NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/or/politics/658

Internet Message Format | 1992-11-17 | 8.7 KB

Xref: sparky or.politics:658 alt.politics.clinton:17327 alt.politics.democrats.d:598 alt.politics.elections:24005 ba.politics:7179 co.politics:2127 ne.politics:3019 nj.politics:747 ny.politics:267 talk.politics.misc:60537
Path: sparky!uunet!ogicse!psgrain!neon!eaglet!slipknot!robert
From: [e-mail] (Robert Reed)
Newsgroups: or.politics,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.elections,ba.politics,co.politics,ne.politics,nj.politics,ny.politics,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Ignorance - Was Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 17 Nov 92 09:34:56 GMT
Article-I.D.: slipknot.BxutA9.7t3
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Robert Reed)
Organization: Home Animation Ltd.
Lines: 156

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (David Veal) writes:
|In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Robert Reed) writes:
|>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (rank Crary) writes:
|>|The majority can't set _any_ standards of behavior and impose them on
|>|minorities; nor can they make anything they like illegal and send dissidents
|>|to jail.
|>
|>That clearly does NOT jibe with the historical record.  Behavior of the Klu
|>Klux Klan and other hate groups have been suppressed by the will of the
|>majority.
|
|For the most part, I was under the impression that the Klu Klux
|Klan could shout and think and print anything they wanted until they
|threaten somebody.
|       Now, quick:  Is it okay to suppress the Klan members when they
|engage in violent attacks on others, of just because the majority finds
|their views repugnant?

As we all know from our "enlightened" Supreme Court (thank you Justice Scalia),
behavior is not speech.  Supression (of behavior) has been suppressed by the
will of the majority, as implemented in our laws and institutions, for
BEHAVIORS that counter the public sentiment.  I said nothing to suggest that
okay to suppress viewpoints, although there are examples where our government
has done that.

|>To protect the majority during WWII, our government interred thousands of
|>citizens of Japanese descent.
|
|To protect the majority???

Well, to provide for the common defense, which I would call protecting the
majority.  I certainly condemn this repressive act, but it is in our history.

|>Whether or not they should, the majority of this country
|>have imposed their will upon minorities on numerous occasions.
|
|I will catergorically [sic] deny that because actions have been taken by the
|government on behalf of the majority makes them correct or legal.  That
|something has been done before does not make it right, or legal.

That was not my point.  I was injecting some counterexamples to temper the
absoluteness of previous statements in this newsgroup.

|>Altruists are in the minority, and our government can legitimately impose
|>fees to provide for the general welfare, not as charity, but as a
|>reasonable fee for services.
|
|Altruists had *better* be in the majority.  We *were* discussing the majority.

This is irrelevant to the discussion of charitable benefactors.

|>Surveys have shown that in
|>most major markets, only about 10-20% of the viewers/listeners to public
|>broadcast stations actually contribute to the support of those stations.  If
|>altruists were in the majority, you would never hear another pleading pledge
|>drive again.
|
|Not neccesarily.  Does not giving money to one thing disqualify somebody?
|Does not giving money to a station they watch mean they give money to
|*nothing*?  Do you have to give money to every single cause that presents
|itself to you to qualify for the term "altruist?"  Is it not possible for
|someone who watches public television to give money elsewhere?  There
|are many worthy charities.

Once again, you're missing the point.  Public broadcast survives by fostering
the altruistic inclinations of its audience, but those who pay for public radio
are the ones who acknowledge that they are paying for a service--the rest are
all welshes.  They fail the altruism test even when they derive a benefit from
it.  They may well be altruists when it comes to some other donation supported
interest because altruism is by its nature self-interest directed (i.e., I
myself am interested enough to give something away when I don't have to).

Similar lacks in altruistic sentiment can be found wherever charitable needs
outpace the support they get: support for the homeless, welfare of the farm
workers, contributions to support local theatre, the list goes on.  I just
picked one glaring example from the legions available.

|Yes, but did the chicken come before the egg?  How do you convince people to
|contribute to worthy causes when they've been taught that dealing with those
|causes is the government's responsibility and they, literally, think they
|gave at the office?

Well, we've had twelve years of time for people to show how trickle-down works,
or to demonstrate themselves as one of the thousand points of light, and in
that time, corporate donations have generally fallen (for example in arts
funding), or have been shifted to PR (resource companies painting the golden
image of the small ecological benefits they've been begrudgingly forced to do,
rather than whole heartedly mitigating their assaults).

|Counterexamples, showing people's generosity, about [sic, abound?].  How many
|charities are there in this country?  Hundreds?  Thousands?

Formation of a charity is not the same as funding.

|How many millions (billions?) of dollars do they raise a year[?]

It's certainly NOT in the billions.

|How many of those PBS shows have corporate sponsors?

Those corporate sponsors' donations are certainly gladly welcome, but in most
cases they are a modest contribution w.r.t. the program budget, for which they
get a lot of great PR.  It is in fact, cheap advertising.

|We have an "adopt a school" program locally and a great many people and
|businesses give a great deal of money all year round.

My point was NOT that altruism doesn't exist, but that the motivational
mechanisms behind charity do not follow a "free market" model--there will
always be a much greater gap between charitable needs and their fulfillment
than between business needs and their profitable mitigation.

|The question is, did the government move in to fill a shortfall, or did the
|rising taxes to implement social programs give people less money to contribue
|to private charities?

I notice that you pose this rhetorically, but all I need to do is look back
about a dozen generations or so to see the work houses and debtors prisons and
realize that the problems of the poor existed before the level of government
intervention we now provide was available.  Private charities didn't meet the
need then and they still don't.  I do realize that there is a balance between
the needs of the poor and the ability of the non-poor to provide support.  I
don't expect anyone to vow poverty to help their fellow citizens, but I do
think we Americans have shown too much self interest and greed (especially
during the '80s) than is good for us.

|> But I still do not see how you can say in such general
|>terms that our government as netted us more harm than good.
|
|       That depends a great deal on how you look at things.  Many people
|think the odds for "evil" are greating [sic] when the government is involved,
|because acting to promote the social "good" on the part of the government
|requires some power to coerce people to do what the government wants, and
|the people in the goverment are human and naturally tend to be corrupted
|by power.

Whereas the alternative is the corrupting power of the purse.  Lots of other
people feel that the vacuum left by the absence of government will be filled by
private power brokers whose capacity for "evil" is much greater than the graft
and waste that is the inevitable result of bloating government bureaucracies.
Ever hear of the "robber barons"?  Once again let me restate my point.  I don't
deny that governments inherently generate a certain amount of waste.  But it's
never been clear to me that the waste and corruption is any less in business
than it is in government, or that these factors are not inherent in the
bureaucracies that both systems engender once they grow large enough.
________________________________________________________________________________
Robert Reed            Home Animation Ltd.        503-656-8414
[e-mail]    5686 First Court, West Linn, OR 97068

Going to Extremes
Shake and shake
The catsup bottle.
None will come,
And then a lot'll.
--Richard Armour
________________________________________________________________________________