J.JPM@EPIC (Jim McGrath) (02/21/86)
From: decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!barmar@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
(Barry Margolin)
Hmm, did we create such a trust fund for the families of deceased
draftees in the Viet Nam War? Or how about the families of
Americans killed by terrorists, who were used as unwitting
representatives of the US.
Yes, we did create such funds. While they may not have received the
same press that the astronaut funds, this is not the fault of the
people creating the funds!
At least the astronauts died admirably, pursuing their dreams, and
they were aware that there were such risks.
I don't understand. I though that every intelligent person realized
that, no matter what they though about the Vietnam War, the men (and
women) who gave their lives in that struggle died quite honorably.
They were asked to serve by their country, and if the war is not
considered a "mistake," then the blame falls to the country, not those
who served.
Jim
-------J.JPM@EPIC (Jim McGrath) (02/22/86)
From: decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!mcvax!vmucnam!imag!
lifia!felix@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Francois Felix INGRAND)
First my question was serious, I do not know very well the
american Social System but I feel very sorry too, to think that
you have to make a fund to help these childrens.
As has been pointed out, in America the culture encourages individuals
helping other individuals in as direct a manner as possible. I fail
utterly to see how anyone could possibly consider "help" from an
unfeeling government, which gets its "public" funds via coercive
taxation (re: robbery) to somehow be "better" (I assume morally) that
individuals freely giving of their own wealth in as direct a manner as
they can.
Second, these childrens, which suffered a great loss indeed, and
you could be sure that I have sympathy for them, looks for me like
the childrens or people which loose parents or friends in such a
catastrophe. The tomorrow of the shuttle catastrophe, there were a
Airplane Crash in South America: 27 deads... Be sure that I have
a lot of sympathy for them too. But Medias seem to have forgotten
them... And American Fund too.
I am positive that for any random public accident you can name
involving Americans there is, somewhere, a memorial fund of some sort
for them. That all funds are not treated equally (in terms of monies
received) is a necessary consequence of free choice, since some
individuals and their plights simply happen to appeal more to folks
than others. You may decry this as somehow "irrational." I accept
it as human.
Third, Do you really think that it is money that these childrens
need? Do you really think that sympathy can only be Dollars.
Excuse me but I feel sorry for you, to see that the only think
that you can do for them is to make a Fund.... But here, is it the
best solution?
What other solution do you suggest? That all 10 million or so of us
go to their homes? Or even give them a phone call? I agree with
Chris Redmond that giving money is the only practical thing to do.
Also, I detect in your message some sort of irrational dislike of
money (philosophically popular in some quarters). Money is a means of
exchange, a storage of wealth. There is nothing "evil" in money.
Jim
-------J.JPM@EPIC (Jim McGrath) (02/22/86)
Perhaps you are unfamiliar with such things, Monsieur Ingrand,
but here in the United States we like to take care of our own.
From: decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!mcvax!ukc!dcl-cs!craig
@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Craig Wylie)
Perhaps you should see the comment above, when you supply free
education, free medical care and government subsidized housing then
you can be insulting, until then you are not taking care of your
own at all....
More to the point, don't blame him: he lives in a country (France)
where the ASSUMPTION is that bereaved children will be taken care
of from public funds, and there's no need to start a special
collection.
"Free" this, that, and the other, eh? What sort of fairy godmother
supplies France with all of these gifts? I always thought that a
bunch of toughs, backed by an army of thugs, stole the wealth to
provide these "free" things from millions (for the dense, this is
called taxation).
It's simply amazing how otherwise rational people will equate "free"
with "public," ignoring the costs associated with any government
activity.
Jim
-------bzs@bu-cs.UUCP (Barry Shein) (02/24/86)
>From: J.JPM@EPIC (Jim McGrath) >As has been pointed out, in America the culture encourages individuals >helping other individuals in as direct a manner as possible. I fail >utterly to see how anyone could possibly consider "help" from an >unfeeling government, which gets its "public" funds via coercive >taxation (re: robbery) to somehow be "better" (I assume morally) that >individuals freely giving of their own wealth in as direct a manner as >they can. I fail utterly to see how this is true. Our current welfare system etc was prompted by the total failure of individuals to help other individuals in a direct manner, the facts speak for themselves. Through history large civilizations have had to organize enforced charities through taxes and tithes (or enslave their poor) as a means to subdue popular revolution. Unfortunately the wealthy are largely selfish almost by their very nature give or take a few exceptions (known as philanthropists, mostly robber-barons who developed a guilty conscience or hatred of their potential inheritors or a love of the tax loopholes or all of the above and whose wealth can generally be tracked to far more misery than charity.) As far as taxation == robbery, this statement is somewhere on the lunatic fringe of civil libertarianism, do you seriously expect the members of this group, for example, to pass the hat and replace NASA? (that was a bold attempt to draw this conversation back to the subject at hand.) It is quite reasonable to argue about where the pot gets spent, but this sort of argument is ridiculous and unproductive. Better an unfeeling government than nothing at all, remember, the body gets hungry quite quickly, more quickly than it takes to process a job application even among the best of intentioned down on their luck. -Barry Shein, Boston University