NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/seattle/general/4214

Internet Message Format | 1992-12-22 | 3.5 KB

Xref: sparky seattle.general:4214 pnw.general:3009 alt.society.civil-liberty:7010
Newsgroups: seattle.general,pnw.general,alt.society.civil-liberty,misc.talk.poli
Path: sparky!uunet!sequent!muncher.sequent.com!dickwin
From: [e-mail] (Dick Winningstad)
Subject: Re: Freedom, Social Responsibility, Individual Responsibility
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (usenet )
Nntp-Posting-Host: sequent.sequent.com
Organization: Sequent Computer Systems, Inc.
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 92 23:52:31 GMT
Lines: 60

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Scott Linn) writes:
>[e-mail] (Dick Winningstad) writes:
>Minor nit:
>
>It isn't *government* which is limiting personal freedoms in order to make
>expenses lower; it's the *people*.  The majority of people voted these
>seatbelt, helmet, etc. laws into effect, in order to decrease *their*
>costs.
>
>Scott Linn
>[e-mail]


Is what your saying, is that it is all right to limit the freedom of
individuals as long as the majority says it's all right?
This kind of statement (if I understand you correctly) is contrary to
the spirit of the founders who wanted to ensure against a tyranny of
the majority with the constitution in general and the Bill of Rights
in particular.

If you are truly worried about government expenses then you need
to look at the big expenses of government. Looking at the federal
level for example, of about $1.5 trillion about half went for social
expenses (~$700 billion), about 25% to defense (~$350 billion), and
the balance to interest, mostly, and other stuff like infrastructure
(~350 billion). In the state of Oregon, of its ~$6 billion budget
about half went for social expenditures and the other half for
police, education etc.

Looking at an official count of 34.5 million poor people, dividing
this by $700 billion you get $20,289 per person!  If you assume Oregon
is average, with its 2.5 million population, about 340,000 are poor
in the state. Divide 340,000 into $3 billion and you get $8,823 per
person! Why don't we just send these people the money ($29,112 total)
and dispense with the programs?

Now, looking at the numbers in detail, you have expenses such as
agriculture subsidies, AFDC, and on and on. But all these programs
are designed to help people (voters). Would it not be better to
dispense with all this stuff and institute a negative income tax
for instance or direct payments to the truly needy? That is if you
are really interested in lowering the costs to society that
government must bear in today's world.

Now I have only suggested one area of government spending to look at
(the 50% part), the military should also be looked at as a possible
area of waste too.  But all kidding aside, it seems to me that worrying
about helmet use as a way to trim government expenses is the wrong
place to look for substantial savings. Plus the issue of a majority
limiting the freedoms of a minority in the name of costs is a bad
precedent.


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+Dick Winningstad                                                    +
+                    Italian Wines are Fine                          +
+          I'd rather be on a Moto Guzzi in eastern Oregon.          +
+          Fourth gear curves at 7000 RPM are the greatest!          +
[e-mail]                                                 +
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++