going
to hire? Choice is clear to me.. you hire the one willing to work for
less; thereby lessening the number of positions available, making the
other teachers need to lower their rates.. and as this happens over
and over, we approach a limiting value which is the average teacher
salary.
Money is simply how we express our desire for a _skill_ says nothing
about the people involved.
This, though, I would agree with.. years ago, I'm sure that the guy with
the biggest muscles, and best ability to hunt was a real prime catch
for the ladies. Now, I'm betting Captain Caveman is less desired, instead
that banker in the 3 piece is looking nice.
Yeah, human desires change as the human condition changes. This has
nothing to do with money, as I see it.. other than that in our society
money in some form, is needed for survival/ordinary existence.
Michael J. Graffam ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
