Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watnot!watdcsu!brewster
From: brewster@watdcsu.UUCP
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Free trade, Canadian culture, $$
Message-ID: <3061@watdcsu.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 26-Feb-87 09:30:21 EST
Article-I.D.: watdcsu.3061
Posted: Thu Feb 26 09:30:21 1987
Date-Received: Fri, 27-Feb-87 23:32:33 EST
References: <191@fornax.uucp> <3047@watdcsu.UUCP> <195@fornax.uucp>
Distribution: can
Organization: U of Waterloo, Ontario
Lines: 69

>From: chapman@fornax.uucp (John Chapman)

>If you are going to operate some service as a business then there should
> be valid, clearly explained reasons, why it is:
> a) essential that you operate in the first place,
> b) essential that you avoid operating as a public service and instead
>    operate strictly on a profit motive.

	Sounds like Sweden.  You need a license there before you can open a
	business of any kind.  And this is not a formality for collecting
	taxes, your proposal is scrutinized for "suitability" and often you
	are denied the right to start your business.

	There were no smileys behind this posting because I believe that
	John was dead serious.  All I can say is that socialism has never
	worked very well in practice, and that is as glowing a review of
	socialism as you will ever hear from me.
	
	Examine the countries that are doing well in recent years.  What do
	they have in common ?   What has the bastion of socialism China
	recently introduced in order to increase production ?
	
	Personal initiative is the single strongest force in driving a
	productive economy and a productive economy allows you the options of
	altruism and support of the weak or less fortunate.   

	I argue that it is essential that institutions function as businesses
	whenever possible since this will maximize productivity, which is
	either good of itself, or is good because this allows the widest range
	of subsequent action.

	Now for your arguement the other way please. 

>>    b) but not everything has to break even
>>    c) but this is a medium for supporting the Canadian national identity
>>    d) but it brings the country together
>> 
>>    are rhetoric aimed at avoiding an analysis of what the CBC actually does
>>    and how much it costs the tax payer for this service. 

>Why are b, c, and d merely rhetoric? Because you want them to be?
> If you are going to assert that these are not valid reasons then you
> should try to back it up.

	I say mudwrestling is a sport that will help support the Canadian
	national identity, and if we publicly supported Friday night fights at
	Maple Leaf Gardens we would pull the country together.  Me and ten
	friends really support this view, so lets protect minority rights and
	start the fights next week.  :*)     Anyone see any flaws in this
	arguement ?

>This was a popular view in Nazi germany at one time - surely you can see
>the problems such an attitude engenders?

	Sure, if the majority is not properly educated then they will make
	stupid decisions.  The alternative is to have some "board" or
	"commission" of final authority which rules on every controversial
	issue.  Now instead of a bad decision requiring 10,000,000 stupid
	people a bad decision can be made by 3 or 5 or 11 stupid people.
	Surely you can see the problem when too much power is distributed
	among too few people, as must be the case if majority rule is not the
	deciding factor in most decisions.  Or do you propose that we can find
	the "proper" people who are highly educated and totally altruistic and
	who will always make the "right" decision?  

						   Try not  to become  a  man
UUCP  : {decvax|ihnp4}!watmath!watdcsu!brewster    of success but rather  try
Else  : Dave Brewer, (519) 886-6657                to  become a  man of value.
                                                         Albert Einstein