Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!rutgers!ames!ucbcad!ucbvax!XX.LCS.MIT.EDU!WLIM
From: WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU
Newsgroups: mod.politics
Subject: Re: Reply to WLIM
Message-ID: <12263064747.2.MCGREW@RED.RUTGERS.EDU>
Date: Mon, 15-Dec-86 16:06:34 EST
Article-I.D.: RED.12263064747.2.MCGREW
Posted: Mon Dec 15 16:06:34 1986
Date-Received: Tue, 16-Dec-86 22:00:33 EST
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Reply-To: WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU
Organization: The ARPA Internet
Lines: 52
Approved: poli-sci@red.rutgers.edu


   From: "Keith F. Lynch" 

   ....If there is an objective reality then something is either sense
   or nonsense (or some mixture)....

You brought the point up yourself.  That is, it is only the case when
the topic being discussed has an objective reality does what you say
make sense.  I was merely raising questions about the objective
reality of the things you said.

   And the incentive to send longer messages would be more realistic
   if I was paid for my messages.  So?  As long as I am willing to
   send messages and others are willing to distribute them and still
   others are willing to read them, what's the problem?

Despite all your objections to government subsidies, you are actually
dependent on one.  The problem is the careless misuse of facilities
funded by the government.  This attitude occurs among some people on
welfare, some doctors (when charging their medical bills to the
government), some engineers and managers in the defense industries
(when charging the government for their services), some personnel in
the military, some civil servants, some senators, some congressmen,
some presidents (e.g. frequent and expensive vacation trips), etc.  It
is rather ironic that in criticizing the waste and inefficiency in
government, you are actually contributing to the waste and
inefficiency (though in a rather small way but it adds up when you
consider how many people are out there involved in such abuses).  (-:
Perhaps the government is to be blamed for letting these culprits get
away with it. :-)

There are at least two, not necessarily compatible, conclusions from
the above:

1) People (libertarians, liberals, conservatives, moderates, ...) will
always exploit and become dependent on government handouts and
subsidies, therefore there should be no government handouts and
subsidies.  (Your arguments give the impression that libertarians are
not in that group but your actions contradict that.)

2) Some subsidies are good.  E.g. the government bearing some of the
cost of electronic discussion over the net is good as it helps in the
evolution of the system of government to a better one, which in your
case is a libertarian one.

Which is your conclusion---1 or 2?



Willie
-------
-------