idallen@watmath.UUCP (08/16/84)
What is it about politics that leads to such huge articles?
This will be fairly brief.
I read advocacy of letting things that are not profitable die (e.g. CN
unprofitable lines, DeHaviland, etc.). It seems some people want the
cost of providing a service to a person to be borne directly by that
person -- people don't want profitable areas of the economy supporting
unprofitable areas (e.g. CN unprofitable lines, DeHaviland, etc.).
The cost of sending a letter to the Yukon is probably far more than
the 35 cents I now pay. Should the price be increased to make the
service profitable? Would anyone pay that price? If not, does that
mean the unprofitable service should be discontinued in favour of the
more profitable business to be had sending mail only in Toronto?
Should the subway stop at 7pm because the volume of traffic after that
point doesn't pay the upkeep?
I'm curious about how people feel about this. Personally, I don't
mind contributing tax dollars or artificially high costs for local
services if it allows more people to enjoy the same benefits I have at
the same price. I certainly don't want to be told that I have to move to
Toronto because it's more profitable for XYZ Corp to provide me with a
phone there than to run a line to my rural farm.
--
-IAN! (Ian! D. Allen) University of Waterloolaura@utzoo.UUCP (Laura Creighton) (08/17/84)
If you are valuable enough to XYZ corp then they will run a line to your farm. they might even give you a leased line. But even if they do not then the telephone company is likely to already run a line to your farm. The telephone is a much more valuable instrument if you can reach everybody with one. And the telephone companies can finance their own way through long distance charges. But suppose they couldn't. Suppose it was the case that the only way that they could be financed was through tax subsidies. Consider that there are always alternative ways in which one could do something. It may not have all the features that one would like, but if it is substantially cheaper then people will use it anyway. it is not that they do not appreciate the features of the other service, but that they do not think that it is worth the cost. Right now, for instance, trucking is a cheap way to transport goods. However, it is only cheap in that the trucks, which do the most damage to the roads do not have to pay the most to repair and construct them. They are the recipients of an invisible subsidy. Before you all rush out and say that this is nice because cheap trucking is a good thing, consider the whole question from the point of view of the rail companies who are adamant in insisting that if they received the sort of money that the truck industry and the airplane industry received they could provide much cheaper service than either. laura creighton utzoo!laura
mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (08/17/84)
******************
I'm curious about how people feel about this. Personally, I don't
mind contributing tax dollars or artificially high costs for local
services if it allows more people to enjoy the same benefits I have at
the same price. I certainly don't want to be told that I have to move to
Toronto because it's more profitable for XYZ Corp to provide me with a
phone there than to run a line to my rural farm.
******************
Right on!! I've always felt it to be an anomaly that the ferry to Nfld
is not free to Canadian citizens. Transport is what made this country,
under heavy government subsidy, and it is what holds us together
(along with more modern communication). It should be no more
expensive to go to an outlying part of the country than to go the
same distance in a populated part, but it sure costs more per person
to set up the service. In the case of Newfoundland, it is hardly part
of Canada if the cost of getting to another part is high enough that
islanders feel substantially inhibited about doing so. Hardly a fair
aspect of the bargain that led them to join us in 1949.
I'd prefer to pay more for food, too, if I was sure that the extra went
to reducing the prices in the Yukon or Frobisher.
