morgan@brambo.UUCP (Morgan W. Jones) (03/03/88)
In article <1437@looking.UUCP> brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes: >I dunno. Sometimes I think some people want us to all end up working for >the state, living in state owned homes and eating state grown food. Of course they do. In a (quasi) capitalist society such as ours, there are people who are prepared to work hard for their success and are happy, those who aren't prepared to work hard and are happy, and those who aren't prepared to work hard but aren't happy. It is this last group, those who aren't prepared to work hard and aren't happy, that cause the problems. They see the people who work hard succees, get money, drive nice cars, and live in nice houses and want that for themselves too. But since they aren't prepared to work for it, they have to find other ways to get them. Some people steal openly, others cry for "social reform" and "labour unions" and "pay equality". >Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. - Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473 PS - There are people who validly fight for social reforms, for the benefit of mankind rather than themselves. "pay equality" does not refer to pay equity, a good thing, which refers to women being paid the same as men in a given occupation; pay equality is where secretaries make as much money as doctors because both are needed for society to function. -- Morgan Jones - Bramalea Software Inc. morgan@brambo.UUCP ...!{uunet!mnetor!lsuc!ncrcan, utgpu!telly}!brambo!morgan "These might not even be my opinions, let alone anyone else's."
hwarkentyne@watdragon.waterloo.edu (Kenneth Warkentyne) (03/04/88)
In article <303@brambo.UUCP> morgan@brambo.UUCP (Morgan W. Jones) writes: > .... In a (quasi) capitalist society such as ours, >there are people who are prepared to work hard for their success and >are happy, those who aren't prepared to work hard and are happy, and >those who aren't prepared to work hard but aren't happy. It is this >last group, those who aren't prepared to work hard and aren't happy, >that cause the problems. >... >PS - There are people who validly fight for social reforms, for the >benefit of mankind rather than themselves. The PS aside, Morgan is ignoring those people who are prepared to work hard and still aren't happy. It is usually these people who cause problems since making trouble is not an easy job - you must be prepared to work hard. His contention that the problems of society are caused by people who "aren't prepared to work hard" is painfully naive. In a way it's kind of frightening. Perhaps Morgan would like the Government to introduce a test to weed out those who aren't willing to work hard from those who are. The former could be sent to a colony on Baffin Island to confirm Canadian sovereignity over the arctic. The latter could be given a years supply of Kraft Dinner, a subscription to the local paper, and a $50 bill. I think that all of us agree that every human being has the right to have an equal chance to succeed in life. The problem comes in interpreting what constitutes an equal chance. For me, an equal chance means growing up in decent living conditions, having a good elementary education, and being able to persue higher education if one has the aptitude regardless of how much money one has. Also, if a person finds himself out of work, he should be able to live while he is trying to find another one. I believe that society owes these necessities to its members and that the best way to provide them is through government agencies. Ken Warkentyne
brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) (03/04/88)
In article <5486@watdragon.waterloo.edu> hwarkentyne@watdragon.waterloo.edu (Kenneth Warkentyne) writes: >I think that all of us agree that every human being has the right to >have an equal chance to succeed in life. The problem comes in >interpreting what constitutes an equal chance. For me, an equal >chance means growing up in decent living conditions, having a good >elementary education, and being able to persue higher education >if one has the aptitude regardless of how much money one has. >Also, if a person finds himself out of work, he should be able >to live while he is trying to find another one. I believe that >society owes these necessities to its members and that the best way to >provide them is through government agencies. This statement is incomplete, or so it seems. You forget to add: Furthermore, I feel that everybody else should act the same way, and that everybody, regardless of how they themselves believe, should be forced, at gunpoint if necessary, to pay for these things that I believe in. It's all very well and good that you believe in, and say these things. I just don't see how you get the great leap that just because *you* believe in them, everybody should pay for them. The problem does come in interpreting what constitutes an equal chance. I'll take my interpretation for me, and you keep yours for you, thanks. > >Ken Warkentyne [ Now, I know what the initial answer to this is going to be. "the majority believes as I do, so everybody should be forced to do what I want." It seems that the concept of democracy minority rights is only invoked when it's convenient. Let's hear an answer to my question that doesn't boil down to how might (numbers) makes right. ] -- Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. - Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
daveb@geac.UUCP (David Collier-Brown) (03/04/88)
In article <5486@watdragon.waterloo.edu> hwarkentyne@watdragon.waterloo.edu (Kenneth Warkentyne) writes: >> .... In a (quasi) capitalist society such as ours, >>there are people who are prepared to work hard for their success and >>are happy, those who aren't prepared to work hard and are happy, and >>those who aren't prepared to work hard but aren't happy. ... >In article <303@brambo.UUCP> morgan@brambo.UUCP (Morgan W. Jones) writes in response to Kenneth Warkentyne: >I think that all of us agree that every human being has the right to >have an equal chance to succeed in life. Actually, I don't think everyone should have an equal chance to succeed. Specifically, I don't think the nice little retarded boy next door should have the same chance to succeed as the bright girl down the block. I realize that isn't what you meant to say, you did specify "if one has the aptitude regardless of how much money one has". However, attempting to equalize opportunity by governmental fiat means that the definitions have to be pinned down to a really **remarkable** degree, or you get a suite of well-meaning civil servants doing their very best to equalize **success**. This exact problem existed for several generations in one of the larger "leveling" societys in this world, and fell out of favor only when the ruling class realized it was interfering with their passing on their positions to their children... the so-called "new class". I'd really rather keep government out of the business of making value judgements: they do a bad enough job when they deal only with facts! -- David Collier-Brown. {mnetor yunexus utgpu}!geac!daveb Geac Computers International Inc., | Computer Science loses its 350 Steelcase Road,Markham, Ontario, | memory (if not its mind) CANADA, L3R 1B3 (416) 475-0525 x3279 | every 6 months.
