🚀 go-pugleaf

probst@fraser.sfu.ca (Scott Probst) writes: 
> > There is plenty of room for argument on how
> > a good society may be achieved or operated, and on what makes one or
> > another society appealing, but not on the basic criteria according
> > to which a society may be judged just.
> 
> it seems like the basic criteria are non-negotiable. a pity, as the u.s.
> disintergrates internally, that some beliefs are put above the facts of
> human degradation and alienation.

You are assuming here that the human degradation and alienation in the U.S.
*is* a result of a set of (I assume) right-wing beliefs that have been coldly
applied.  In fact, social spending per capita in the U.S. is very close to
that of the other Western countries (Charles Murray, "Losing Ground").  Maybe
the Americans have more of a problem because they had a higher percentage of
vulnerable people (due to historic mistakes they made) when massive social
spending was initiated in the 60's by the Western countries.  Conceivably
then, as this spending has eroded the moral standards of people and provided
them with extensive disincentives, the Americans have simply produced more
wasted people from their originally larger base.

Throughout the Western world, "big government" social spending has been the
norm for three decades now, and things have only become much worse during
that time.  Maybe alternative ideas should be considered?

Ken Buckland
kenb@ee.ubc.ca