--
Martin Taylor
{allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt
{uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsrgv!dciem!mmtidallen@watmath.UUCP (08/18/84)
>From: laura@utzoo.UUCP (Laura Creighton) >Subject: Re: Doing only that which brings the most profit. > >...And the telephone companies can finance their own way through long >distance charges. But why should they do so, if providing remote locations with service is not *profitable*? Why not drop the unprofitable aspects of the business, as I have heard people argue in this news group? >Consider that there are always alternative ways in which one could do >something. It may not have all the features that one would like, but if >it is substantially cheaper then people will use it anyway. it is not >that they do not appreciate the features of the other service, but that >they do not think that it is worth the cost. I don't think it possible to provide less features than a telephone line and still call it a telephone. My point is -- I am pleased to pay a little more for my own full-feature comforts (e.g. telephone) if it allows others to enjoy the same (e.g. telephone). A business that is maximizing its profit cannot have the same outlook. Perhaps this is one function of government support of industry: equal cost for equal service, regardless of geographic location, disability, native language, or gender. -- -IAN! (Ian! D. Allen) University of Waterloo
henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (08/19/84)
> >...And the telephone companies can finance their own way through long > >distance charges. > > But why should they do so, if providing remote locations with service > is not *profitable*? Why not drop the unprofitable aspects of the > business, as I have heard people argue in this news group? But why *isn't* it profitable? Usually, because the government is setting the rates in an arbitrary and capricious way that has nothing to do with actual costs. -- Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry
henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (08/19/84)
> .............................................. I am pleased to pay a > little more for my own full-feature comforts (e.g. telephone) if it allows > others to enjoy the same (e.g. telephone). I wish you'd stop assuming that the rest of us are equally pleased to do this. We're not. > ........................................ Perhaps this is one function of > government support of industry: equal cost for equal service, regardless > of geographic location, disability, native language, or gender. The trouble with this approach is, where does it stop? There is *no* *limit* to the number of special-interest groups who can make some kind of case for the idea that they are getting shafted, and that the government really ought to subsidize them as compensation. Take me -- I'm a programmer who keeps odd hours. Clearly the stores ought to be required to stay open until 0200 so that I can shop at my convenience rather than theirs. I mean, equal service and all that... If you object that is a frivolous example -- by the way, it's not at all frivolous to me; the shortage of late-night stores is a bloody pain -- tell me how it's *FUNDAMENTALLY* different from the sort of thing you're advocating. Please don't tell me that telephone service is a truly vital necessity. I lived without it, quite happily, for several years. (Yes, I was a sys admin for part of that time. "If it's important enough to get me out of bed, it's important enough for you to walk over to do so.") Once the government gets into the business of righting economic wrongs, it grows and grows without end. Well, eventually it comes to an end, when the taxpayers rise in revolt, but that's the only limit. -- "The trouble with a just economy is, who runs the Bureau of Economic Justice?" Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry
laura@utzoo.UUCP (Laura Creighton) (08/19/84)
Something people seem not to know about is the existence of private phone companies in Canada. Bell has managed to take over all the ones which I knew about, but there may still be some. The one in Dunville, Ontario charged more than Bell service, but it also gave you better service. And it let you own your own phones when this was unheard of within the Bell system. Now the interesting thing is that these companies were able to connect to each other and to Bell. It was in the interest of all parties to allow phone calls to travel from one system to another -- because a phone is valuable in that it gives you access to other people who have phones. The phone is precisely the sort of utility that is not going to be cut off because each person who is unreachable by phone diminishes the phone's attraction as a provider of ``universal service'' (or whatever they are calling it this week.) Laura Creighton utzoo!laura
idallen@watmath.UUCP (08/20/84)
I need clarification from Brad and Henry. When you say you don't want
me to force my opinion on you, are you arguing that the majority should
never force its will on the individual, or that it should not do so for
topics X, Y, and Z? (Who decides what X, Y, and Z are?)
I don't see any "fundamental" difference between the majority forcing
me not to kill my fellow humans and the majority taking my money to
benefit my fellow man. Is there an alternative to majority rule?
--
-IAN! (Ian! D. Allen) University of Waterlooidallen@watmath.UUCP (08/20/84)
...and can we keep arguments and rebuttals uncharacteristically short?
Long-winded rhetoric is so cliche that I fall asleep after line 30 or so...
--
-IAN! (Ian! D. Allen) University of Waterloohaapanen@watdcsu.UUCP (Tom Haapanen [DCS]) (08/20/84)
> I don't see any "fundamental" difference between the majority forcing > me not to kill my fellow humans and the majority taking my money to > benefit my fellow man. Is there an alternative to majority rule? > -- > -IAN! (Ian! D. Allen) University of Waterloo Consider person A murdering or stealing from person B: In this case, A is obviously taking something that was B's (his life or money) agaainst B's in order to benefit A (maybe financially, maybe psychologically). Consider person A refusing to subsidize person B: Here, A refuses to give to B something that is owned by A. Should A have to benefit B against his will? An alternative is voluntary service; insurance works well in most cases. Naturally, some aspects of the society (police, fire dept., armed forces) can't be voluntarily financed, but the majority *can*. Tom Haapanen University of Waterloo {allegra,decvax,ihnp4}!watmath!watdcsu!haapanen
julian@deepthot.UUCP (Julian Davies) (08/20/84)
- From: idallen@watmath.UUCP - I don't see any "fundamental" difference between the majority forcing - me not to kill my fellow humans and the majority taking my money to - benefit my fellow man. Is there an alternative to majority rule? Just for the record, there *is* an alternative to majority rule, which can claim to be better. It has been used in the Religious Society of Friends for several centuries (also known as Quakers). That method of reaching decisions can claim successes such as (for example) an agreement on the wrongness of slavery long before any other significant political or religious organization agreed on that. For details, visit your local Friend's Meetinghouse. If you are wondering why the Quaker approach hasn't been widely used, the reason could be partly that it demands from participants the willingness to respect other people and listen to their contributions, and not insist on sticking to preconceived positions. This doesn't seem to go over too well with politicians, or anyone with an 'axe to grind'. Julian Davies
chrisr@hcrvax.UUCP (Chris Retterath) (08/21/84)
Regarding long messages (>30 lines, after which IAN! falls asleep :-)):
As an offender in the sense that my recent postings have been longer
than IAN!'s limit, my only reponse is that it took me that long to present
my arguments. If you want flip silly responses to questions like "Do you
think Crown Corporations are a good thing?", read the Toronto Scum (sorry,
Sun) reponses from the Editor.
