Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site watcgl.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!watnot!watcgl!jchapman
From: jchapman@watcgl.UUCP (john chapman)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: egg/chicken chicken/egg chigg/eckin
Message-ID: <2116@watcgl.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 26-Jun-85 16:53:36 EDT
Article-I.D.: watcgl.2116
Posted: Wed Jun 26 16:53:36 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 27-Jun-85 05:33:45 EDT
References: <893@mnetor.UUCP> <5642@utzoo.UUCP> <896@mnetor.UUCP>
Organization: U of Waterloo, Ontario
Lines: 63

.
.
.< many statements>
> unfair misuse of women is hardly the major cause of our economic prosperity.
> If anything, misuse of good talent HURTS us rather than helps us.
I completely agree and I assume you will take whatever opportunity
you can to encourage and promote women in all walks of life (in
your own interests.....).

> 
> >> ...I refer to communism as the opposite philosophy to the free-enterprise
> >> philosophy...
> 
> > Who is talking about communism??????? Isn't that a little paranoid?
> > Does a system where everyone is given equal opportunity (and not
> > just lip service to the idea) mean communism?  If a system does not
> > take advantage of the poor or the weak or it does economically
> > discriminate against one sex then it's a communist system? You remind
> > me of a news report I once saw on American tv; they read this
> > document to people on the street and asked them what they thought of
> > it - most people thought it was communist garbage - it was the US
> > declarati of independance (or the constitution, I can't remember now).
> >
> 
> I doubt I remind you of such a report.  You unfairly judge my awareness
> in these matters.  There is a well known spectrum of economic belief that
> ranges from the belief in free enterprise, privately owned on one side to
> the belief in state (or common) ownership and/or control of the means of
> production on the other.   I was making a comment on that spectrum and
> my use of the word communism was entirely appropriate.  Who's being
> paranoid?
> 
 was talking about the oppression of women and your reply was
"... The argument that the principle of communism...." implying
(to me anyway) that what I was proposing was communism. I'll give
you the benefit of the doubt however and assume I misinterpreted you.

BTW remind: a verb.  Now that it is in the past I would say " you
reminded me of...", I don't now why you doubt this but it is true.

> >> I point out that free trade is a both-sides-win game, not a zero sum game.
> 
> > He points out that in some nations the gap between rich and poor is growing.
> 
> Indeed, say I.  In many nations the poor are uneducated or foolish, just
> as they once were in western society.   In this country, my impression is
> that the middle class is growing, and that everybody is getting richer, albiet
> some faster than others.
> 
> In our own country, we are advanced enough (or soon will be) that we need
> not meddle in other poeple's private affairs, or so I dearly hope.  In
> other countries they may not be so lucky.  Do you suggest we should take
> over those countries and set things right?  Or restrain our own citizens
> from doing things in foreign lands?
If what our own citizens do in foreign lands hurts the occupants of those
lands then hell yes restrain them. Why not?  Do I suggest we take over
those lands? No, I suggest we offer whatever help we can whenever we
can to improve everyones situation; as you pointed out wasting talent
hurts everyone.  I think in a reasonable society everyone would be
both encouraged *and* helped to develop their abilities as far as
 they will go.
> -- 
> 	Brad Templeton - Waterloo, Ont. (519) 886-7304