🚀 go-pugleaf

>>>>> "a" == Adrian Burd <adrian@calanus.tamu.edu> writes:

    a> Zachery Joseph Bir wrote:

    >>  What is extreme about the billions of dollars wasted (IMHO) on
    >> welfare, the military, the relgulation of private business
    >> practices, enforcement of drug laws, enforcement of victimless
    >> crimes?

    a> Then I misunderstood what you were trying to say earlier. It
    a> seemed to me that you were characterizing American liberals as
    a> people who want to control yours, and everybody elses, life. That
    a> is an extreme view without basis in fact. There are definitely
    a> some who go under the label of liberalism who espouse such views,
    a> but it is not the mainstream. It is rather like those on the left
    a> wing of the political spectrum who characterize those on the
    a> right as people who want to cut down all the forests, who want to
    a> be free to pollute water and air, who want to keep the masses
    a> poor whilst they control the wealth of the country etc etc....

That's not an extreme view. That's my whole point - Every little wasted
and inefficient law that's passed cuts away at my freedom.

    [deletia]

    >>  I am most assuredly not talking about communism. I am talking
    >> about socialism, wherein the state takes it upon itself to
    >> redistribute funds gained from the work of the citizens.

    a> Socialism? Ye Gads man. Are you seriously characterizing the US
    a> as a socialist state?

In accordance with the above description, yes. Perhaps less so than
Sweden, or even Britain (don't know the tax structure there, please let
me know.) 

    >>  Granted. Now, ask yourself this: Is it an impossibility or even
    >> an improbability that things like this can be done without
    >> resorting to stealing the rewards of labor? Do you honestly have
    >> that low an opinion of your common man that you would have to
    >> forcibly take their money from them in order to fund projects
    >> that are beneficial to others? Perhaps I have a misguidedly
    >> optimistic view of mankind.

    a> Yup. Historically, movements for the improvement of society as a
    a> whole have frequently met with stiff opposition and have had to
    a> bought in through either overt coercion or major political
    a> strife; most of the opposition arising through the self interest
    a> of those who felt they were going to lose something.

Improvement based on whose opinion? If I didn't agree that it would
improve society, you're damn right I'd oppose. 
 
    >> Diseases eradicated? Hell, they've gone ahead and mutated, and
    >> are now mroe resilient to our drugs. Instead of developing
    >> natural resistences, we've led ourselves into a dead end street
    >> relying on a medical establishment that doesn't do jack squat.

    a> Boy oh boy, just what is your problem? Above you say, referring
    a> to my examples of disease eradication, that "Is it an
    a> impossibility or even an improbability that things like this can
    a> be done without resorting to stealing the rewards of labor?" and
    a> refer to projects that are beneficial to society.  Now you rant
    a> against these very same projects! Just what kind of "natural
    a> resistances" are you thinking of developing? Do you have medical
    a> insurance? Do you ever visit a member of the medical
    a> establishment? Since you seem to think them worthless ("a medical
    a> establishment that doesn't do jack squat") I assume you do not
    a> use their services and that, of course, you have done a lot
    a> better. Whilst I would whole heartedly endorse the view that
    a> medical science does not provide a universal panacea for all
    a> illnesses, and whilst I agree that mistakes are made (given a
    a> system as complex as the human body, it is miraculous that more
    a> mistakes are not made) I would most definitely want to live in a
    a> world WITH current medical science.  Given that as little as 60
    a> years ago there was a high infant mortality, lower life spans,
    a> high incidence of crippling diseases such as scarlet fever,
    a> tuberculosis, smallpox, polio etc, I would much prefer to live
    a> with the current medical knowledge we have. Nowadays, medical
    a> research is so expensive that individual contributions could
    a> rarely even come close to providing sufficient funds. What is
    a> more, those who would be doing the research would be spending
    a> vast portions of their time going round cap-in-hand. I'm sorry,
    a> but there is no way that I can imagine current medical research
    a> for example being funded by the good will and individual
    a> donations.

Well, let's suffice it to say that I do. Perhaps I'm a romantic and an
idealist, but I think stuff like this could happen. Yeah, the comment
about medicine was weird. I just now getting over the flu, and after the
first day (this has been about a week now) I stopped taking drugs for
it. I figured if my body couldn't get better on its own, maybe it
shouldn't be hanging around... Of course, it was just the flu.

    >>  Oh, and by the way, this is the first ongoing debate I've really
    >> enjoyed in a long while.

    a> Why thank you!

-- 
		   Zachery J. Bir - zbir@indiana.edu
	      Mac Specialist - ACCESS MicroCenter IMU M086
	      work: (812) 855-0910 - home: (812) 336-3066
		  http://seven.ucs.indiana.edu/~zbir/