🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992May16.020710.11776@ee.ubc.ca> kenb@ee.ubc.ca (ken buckland) writes:
>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").  

well, i think it depends what is included in the definition of "social
spending". does "very close" mean a little less, or a little more, by the
way? 

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.

where would this higher percentage of "vulnerable people" have come from?
what percentages are you referring to, and how is this group defined? how
does "social spending" - undefined -  erode the moral standards of people.
i see how this is possible in one way: the chances of the u.s. government
spending money to imprison, probate, or parole a black man is about nine
times the chance of them spending money to do any of these things to a 
white man. i'm sure that the circumstances leading up to this certainly
waste more people, especially if they are not white. (just a side note,
i hope those reading don't think i am particularly down on the u.s. the
stats here are reflected in those of every english-speaking country.)

>
>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?

throughout the same world, this spending has decreased in real terms in
most countries for the last decade. in the last decade, the gap between
haves and have-nots has visibly widened in all the countries concerned. a
change would imply that "social spending" stop decreasing in real terms, or
even increase. i would like to see this alternative seriously considered.

>
>Ken Buckland
>kenb@ee.ubc.ca
>


-- 
Scott Probst: Brain and Behaviour Laboratory, Psychology dept, SFU
              Graduate Issues Officer, Simon Fraser Student Society.
e-mail: probst@fraser.sfu.ca - ph: (604) 291 3354/3181 - fax: (604) 291 5843
              "yes, well, and here we go again..."   Dr H.S. Thompson