From: Case (Case@iSpots.com)
Date: Tue Sep 06 2005 - 16:37:05 BST
[Case]
So would that be the caretaker government that implemented social security
so that old people could retire with at least a shred of dignity,
[Platt states]
Today Grandma would be a millionaire instead of living off a measly SS check
had she been allowed to invest SS tax during her working years.
[Case hesitates to dignify this foolishness with a comment but...]
That response is so laughably lame it does not really deserve a serious
response. It's sounds a bit like: "If you ain't a Calvinist you ain't squat
so eat your dog food and quit whining."
[Case]
worker's compensation so that the families of injured workers wouldn't
starve;
[Platt states]
Disability income insurance, like life insurance, is the self-reliant, free
individual's way to protect his family. Of course, if you'd rather be a
dependent . . .
[Case points out]
Worker's Compensation insurance is required and administered by states;
someone more cynical might even say caretaker states. At the risk of having
you blow a blood vessel I could also mention OSHA which requires business to
maintain safe work environments, which they were not before it was
implemented.
[Case]
made business actually pay the full cost of production and clean up their
messes instead of dumping it in the public water and air supply.
[Platt asks]
Made business pay the full cost of production? You mean before the New Deal
business didn't?
[Case replies]
I referred specifically to the clean-up cost and no they were not required
to pay for it before the advent of environmental legislation. Actually the
cost of clean-up at the source would have been relatively minor compared to
the cost of cleaning up after the fact. But business does not pay the cost
of educating workers nor its share of the transportation infrastructure to
move goods.
[Case]
Or would that be the caretaker government that subsidizes drug lords with
laws that inflate the price of their products;
[Platt asks]
Subsidize drug lords? How? I thought the government was spending billions of
our money fighting an ineffective war on drug lords.
[Case belabors the obvious]
Exactly and as a result a bag of marijuana which has no more intrinsic value
than an equal volume of yard trimming has a huge cost. Same deal with...
pick your poison. No drug lord wants to see drug laws changed. Treating
personal problems, medical problems, social problems as law enforcement
problems then slapping a fake military metaphor on top like a big red cherry
is just plain stupid. But I don't really hear you complaining about those
billions being flushed down the crapper.
[Case]
pays for research and development on everything from pharmaceuticals to
satellites and turns it over to large companies to exploit as they please;
[Platt recites from the book of Limbaugh]
The government pays for nothing. You and I and every taxpayer pays. And
those exploitive companies provide jobs not to mention the goods and
services you use everyday without which you would live like a New Orleans
refugee.
[Case recites from the US Constitution]
Seems to me that the US Constitution begins: "We the People..." We are the
government. You can quote Walt Kelly here if you like. We (the government)
pay for, all manner of pure research and have been repeatedly criticized
from the Right for doing so. Criticism usually coming the form of: "That's a
stupid thing to study; who cares about that? Why are we wasting taxpayer
money on that?" I would mention the space program which yielded everything
from Tang to semiconductors, but a more telling example would be the
pharmaceutical companies. Pure research in medicine is conducted in
universities and research hospitals. It is paid for with taxpayer dollars.
Once a serious discovery is made pharmaceutical companies lift the pure
research from the public domain and "research" specific techniques and
manufacturing processes; which they then patent. They even patent their near
misses and failures. They very very rarely are involved in anything like
pure research. This is why those making statements about private industry
funding embryonic stem cell research are just ignorant.
And as a side note: government was and is the largest employer in this
country. Saying that money spent employing people in public service is
wasted is a slap in the face to every fireman, policeman, soldier, forester,
public school teacher, and public servant in this country, without whom we
would all be living like refugees.
[Case]
repeatedly extends the term of copyright laws to benefit the handful of
companies that own the bulk of the world's intellectual "property", thus
erecting imaginary fences around imaginary goods;
[Platt asks]
If it's all imaginary, why worry?.
[Case Replies]
Good question; maybe that is why Alfred E. Newman smiles and Hindus agree.
If you listen to folks around here even the "real" stuff is imaginary. I
guess it is because people are claiming to "own" ideas. It is a bit like
claiming to own the air. But what is most objectionable is the effort to
enforce a capitalist model in a realm where is is clearly inappropriate.
Capitalism does a good job in the area of redistributing wealth when wealth
is scare. The only way to have this work in the world of ideas is to erect
imaginary fences. I refer you to anything by Lawrence Lessig or to a fairly
slim volume "The Anarchist in the Library" by Siva Vaidhyanathan.
[Case]
or the caretaker government that sends its sons and daughters into foreign
countries to guard the corporate oil fields. I often get the two confused.
[Platt urges]
Try to stop and think for a moment what your life would be like without oil.
[Case, saddened by the question pushes on...]
Thirty years ago I would never have believed I would still be having to
resort to that nearly erotic fantasy. We have been through this all before.
It was the mid '70s as I recall. It was perfectly clear then that we were in
a crisis; that our destiny was in the hands of the oil producing countries.
We even took some tentative steps in the right direction at the time.
Congress was attempting to stimulate conservation through tax incentives,
funding research in alternative technologies (see above), setting fuel
efficiency standards for automobiles. But then this evil huckster came along
spewing pie in the sky, free market, Randian, horse hockey and here we are
30 years later scratching our heads and, a bit like Reagan in his final
days, wondering how we got here. It sure looks familiar...
[Case asks in summary]
Why is it evil caretaking and a frivolous use of tax dollars when government
acts to support the disadvantaged, to build and maintain public works,
exercise stewardship over public resources, educate our children and hold
the powerful accountable? But if we want to wage a phony war on drugs or a
real war for phony reasons they can have a blank check and more power to
them. Damn the costs fire at will.
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Sep 06 2005 - 16:46:32 BST