🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <2s8nluo6bmr8vaugu1grl4us0hgg61pnat@4ax.com>,
Bob LeChevalier  <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote:
>"Mark Richards" <markrichards8@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>South Africa is a sovereign nation so can do whatever it wants. Look at what
>>Zimbabwe is doing with the farmland. It could nationalize all the mines, so
>>why do you suppose it doesn't?

>The US is a sovereign nation and could nationalize all of business, so
>why do you suppose that it doesn't?

>Laws, maybe?

Laws are little protection; Zimbabwe claims to be acting
within its laws.  The laws are what the current government
says they are.

What is needed to prevent these is a strong constitution
and an armed citizenry which does not trust the government.

>>> Our current income redistribution programs,
>>> while burdensome, are vastly preferable to the societal rubble that
>>> America's earlier, freer, industrial age created. Robber-barons made paupers
>>> of the rest of us, regardless of color.

Socialist rot.  It is those who do not go along with what
"society" wants who make the improvements.  George Bernard
Shaw, himself a Fabian socialist, concluded with

   "Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man."

The unreasonable man takes risks which "society" will not,
and takes risks with the hope of rewards.  It is a hereditary
class which is the danger.  The "robber barons" start getting
poorer if they do not add to the development.

>>And the Federal Reserve was created to prevent the boom-and-bust cycle, and
>>we had the Depression 16 years later.

>And no Depressions since - 60 years without a depression is an immense
>amount of time compared to what went on before.

The Fed has been accused, and rightly so, of acting in such a way
as to make the Depression worse, as is also the case with other 
government agencies.

>>> Furthermore, I contend that individuals, left to their own devices, are
>>> generally too greedy to be very good at charity. While you and all your
>>> friends may be decent and giving people, the vast unwashed would rather buy
>>> more crap on the Home Shopping Network than help their fellow man.

>>We have the Red Cross, United Way, and Salvation Army, among others, all
>>supported by donors. Whenever a disaster happens anywhere in the world, we
>>are quick to send relief. And this is all for people we don't know and will
>>never meet. Don't you think we would respond even better if the needy
>>individuals were right in our own town?

>While those worthy organizations do a lot, their aid is hardly a drop
>in the bucket compared to the cost of major disasters.

And these would do far more if the government has not taken the
resources which would have gone into it.  However, I deplore such
organizations as the United Way, which allocate money to what the
"leaders" consider to be the worthwhile charities; it should go 
back to being merely a collection agency.  It is individuals who
need to designate where their charitable contributions go, not
large organizations.




-- 
This address is for information only.  I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907-1399
hrubin@stat.purdue.edu         Phone: (765)494-6054   FAX: (765)494-0558