Regarding the "will of the majority":
It is obvious Ian and I are on different wavelengths!
Essentially I feel that the individual should be free to do whatever
he/she wants, and that the only limit that society can place upon
that individual is to not condone actions that harm others.
The impression I get from some articles is that society is more important
than individuals; I can never accept this. That way lies repression.
(No, you CANNOT fly that hang-glider. SOCIETY will have to pay
your medical bills, should you hurt yourself)
(No, you MUST wear you seatbelt/motorcycle helmut. SOCIETY will
have to pay. YES, SOCIETY is more important than your happiness
or your liberty. All dissenters, into prison. All gays, into the
camps. YOU MUST HAVE THAT CHILD.)
--
Chris Retterath
{decvax,utcsrgv,utzoo}!hcr!hcrvax!chrisrhenry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (08/21/84)
> ...............................are you arguing that the majority should > never force its will on the individual, or that it should not do so for > topics X, Y, and Z? (Who decides what X, Y, and Z are?) Philosophically, I suspect that 'never' is the right word. Practically, this doesn't seem achievable. It is, however, both desirable and practical to try for the closest possible approach to this ideal. > I don't see any "fundamental" difference between the majority forcing > me not to kill my fellow humans and the majority taking my money to > benefit my fellow man. Is there an alternative to majority rule? I don't see any *connection* between outlawing murder and legalizing theft. You are confusing ends (the good of my fellow man, in both cases) with means (forbidding me to hurt him vs. hurting *me* in an attempt to help him). -- "The trouble with a just economy is, who runs the Bureau of Economic Justice?" Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry
robinson@ubc-ean.CDN (Jim Robinson) (08/21/84)
> > I don't see any "fundamental" difference between the majority forcing > me not to kill my fellow humans and the majority taking my money to > benefit my fellow man. Is there an alternative to majority rule? > -- > -IAN! (Ian! D. Allen) University of Waterloo In the former case the majority are upholding your fellow humans' right to live, whereas in the latter case the majority are denying you your right to property ( to put it in Libertarian terms, I think ). Also, who says that the money is to benefit your fellow man. If I asked a right-winger if a) the cruise missile benefitted his fellow man, and if b) welfare benefitted his fellow man I could possibly get a strong yes-no reply. If I asked a left-winger I could possibly get a strong no-yes reply. Beauty is not the only thing in the eye of the beholder. J.B. Robinson
dmcanzi@watdcsu.UUCP (David Canzi) (08/21/84)
Ian!> The cost of sending a letter to the Yukon is probably far more than Ian!> the 35 cents I now pay. Should the price be increased to make the Ian!> service profitable? Would anyone pay that price? If not, does that Ian!> mean the unprofitable service should be discontinued in favour of the Ian!> more profitable business to be had sending mail only in Toronto? I say the cost of sending mail should depend on the distance. The flat rate for mail and the government's efforts to maintain it have some annoying side-effects. In order to merely break even, the post office must overcharge people sending mail over short distances. If they just break even, or make a small profit, they can undercharge for long-distance mail. So, private businesses can't provide long-distance mail service, because they can't beat the post office's price. They can, however, provide local services cheaper than the post office. So, the government has deftly moved to prevent this *BY MAKING IT ILLEGAL*. Enforcing another law costs money, requires penalties (eg. fines and/or imprisonment), and a threat of violence against law-breakers. Making an act illegal is not a matter to be taken lightly. Yet the act in question here is an honest exchange between consenting adults. A quick summary of what has happened: 1) One group of people is being forced to subsidize another group. 2) An honest and non-violent act has been made illegal. 3) We must pay, through our taxes, for enforcing another stupid law. Do the people who benefit from the cheap postage need it badly enough to justify this? David Canzi, watmath!watdcsu!dmcanzi Disclaimer: I am neither a Libertarian nor an Objectivist.