Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/26/83; site ihnss.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!floyd!vax135!ariel!houti!hogpc!houxm!ihnp4!ihnss!warren
From: warren@ihnss.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: two points to ponder
Message-ID: <1563@ihnss.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 15-Jun-83 10:53:15 EDT
Article-I.D.: ihnss.1563
Posted: Wed Jun 15 10:53:15 1983
Date-Received: Sat, 18-Jun-83 21:05:43 EDT
Organization: BTL Naperville, Il.
Lines: 59

Here is some more fuel for old fires:

1)	Recent discussion has examined the inherent problems of
	government where people are elected or appointed to make
	judgements, rather than relying on an absolute and
	unchanging set of rules.  A major factor is the conflict of
	interest that develops, in that people really do tend to
	base their decisions on their own personal gain, whether
	that gain comes from direct monetary gains or from feeling
	good about what they are doing.  With this in mind, consider
	how little the composition of our government represents our
	society in general, racially, occupationally, or by any
	other measure.  Is it any real surprise that a government
	dominated by people trained in law can't seem to devise
	procedures (like tax returns) that can be carried out by the
	average citizen?
	
	My point to ponder is whether or not we would be better off
	with a government whose decision making bodies were selected
	at random from the general population rather than elected. 
	There are obvious problems, but it does in one stroke
	eliminate a large source of conflict of interest and it does
	inject a much broader range of views into our government.
	
2)	Much of the socialism/capitalism debate has focussed on has
	focussed on the desirability of redistribution of wealth. 
	The problem is that a pure capitalist system appears to tend
	to become unbalanced after time.  The system, and our
	government, claim to be based on the notion of equal
	opportunity.  Consider the conflict of this view with the
	notion that a child inherits the financial results of
	his/her parents life.  This strikes me a as fundamentally
	distinct from the premise of equal opportunity (all beings
	created equal).
	
	The second point to ponder is whether an
	economic/governmental system based on the premise of
	providing equal opportunity at birth, funding that by
	collecting at death, could be workable, and whether such a
	system would provide the freedom of choice and opportunities
	for initiative of a capitalist system without long-term
	imbalances.  Any time someone talks of inheritance taxes,
	the issue gets emotional and gets equated with robbing
	people of family owned farms and business.  I don't see,
	though, why the child of a farmer has any more right to a
	farm than the child of an unemployed city resident.
	
All of this discussion is, of course, very interesting but quite
accademic as any of our ideas on how to improve society are quite
difficult to translate into practice with a large and powerful
organization that enforces the status quo.

Have fun with this!

-- 

	Warren Montgomery
	ihnss!warren
	IH x2494