🚀 go-pugleaf

Zachery Joseph Bir wrote:
> 
> >>>>> "a" == Adrian Burd <adrian@calanus.tamu.edu> writes:
>  
> 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.

Ah, but that's the whole point...how do you determine a law that is "wasted
and inefficient"?. It seems to me  that in a democracy, the only way for this to be
determined is for the majority to decide.
 
>     a> Socialism? Ye Gads man. Are you seriously characterizing the US
>     a> as a socialist state?

Since just about every state in existence at present, whether described as fascist,
dictatorial, socialist or communist, provides some form of government control
and takes funds from its citizens and pays for things like a military force, medical
care (in some countries) and other things. So, using your broad definition, every
state can be categorized as being a shade of socialism. Since there are no purely
anarchic states in existence, everyone is a socialist. That doesn't make the term
very useful.
 
>     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.

Just as those from the South did not agree that the abolition of slavery would
improve society and so launched the country into a bloody civil war. Different
people have different ideas about what will improve a society and fortunately this
society is a democracy.  

>     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.

I think that is a wholly unrealistic and inpractical view. I do not know of any
place in the world where such a system has been tried. I am sure for example that
research on AIDS would be severely lacking if medical science was funded in the
manner you suggest. 

> Perhaps I'm a romantic and an
> idealist, but I think stuff like this could happen. 

Perhaps a dose of realism, as the doctor ordered, would help.


> 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.

Sorry about the flu. I usually do not take drugs for such things unless they get
bad. I also wouldn't be too dismissive of the tiny influenza virus, it can do some
severe damage. It would have been interesting though to see if you had the same
attitude if it was not the flu you suffered from but Legionaires disease instead.
It is all very well to have certain philosophical ideals when everything is fine,
and one is not in danger, but when those ideals put you or your loved ones in mortal
danger....what then?

Adrian


-- 
____________________________________________________________________________
                             | 
Adrian Burd,                 | Quidquid Latinae dictum sit,
Dpt. of Oceanography,        | altum videtur.
Texas A&M University,        | 
College Station ,            | 
Texas 77843                  |
                             |
_____________________________|______________________________________________

Disclaimer: I am not the official spokesperson for anyone, for which 
            organisations that use spokespersons are profoundly
            grateful.

____________________________________________________________________________