Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version nyu B notes v1.5 12/10/84; site acf4.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!acf4!mms1646
From: mms1646@acf4.UUCP (Michael M. Sykora)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Familiar lines in Mr. Sykora's diatribe
Message-ID: <1340083@acf4.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 12-May-85 18:23:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: acf4.1340083
Posted: Sun May 12 18:23:00 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 14-May-85 07:53:44 EDT
References: <39@mit-vax.UUCP>
Organization: New York University
Lines: 123


>/* oaf@mit-vax.UUCP ([Oded Anoaf Feingold]) / 11:47 am  May 11, 1985 */

>Mr. Michael Sykora quotes me...
>>>	In particular, he [Reagan] meant to gouge the money for his
>>>	programs out of the bellies of hungry children, the salaries of
>>>	teachers, the medicare and social security checks of the old, the
>>>	weak, and the defenseless.
>and decides to be sarcastic:
>>	I had no idea there was so much money in the bellies of hungry
>>	children!

>Actually, neither did I.  Nor did Reagan.  But that was his ostensible
>policy, namely to finance our military buildup by cutting apparent
>waste, specifically school lunches, federal aid to education, caps and
>cuts on welfare, social security benefits, etc.  Never mind that the
>sizes of new expenses far outweighed any possible savings from those
>quarters, as evidenced by the current deficit.

No!  He intended to finance the military buildup with taxes.
Funds are not generated by these programs, so military spending
cannot be financed by these programs.  You don't finance X,
by cutting Y.

>Whatever the benefits of our military buildup, there is no doubt that
>Mr. Reagan has spread misery and despair among the people least able to
>absorb further blows.

How one can spread misery by not giving people something is not clear to
me!  Please explain this?

>In my opinion, such cruelty toward the poor and weak do not fit in with
>a decnt or moral person's behavior.  For that and other reasons, I
>contend that Mr.  Reagan's morality is (at best) fatally flawed.

Why do you believe this?  The reason is not apparent to me, and I therefore
don't agree.  In my opinion, human beings are not born into obligation, 
but rather are only obligated to do those tbings that they voluntarily
agree to do.  If this is not so, then where does one draw the line
on what a human being is obligated to do, and why?
(Note, that I do not agree with you that sush behavior is "cruel.")

>There's more to it, of course.  Reagan has very little political or
>personal honesty, as can be seen in his continuing and deliberate lies.

Do you really expect anything else from a politician?  After all,
he has an incentive to lie.

>>	Hmmm, that gives me an idea . . .

>You planning on wandering around Harlem with a knife?

Oh, sense of humor, where are you sense of humor . . .

>>	I suppose it never occurred to you that he may be returning some of
>>	the money to those to whom it belongs, who may or may not be "old, 
>>	weak or defenseless."

>I guess the point of Mr. Sykora's message was to show me up as an
>unthinking, unfeeling asshole.

I don't remember what this was in response to, but it was not my intention to
depict you as such, and I don't believe that I in fact did.

>Unlike you, Mr. Sykora, I am willing to pay some additional increment in
>taxes to help the poor, the sick, the people who have little opportunity
>and less hope in this world.  I am willing to give up some part of my
>lifestyle so that others may simply live.

Note, that my political position on this matter does not presuppose that
I am unwilling to help such people, only that I don't believe the
government should be taking away my money and giving it to them (or
anyone else).

>  I have little sympathy with
>those who are so selfish that they will do _anything_, including pervert
>any claim they have to consistency and personal integrity, to save a
>little tax money while others suffer and die for lack of it.

If you are referring to me, thanks just the same, but I don't want your
sympathy.

Please define selfish in somewhat more detail.  I find that people often
use the term to describe different attitudes.  In fact, often these
definitions turn out to be internally inconsistent.

What do you mean by "pervert any claim they have to consistency and personal
integrity, to save a little tax money ...?"  Are you suggesting (among other
things) that it is impossible for a person to be opposed to gov't.
enforced "redistribution" (a misnomer if I've ever seen one) of wealth
on principle?  If so, you are treading on very thin ice indeed.

>  It may
>seem "tough," heroic and in the best tradition of Spencerian survivalism
>to be as selfish as you proclaim to be, but social development is a
>shared project.

It is considered bad form (for a good reason), and contributes nothing to an
argument, to present your presumptions as to the motivations of the other
participants.

>Mr. Sykora, I don't envy the people in your idea of paradise, nor those
>who have to share space or network bandwidth with you.

I never stated what my idea of paradise is, though I suppose it's reasonable,
based on the above, to conclude that you wouldn't like it.  Since my
ideal society would be one that (among other things) would be free of
coercion, you are, of course, free not to participate.

>  That's also my
>answer to your "So what?" in response to the plea for civility.  When I
>hire people, one consideration I have is whether they spread happiness
>among the people they're working with.  I would do my colleagues a great
>disservice if I invited you into their midst.  I would never do such a
>thing.

Perhaps you can refresh my memory.  What is (was) this about?

>Oded Feingold			{decvax, harvard}!mitvax!oaf


					Have a nice day,
					Mike Sykora