Subject: RE: [drugwar]OT: only a Kommie wants the poor to get health care Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 14:35:34 -0400 To: From: Bob Armstrong Geez , I got other things to do . But I guess I lit the fire= myself . I'd like to just repeat : READ . STUDY . THINK . THINK . THINK= . Some of the arguments being presented here appear self-evidently= self-contradictory to me , but I guess not to most . I've given links to some of the classics . More are on my webpage= . But let me respond to a bit more . On Thu, 17 Jul 2003 11:00:57 -0600, Armstrong, Jonathan R wrote: >=A0-->=A0I agree. =A0Some degree of governmental= intervention/oversight is >=A0necessary in an advanced society like the one we live in.= =A0Libertarianism, >=A0at least economic libertarianism, takes on a lot more validity= under the >=A0context of Jeffersonian agrarianism than it does in high-tech= America where >=A0people must submit to market forces that are outside of their= personal >=A0control. The peer to peer community of the web obsoletes centralized= Force by a Political Class as an organizing principle like never before . Your only personal control is of your choices in the market . > =A0Seems like the best we can hope for, at least if we still want= to >=A0have things like DVD players and T1 lines, is some sort of= benevolent >=A0socialism. Those are , of course , products of the free capitalistic market= . Sony in Japan , not giving a damn about the Caucasian tiffs= between US and the Commies , just wanting to create and sell better= electronic devices than ever existed before did as much to make the USSR a= fossil as anything we did . How do you keep your socialism benevolent if you cannot stop it= from criminalizing you for growing an herb ? >=A0It's more a question of who's going to get these >=A0socialistic-type benefits (corporations or people in need?) Corporations ARE people . In the US , you can figure about 1000= families per billion dollars revenue . >=A0I don't like=A0it, really, but you know, socialism is popular. You can say that again . >=A0No one ever complains about >=A0more socialistic benefits. =A0Unfortunately, they often come at= the expense of >=A0personal freedom and liberty, but as I have stated repeatedly= "freedom" is >=A0an abstract concept, whereas socialistic benefits provide real,= tangible >=A0benefits to those in need. > >=A0-->=A0 With that being said, however, there does seem to be a= little too much >=A0emphasis on what the 'government' needs to do among a lot of= legalization >=A0activists. =A0Not necessarily anyone on this list thus far, but= I've noticed a >=A0lot of them seem to exemplify a lot of the malaise I see in= Gen-Xers - you >=A0know, "it's my right to do anything I want, and the government= needs to >=A0nanny me at every step of the way." =A0It just seems that all= dialogue about >=A0any sort of issue proceeds from the notion that there needs to= be more >=A0regulation or more funding towards this or that program. =A0All I= would submit >=A0is that there is a time when perhaps we need to step back and= say OK - >=A0you're an individual, you made your choice, and now you have to= live with >=A0it. =A0If you're free to get addicted to dope or whatever, do we= really need >=A0to expect governmental agencies to clean you up and then give= you "life >=A0skills" and all of that when you f__k up later? =A0Where do we= draw the line? Amen on a lot you say . A problem with these government= charities is that they can be and are often "gamed" . With private charities , if= you feel the charity is ineffective , you can put your dollars elsewhere= . >=A0The reasons that so much of our population lives in >=A0poverty are complicated but it's not so easily >=A0attributable to laziness, lack of motivation and >=A0failure to take personal responsibility as some would >=A0have us believe. It's a mixture of things . My brother Jack is brain damaged from= birth and institutionalized . Ensuring his welfare has been a major factor= in the path of my life . Many are not so fortunate to have a strong= family and are totally dependant on street charity . But I also know a= number of neighborhood bums who are essentially camping out . >=A0-->=A0You could, of course, argue for either side of the issue= here. =A0I've >=A0spent enough time around the underclass (I'm one generation= away from the >=A0trailer park) to know that a lot of the malaise associated with= the lower >=A0classes is self-inflicted, but you start getting into= chicken-or-the-egg >=A0sorts of issues really fast when you say things like that. =A0IQ= definitely >=A0plays a role here as well, although no one (at least on the= left) wants to >=A0admit that there's objective "intelligence" out there which= might be >=A0responsible for anything. =A0Seems like a balanced approach is= the best - you >=A0have to realize that people submit to market forces outside of= their control >=A0and there needs to be some sort of protection in place, yet at= the same >=A0time, too much socialism destroys personal motivation and= creates >=A0dramatically unfree societies. =A0I would refer you here to an= excellent book >=A0that just came out by one Steven Pinker, 'The Blank Slate',= which I consider >=A0the ultimate refutation to anyone who believes we can mold some= sort of >=A0ideal society by just injecting more dollars in socialistic= type programs. > >=A0-->=A0Personally, I've just reached a point where a lot of the= time, I just >=A0don't think it's desirable, much less necessary, for= governments to help >=A0people out more than they do now. =A0Case in point is educating= people at the >=A0college level. =A0Undoubtedly there are many left-leaning= socialistic types >=A0who'd like to see all higher education provided at no charge,= just like >=A0public school education. =A0However, top-of-the-line education,= like health >=A0care, simply isn't possible to provide for everyone who wants= it. =A0You >=A0simply cannot get an education at a public university that is= as high >=A0quality as that of a private school where there are 5-10 people= per >=A0classroom. =A0The State already provides (at least where I live)= subsidized >=A0higher education, and any young person who is reasonably well= motivated >=A0enough can easily get a business or computer science degree= working part >=A0time and taking out student loans, which are easily available.= =A0It's not >=A0Stanford quality, yeah, but I've known so many people who= aren't even >=A0interested in college. =A0(Not to mention that you can learn most= anything you >=A0want with a bit of motivation and a library card.) With all the new knowledge and ever more of the classic on the= Web , I think the traditional school structure is anachronistic . >=A0-->=A0 The only thing I'm really opposed to are those that just= want to make >=A0everything so "safe" and secure, as in my own experience, a= degree of >=A0neuroticism and danger is not only impossible to NOT have, but= is in fact >=A0somewhat desirable in any society. =A0A study of socialistic= Sweden proves >=A0that massive social programs can only mould society to a= certain degree - >=A0the Social Democrats just couldn't understand why people would= still choose >=A0to use drugs or alcohol or whatever when they'd created a= society that had >=A0supposedly removed all of the impetus that created problems= with addiction. >=A0Achieving that balance is difficult, but don't worry, like it= or not, we'll >=A0get more socialism - it's absolutely necessary to control and= manage and >=A0advanced "information" society. > >=A0Cheers, >=A0Jonathan We're not that far apart in our thinking , bro . >=A0I think it's simplistic and insulting >=A0to suggest that people live below the poverty by >=A0choice and that it is not the responsiblity of those >=A0of us born under more fortunate circumstances to share >=A0our resources to help improve their condition. > >=A0I'd love to think that the private sector could >=A0provide the same level of help, but the population is >=A0too large and the need too great to be addressed by >=A0anything other than a large organization. We need SOME= government. I know >=A0these programs are often not administered efficently but the= same can be >=A0said for a lot of NGOs. It is interesting , and irrefutable , that it is exactly the= complexity and speed of modern society that central planning proved totally= incapable of competing with . >=A0just ranting, > >=A0Libby --=A0 =A0Bob Armstrong -- http://CoSy.com A WTC vision : http://cosy.com/CoSy/ConicAllConnect/ Liberty : http://cosy.com/Liberty.htm =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A02003/07/17 1:36:27 PM