Re: Democracy?

[Margaret Tarbet <tarbet@swaa.com>]

On Sat, 6 Feb 1999 10:12:53 -0500, Greg wrote:

>  So, the implication of your undocumented and unsubstantiated statements 
>below (I would at least like to see a reference or two, but let us assume 
>they are true), 

http://www.salonmagazine.com/news/1999/02/03newsa.html
for one.  I'm sure you can find more if you're really interested.
It's generally public information.

>is that in the absence of the welfare state, Mr Rogan would 
>have perished and never achieved the success he has achieved. That would be 
>a "non sequitur"...it "does not follow."

Right, and falling off a 5-story building isn't necessarily followed
by death, either.   But that's the way to bet.

[btw, i believe you'll find that 'non-sequitur' is typically used
for topic switches, not logical failures]

>  We live in the world into which we are born, and we make the best of what 
>is available to us. 

Ah, how convenient.   A 'why should i pay taxes for schools, my kids
are grown now'/NIMBY sort of thing, eh?   Do you suppose Mr. Rogan
would look favorably on a proposal that he repay the public monies
that supported his childhood and his education?   Wouldn't he be
more honest if he did?   


>Had those social programs not been available, there is 
>nothing to suggest that the outcome for Mr Rogan would have been 
>significantly different. 

Of course there is!   There is plenty evidence of what happens to
people in the lowest strata of society in third-world countries!
High infant mortality, disease, despair, early death.


>The opportunities and paths to success are vast in 
>number _in spite of_ the burden of a vast and invasive government. I submit 
>that if we cast off the shackles of the nanny state, the overwhelming 
>evidence from history suggests that those opportunities would be  even 
>_more_ plentiful. 

My goodness!   I wonder then, why people aren't positively clamoring
to live in places like Russia, Mexico, Central America, South Korea,
India, Bangladesh, Indonesia, and similar.  There's certainly no
'nanny' in operation in those countries.   They have just the sort
of setup you're advocating, Greg. 

Come to that, why haven't _you_ moved to one of those countries?
You've plenty money, and i understand you can hire programmers
_really cheaply_ in Russia.  Think of all the extra profits!   Oh,
but i suppose you probably wouldn't like a _really_ free market with
no government interference at all, would you?   Like the tearful,
red-faced 3-y.o. bellowing 'No! Mine! Miiiine!!', you really only
dislike the idea of having to share _your_ stuff.   Having nanny
protect you from the bigger kids is no more than Natural Law.  :-)


>P.S. I have listened to Mr. Rogan a good deal over the past couple of 
>months. He is a marvelous, articulate spokesman for liberty and the rule of 
>law. I am beginning to think that it is the "converted liberals" who make 
>the best Republicans. They seem to understand the fundamental issues with a 
>clarity that others lack.

The only 'fundamental issue' for you folk on the right wing, Greg,
is greed.   Like that 3-y.o., your world centers on your needs and
yours alone.   You think that it's perfectly natural and proper that
mummy should take care of your needs and yours alone.  After all,
other people barely exist, in your world.  So you feel entitled to
share their toys while keeping your own safe, and you don't think
there's anything strange or inappropriate about that at all.  Your
world is very simple and ego-centric in the purest meaning of that
term.   Being physical grown-ups, you can 'wrap yourself in the
flag', as it were, and cloak your childlike desires in rhetoric.
But yours is still the self-centered greed of the pre-social child.