Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!lll-crg!lll-lcc!qantel!ptsfa!gilbbs!mc68020
From: mc68020@gilbbs.UUCP (Thomas J Keller)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: When is a Job Not Employment?
Message-ID: <1035@gilbbs.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 25-Sep-86 21:35:55 EDT
Article-I.D.: gilbbs.1035
Posted: Thu Sep 25 21:35:55 1986
Date-Received: Mon, 29-Sep-86 00:30:40 EDT
References: <1245@drutx.UUCP> <3384@umcp-cs.UUCP> <925@usl.UUCP> <1194@mit-trillian.MIT.EDU>
Organization: Gil's Place, Santa Rosa CA
Lines: 62
Summary: what if...what if...

In article <1194@mit-trillian.MIT.EDU>, melissa@mit-trillian.MIT.EDU (Melissa Silvestre) writes:
> In article <3384@umcp-cs.UUCP> mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP writes:
> >
> >THis simply isn't a good way of looking at employment.  The Feds employ air
> >traffic controllers.  Can anyone deny that they help to facilitate the
> >making of wealth?
> 
> I think you missed the original point. The Feds "make" wealth only in the
> sense that the "steal" the wealthmaking tools from the private sector.
> 
> [paragraph of typical 'libertarian' they're stealing from us crap deleted]
> 
> For example, the Fed pays those traffic controllers with money it
> "stole" via taxes from the private sector. The private sector, had it
> been allowed to keep that money, would have generated the same number
> of jobs with it (and if the need (read: demand) is there, maybe even the
> same jobs)

   Oh?  What evidence can you cite to support this view?  In point of fact,
   air traffic controllers, food and drug inspectors, etc., etc., were *NOT*
   being hired by private businesses, who were benefitting through reduced
   costs, even though they were supplying dangerous services and tainted 
   food to the consumer.  Attempts to encourage the private sector to
   voluntarily police themselves failed miserably throughout the late 1800s
   and early 1900s.  The government was finally forced to implement the
   current bureaucracies in order to protect the public from dishonest and
   opportunistic business people.

   Here we have another case of the 'libertarians' carefully ignoring the
   facts of history which led up to the current system, in order to argue
   that their theoretical utopia is better.  The dishonesty here is that
   they continue to argue the point as if everything they say is an obvious
   and foregone conclusion, and thet the facts clearly support their views.
   The problem is that they have *NO* facts.

> This will of course bring us back to the same argument
> of will the private sector meet all the needs of society that govt
> currently does (in the way of services - we're talking jobs here, not
> welfare).

   There is *NO* reason to believe that the private sector can or will do so,
   Ms. Silvestre.  They never have in the past, and they aren't bloody
   likely to in the future.

   You 'libertarians' wish to change the way things are done in a drastic
   and potentially dangerous fashion.  It is upon you to provide not merely
   adequate evidence, but rather *OVERWHELMING* evidence that your system can
   and will meet the needs of society.  So far, no 'libertarian' I have seen,
   heard or read has offered me anything but supposition, and that based on
   an incomplete and naieve grasp of human history and social behaviour.

   I repeat my view:  'libertarian' is a euphemism for 'self-centered, self-
   satisfied, self-serving, inconsiderate, greedy lout."

-- 

Disclaimer:  Disclaimer?  DISCLAIMER!? I don't need no stinking DISCLAIMER!!!

tom keller					"She's alive, ALIVE!"
{ihnp4, dual}!ptsfa!gilbbs!mc68020

(* we may not be big, but we're small! *)