hwarkentyne@watdragon.waterloo.edu (Kenneth Warkentyne) (03/05/88)
I wrote: >>[A statement in support of welfare] Brad Templeton writes: >It's all very well and good that you believe in, and say these things. >I just don't see how you get the great leap that just because *you* believe >in them, everybody should pay for them. >... >It seems that the concept of democracy minority rights is only invoked when >it's convenient. Let's hear an answer to my question that doesn't boil >down to how might (numbers) makes right. ] > >-- >Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. - Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473 Well Brad, how could a welfare system work if citizens could opt out if they so chose? Since there appears to be a consensus in support of the current system, you have the choice of putting up with it, attempting to change it, or leaving the country. I am not suggesting that you should leave the country. Might doesn't make right but sometimes you have to make a choice that does not allow for every minority to be accommodated. This is part of democracy too. Ken Warkentyne
brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) (03/05/88)
In article <5529@watdragon.waterloo.edu> hwarkentyne@watdragon.waterloo.edu (Kenneth Warkentyne) writes: >Well Brad, how could a welfare system work if citizens could opt out >if they so chose? And then in the next sentence: >Since there appears to be a consensus in support >of the current system... To which I say, if you think citizens would opt out in vast numbers if they could, I don't know how you claim that there "appears to be" a concenus. >Might doesn't make right but sometimes you have to make a choice that >does not allow for every minority to be accommodated. This is part of >democracy too. And this is the real point I was making. Democracy is a system where might (numbers) makes right (the law) except where it's expressly forbidden in a constitution. Don't sugar coat it. Democracy is an oppressive system. It's just a bit better than other existing ones. Churchill realized this long ago when he called it "the worst" system, except for all the others he had seen. I've been told to lump it, change it within the system, or leave the country? That's fine for any given law, but what if you don't like the *system*? -- Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. - Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
hwarkentyne@watdragon.waterloo.edu (Kenneth Warkentyne) (03/06/88)
> - Brad Templeton >> - Me >>Well Brad, how could a welfare system work if citizens could opt out >>if they so chose? > > And then in the next sentence: > >>Since there appears to be a consensus in support >>of the current system... >To which I say, if you think citizens would opt out in vast numbers if they >could, I don't know how you claim that there "appears to be" a concenus. Brad makes a mistake here. I never said anything about "vast numbers". I don't think it takes too much intelligence to realise that a small number of citizens opting out of the current system could greatly damage it. It's already bad enough with our corporate citizens escaping taxes through dubious loopholes. Ken Warkentyne
areski@deepthot.UUCP (Areski) (03/07/88)
In article <2380@geac.UUCP> daveb@geac.UUCP writes:
$$ >In article <303@brambo.UUCP> morgan@brambo.UUCP (Morgan W. Jones)
$$ >writes in response to Kenneth Warkentyne:
$$ >I think that all of us agree that every human being has the right to
$$ >have an equal chance to succeed in life.
$$
$$ Actually, I don't think everyone should have an equal chance to
$$ succeed. Specifically, I don't think the nice little retarded
$$ boy next door should have the same chance to succeed as the bright
$$ girl down the block.
I agree. Nice little retarded boys next door should be canned
at birth to provide dog feed for the pets of bright little girls down
the block. This would have at least four advantages:
1. It would save bucks to people who are prepared to work hard
and are happy.
2. It would save nice little retarded boys next door an absurd life.
3. It would provide variety in in the diet of bright-little-girls-
down-the-block's pets.
4. It would have a desirable effect on the ecological surrounding
of people who are prepared to work hard and are happy: it is much nicer
to watch bright little girls down the block (especially in their teens),
than nice little retarded little boys next door (at any age).morgan@brambo.UUCP (Morgan W. Jones) (03/10/88)
In article <1455@looking.UUCP> brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes: >I've been told to lump it, change it within the system, or leave the country? >That's fine for any given law, but what if you don't like the *system*? REVOLUTION! But the problem really isn't the system, it's the people in the system. Take, for example, bill C2, the bill about to be passed that dictates the rates that insurance companies may charge, rates that aren't determined by age or sex. The funny thing about this bill is that under it most of it's supporters will pay more right from the start. The truly tragic thing of the bill is that it will encourage more young people to drive, and they're the one's who cause the rates to be so high in the first place. Net effect: the good insurance companies become bad or leave, the overall cost of insurance goes up, and more people die because of immature drivers. Don't believe me? Wait and see! >Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. - Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473 -- Morgan Jones - Bramalea Software Inc. morgan@brambo.UUCP ...!{uunet!mnetor!lsuc!ncrcan, utgpu!telly}!brambo!morgan "These might not even be my opinions, let alone anyone else's."
greg@xios.XIOS.UUCP (Greg Franks) (03/22/88)
>$$ Actually, I don't think everyone should have an equal chance to >$$ succeed. Specifically, I don't think the nice little retarded >$$ boy next door should have the same chance to succeed as the bright >$$ girl down the block. > > I agree. Nice little retarded boys next door should be canned >at birth to provide dog feed for the pets of bright little girls down >the block. This would have at least four advantages: [bla bla bla...] :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) Come now - Lets give natural selection a chance! Here in Ottawa, the dweebs attempt to cross the Queensway (Ottawa's equivalent to the Don Valley Parking Lot) on foot at night. Needless to say, they are eliminated from the gene pool rather quickly. :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) -- Greg Franks XIOS Systems Corporation, 1600 Carling Avenue, utzoo!dciem!nrcaer!xios!greg Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, K1Z 8R8. (613) 725-5411. "Those who stand in the middle of the road get hit by trucks coming from both directions." Evelyn C. Leeper.