I've lost the thread, so please forgive me if this isn't Bob's words.
Anyway, I agree with the following point to the letter!
>: There's no such thing as 'government money.' It's all 'taxpayer money,'
>: extracted by the threat of violence.
Can I get a hallelujah? While I would not go so far as to suggest, as some
do, that "taxation is theft," I am routinely plussed by the growing margin
between what I earn and what I take home! And how much of those earnings go
to support programs that I would not, could not voluntarily support. I
prefer not to subsidize others' folly at my expense. But the alternative is.
. . a nice three-by-five cell with a toilet bearing no seat. . . .
Business would prefer not to advertise.
>: Competition makes them do it.
>
>Exactly. And why must they when that money could be spent on "trying to be
>the best." That they must advertise means the best doesn't always win - the
>one with the better advertising does.
Here's a stupid analogy for you. . .
Can anyone recall how much money was spent on marketing last summer's
*Godzilla*? Now, by my way of thinking, everything from Taco Bell to Aunt
Polly's Preserves had the freakin' lizard on it--and how many people
actually loved the "Here, Leezard Leezard Leezard" commercial? A sizable
number. HOWEVER, how did the movie do? Can you say "tanked"? Here's a nice
example of how "better" advertising did not yield profit. . .
>: You're assuming everyone is so stupid they fall hook, line and sinker
>: for advertising. If a private school is good, it'll prosper. If it's
>: bad, it'll go out of business. The fast horse beats the slow horse. If a
>: government school is bad, it doesn't go out of business. It gets more
>: money and stays bad.
Wow, another halleilujah goes to the Man at the front. Isn't this the entire
point of the Church of Reason?
>Customers don't have to be stupid, but when there is no other alternative
>except crap, they will have to take it.
. . .which is why a free market is so important. More choices allow greater
Quality to prevail. Limited choice--ie. monopolistic concerns--will be a
wondrous tool for big government and big business. Or said another way. . .
>: Most business have to move because of the crushing government
>: regulations and taxation, not because the owners are evil.
True. But, Kevin, I think this is yours. . .
In the end we all lose because their extreme wealth saps
>money from the urban centers causing millions to go without homes, without
>health care, often without food. You wanna tell the starving mother with
>four children to die or compete her brains out? I don't. I wanna take money
>out of Bill Gates' pocket and give it to her. That to me is fairness
>because it advances society more than letting Bill Gates' make an extra
>billion.
I wonder if you'd feel the same way if those billions were yours, Kevin. And
the starving mother analogy doesn't pan out. What we should do is promote
self-sufficiency, not a welfare system that allows some women to use
abortion as birth control, some people to stand in long lines at the A&P to
pay for their groceries with food stamps while they BUY *National Enquirers*
with cash, and the list goes on. Wherever there's a Sugar Daddy ready to
dole out money at another's expense, you'll always find a line of people
with their hands out.
Mother Teresa reputedly came from a wealthy family but had only one pair of
sandals to her name, one robe. I don't believe she was on anyone's doorstep
asking for a fair distribution of others' wealth. . . .She did it herself,
improving the lives of others who wished to help themselves; she gave them
the tools they needed to succeed, but she didn't bail them out. . . .
I think love is
>the most Dynamic force of all. It unites, where competiton and hatred
>divide. It causes synergistic production where 1 plus 1 can equal 5 because
>we are working together instead of apart. And with cooperation we aren't
>forced to submit our individuality to a competitive structure - instead we
>choose our own structure based on how we want to live.
Isn't there such a thing as loving competition? I guess I can't see
cooperation and competition as mutually exclusive. It strikes me that the
fundamental flaw in this is thinking that competition is by its very nature
corruptive, immoral, the Dark Side. I'm just not convinced that it is, when
moderated (or modulated) by thinking individuals. Rats in a race to get the
cheese--sure, it's bad. But I am more optimistic in reference to human
potential than that.
Be seeing you, Number 2.
Jeff
MOQ Online Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Unsubscribe - http://www.moq.org/md/index.html
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:59 BST