jrrt@hogpd.UUCP (R.MITCHELL) (04/03/84)
>From Larry Kolodney:
All of you people who are so upset taht you have to pay taxes on what
you have earned to support others are being both shortsighted and
ignorant. The real reason for paying for college educations is not
because its "a nice thing to to". Rather, it is a socially necessary
requirement of our society to have a large force of well trained
workers.
Personally, I think it is a socially necessary requirement for all
people to walk around wearing burlap bags, with paper sacks on their
heads. That way the world will get off its irrational preoccupation
with each others' physical appearance. It doesn't matter whether
you agree with me, or if ANYONE else agrees with me, I am right and
you who disagree are shortsighted and ignorant.
If people are unable or unwilling to go to school, our entire
country will suffer. The same is true for all social programs.
Let's bring this down to an individual case. If Joe Sixpack is
unable or unwilling to go to school, does he suffer? Maybe. He may
not want to go -- will you force him because he'll suffer otherwise?
When is an individual responsible for their own actions? Why should
Larry Kolodney's standards hold for everyone?
I commend you for your meticulous attention to the happiness of your
fellow man, but I doubt he appreciates it.
Welfare, for instance, stimulates the economy by allowing people to
consume more. If all those people on welfare were starving to death
instead, demand in the economy would be lower and we would be in an even
worse recession.
I don't have a PhD. in Economics; I've only a few courses and 28
years in the real world. But it seems to me that if welfare did not
exist, the tax levies to support it would not exist, we typical consumers
(i.e., the vast majority of citizens who are not on welfare) would
have more discretionary income, corporations would have more profits
(either from the reduced tax burden increasing income, or from the
increased sales due to the lower prices that would be possible), and
those who used to be on welfare would have all sorts of good role
models to provide motivation for improving their lot. And those who
don't improve? You can use *your* additional income to help them
out.
For those of you who say, "I worked for it, its mine." Tell me if you
could have earned what you did without the existence of a society which
provides the frame work for your employment. No producetion in a modern
industrial society exists in a vacuum. We are all interedependent and
to claim that you alone are responsible for the value created by your
work is missing the lareger picture.
Here I agree with you to a large extent. But not fully; my
interactions with any given societal unit (a person, an
organization, the government) is based on an implicit contract
between myself and the other party. For example, I agree to work X
hours a week a certain place doing a certain sort of job. In
return, my boss agrees to pay me $Y. This system works fine, as
long as both parties are willing agree-ers to the contract. When
one party is coerced into accepting a contract, then that party has
no ethical reason to feel bound by that contract. This is why I
resent welfare, most social programs, and almost any form of
government. If I am indeed missing the big picture,
then by my standards you should educate me in such a way that I come
to accept your beliefs, whereupon I will *voluntarily* contribute to
these programs. If you anticipate I will be selfish, and not
contribute no matter how hard you try to educate me, then go ahead
and try to steal my money -- just don't expect me to like it.