Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utcsri!utegc!utai!ubc-vision!fornax!chapman
From: chapman@fornax.uucp
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Free trade, Canadian culture, $$
Message-ID: <209@fornax.uucp>
Date: Thu, 26-Feb-87 15:07:13 EST
Article-I.D.: fornax.209
Posted: Thu Feb 26 15:07:13 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 28-Feb-87 02:12:28 EST
Distribution: can
Organization: School of Computing Science, SFU, Burnaby, B.C. Canada
Lines: 48

> >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.

An interesting tidbit of information re sweden.  So what is the quality of
life like there - are people living in poverty due to government
overspending, or is there serious unrest at restrictions like these.
I am not particularly advocating this system but it would be interesting
to know how it works.  One thing about restricting businesss is that it
would reduce a lot of the needless competition which costs consumers
so much money (e.g. miilions spent saying "detergent X is bolder brighter
whiter neater and keener than dtergent Y" which I then pck up the tab for).

> 
> 	There were no smileys behind this posting because I believe that
> 	John was dead serious.  All I can say is that socialism has never

See my reply to Henry Spencer's posting as to my purpose in the comments
I made.

.
.
. 	
> >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

I agree completely.  So perhaps it would be in our (society's) best
interests to try and wean people away from spending hours per day
passively absorbing mindless trash on the tube.  Now we can't just
outlaw commercial tv (although it wouldn't be a real big loss) so
maybe we could try and provide some alternative? Say something like
a tv network that would provide informative programming, few or no
commercial messages, public debates, science shows, history, drama,
and yes some light entertainment (perhaps something that doesn't glorify
violence, ignorance and greed). Whats that you say? the CBC? Well
thats a start in the right direction.....