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 ------- -------