Subject:
|
Re: socialism etc. (was: Re: Blue Hopper Car Mania...)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 20 Nov 1999 01:08:36 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1407 times
|
| |
|
|
On Fri, 19 Nov 1999 15:11:04 GMT, Christopher Weeks
<clweeks@eclipse.net> wrote:
> Jasper Janssen wrote:
> If you're going to quote me, please have the decency to do so
> accurately. I said "I wouldn't say that anyone (or everyone) should
> have the right to be
> judge, jury, and executioner." That statement means that I do not
Sorry about that. I figured it was a fairly accurate representation of
what you said.
> My main reason for being against the death penalty is that I think the
> only point to having a government (as a collection of people being
> rational) is so that it can make better decisions than individuals
> would. If the sum is not greater than the individuals, then the
> government has no reason to be. The government should be above such
> actions while individuals are sometimes not.
I agree, absolutely.
>
> And the point of that scenario is that someone (the husband) was not
> making a perfectly sound and careful attempt at keeping the rapist's
> rights in mind, but was ending the rape situation. He protected his
> family. You then claimed that killing him was wrong because he was
> "innocent until proven guilty." He was clearly not innocent.
True. But I'd still like to see at least an attempt made to do it via
the legislated channels first - mostly because of the potential for
abuse.
If you walk in on your wife with another man, who clearly both
consent, and you shoot the man.. then what? When you tell the
police/judge "Oh, he was raping her. Really he did.", they walk away?
There's always a potential for abuse in whatever balance you come up
with - I just happen to feel the optimum point on said balance lies
elsewhere than you do.
> Mostly, I trust people with that responsibility. Frank's story is
> extreme and rare. And it is extremely rare for one normally lawful
> citizen to kill another over a misunderstanding. That's why it makes
> the news.
This is true. But when it _does_ happen, it shouldn't just go
unpunished because the defendant claims it was self-defense - at the
very least there should be a serious trial.
> I think the unemployment insurance system is centrally governed at least
> to some extent since it works the same from state to state. We have a
> system called Social Security which is a federally mandated pension
> plan, in effect. Welfare is available to lots and lots of people not
> just those with children. So, I guess I think that you're wrong on all
> three counts. Does that make us a socialist nation?
Nope. Just that I'm using the wrong arguments.. The US is not on the
left-hand side of average. At least, neither of the two political
parties are, so effectively, so is the country.
> I don't think such an event (without some world-wrecking war) would
Now that you mention it.. all those nukes you've got lying around, and
the ones the russians have which go into launch mode uncommanded
occasionally? Not to mention the russian EWS that occasionally thinks
a few birds are MIRV ICBMs?
> drive the rest of the world into the stone age. Maybe it would be hard
> and even a major set-back, but I think the rest of the world would stay
> above the level of say steel production.
Possibly. It really depends how hard stuff fails, and where. In many
parts of the world, ther wouldn't be wood, for example, to make the
iron (steel, BTW, is a good deal more difficult than iron - that's
18th century technology, and one of the factors that started the
industrial revolution). Another problem would be that without the
current energy-based infrastructure, there's not enough foodstuffs to
keep people in big cities fed. That means rampaging mobs.. and guess
where all the important libraries are?
> Right but in the case of all those except the combusted stuff, it didn't
> just disappear. There is now a wealth of consumer goods for such a
> restarting civilization to mine.
True. But iron and steel rust away to iron oxide.. ISTR mining Fe from
rust is a good deal more difficult than from iron ore.
> They won't be mobs if they're fed...I think that's what you mean by
> saying without social security. I think the system will provide for
Exactly. The inhabitants of Rome weren't given bread and games for the
hell of it - they were having a serious unemployment problem back then
(with all the resultant crime, etc.). So, I say, give them their pizza
and TV.
> them (and they could even provide for themselves). As it is, the rich
> are throwing the poor a bone to keep them off their backs. That will
> continue. The problem is that right now, the rich have coopted the
> middle class into paying for the bone.
So raise the taxes on the rich. Hell, raise taxes on the rich and
lower them on the middleclass. Of course, no political party that
would ever hope to govern would even dare suggest that over there (at
least, that's what I gather), so that could be problematic.
Jasper
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
178 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
