Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site watcgl.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!watnot!watcgl!jchapman
From: jchapman@watcgl.UUCP (john chapman)
Newsgroups: net.women
Subject: Re: paying plumbers
Message-ID: <2242@watcgl.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 24-Jul-85 09:52:08 EDT
Article-I.D.: watcgl.2242
Posted: Wed Jul 24 09:52:08 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 25-Jul-85 04:17:43 EDT
References: <533@ttidcc.UUCP> <302@looking.UUCP> <2210@watcgl.UUCP> <224@fear.UUCP>
Organization: U of Waterloo, Ontario
Lines: 36

> 1) The cynical version: If *my* group makes the decisions, people
> like *ME* will benefit.
> 
> 2) The romantic/naive version: If wise, benevolent, perfect, godlike
> beings make the decisions, we peasants (or perhaps *you* peasants)
> will find bliss on Earth.
> 
> *BLEEEEEECCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!*
> 
> Let's take it all the way, with the "multiply both sides by zero"
> approach: If no one has any rights, everyone will have equal rights.
.
.
> 		Robert Plamondon
> 		{turtlevax, resonex, cae780}!weitek!robert
 Why be so simplistic? Everything does not have to be black and white
 you know.  The point is that when an independant body makes a decision
 it doesn't have to be perfect (or even close) to be fairer than
 decisions made by obviously biased people - e.g. employers.

 To those who say (listen up Brad) it would be degrading to people
 in general to have their wages decided by some independant (and
 probably necessarily at least quasi-governmental).  How can it
 possibly be more degrading to have someone(s) making the decision
 who has nothing to gain or lose by the decision when you compare
 it to having the decision made by someone whose primary objective
 is to make as much money as possible which necessitates paying
 you as little as possible?

-- 

	John Chapman
	...!watmath!watcgl!jchapman

	Disclaimer : These are not the opinions of anyone but me
		     and they may not even be mine.