Text 72, 224 rader
Skriven 2004-09-05 14:46:05 av Bob Lawrence
     Kommentar till en text av Bob Klahn
Ärende: Fantastic fantasy!
==========================
BL> You can never find a Robin Hood when you need one - tax is the
BL> correct tool to move wealth from rich and poor... steal from
BL> the rich and give to the poor.

BK> Actually, I disagree with that. Full employment is better. But
BK> that's a long discussion.

 Employment, working for someone else, only makes the someone-else
rich. An overview shows that most wealth comes from "exploiting" the
ones doing the actual work. I have no problem with that exploitation.
People driven to make a profit out of their fellow man do great good
for society overall, but they need to be taxed to even it out a bit. 

BL> The rich want it all, and that is the correct attitude for
BL> creating wealth 

BK> Actually, it's not. The rich, all too often, do not create
BK> wealth, they just manage to get control of it. I do not see
BK> that Bill Gates has actually inovated much of anything. He just
BK> incorporates other people's ideas into his system. That makes
BK> him rich, but I suspect, in the long run it discourages real
BK> innovation.

 I agree in theory, but in reality innovation rarely creates wealth
unless it can be stolen, refined, made practical, and marketed... all
of which need capital. I agree that many inventors are discouraged by
the meagre return for their work, and refuse to sell out to a
entrepreneur like Gates... but they don't count. No wealth results.
It's not fair, but life isn't and especially, wealth isn't. They're a
pack of thieves and robbers... rich robbers, hence the need for
taxation to equalise it a little.

 There are notable exceptions of course, but they have to be weighed
against Microsoft's $300-billion to get an idea of what works best.

BK> Real Audio was, AFAICS, the real innovator in web broadcasting,
BK> but I see RA going down against the immitators, esp MSoft.

 Unfortunately, the way of the world. My guess is that the guy who
invented the wheel was screwed too... probably by someone named Ford.

BL> How does a law restricting the power of big business restrict
BL> the freedom of the individual?

BK> It probably doesn't, but it still requires more law.

 Law began by protecting the rights of the landowner, aimed at the
individual. It's nearly time we reversed it.

BL> overall. I am all in favour of strict regulation of *big*
BL> business so long as it does not inhibit small business.

BK> Ah, now that's another matter entirely. However, in some areas
BK> I would put business men in prison, big or small, if they
BK> violate. Hiring illegal immigrants, for example.

 Of course. How else do you stop them? The idea of jail-time for
individuals and fines for corporations is silly. The officeers of
companies should face the same penalties as the rest of us... not hide
behind the company or the bureau.

BL> personal freedom... and that includes a prosperous economy best
BL> left to big business and those driven to be rich.

BK> They will suck the blood from the small businesses. Like
BK> Wallmart does. And they do it through imports, and, in this
BK> country, pay scales so low the workers collect welfare
BK> benefits.

 I don't agree with subsidising small business. If they can't compete
then let them get out of the kitchen. What we *do* need, is a way to
enforce corporation law that means something... like jail, and limits
on how much (and how long) a defence can run. A fantastic example
here in Oz was when the Taxation Office assessed a tax avoidance bill
of $250M against our richest man, and then years later having spent
$20 million in legal fees, he settled by paying them $200,000!

 In my own case they sent an unfair bill for $1,200 and I paid (as
they knew I would), rather than fight it in court. The law is mocked
while big companies (and bureaucracies) do what they like, hire
expensive lawyers to delay and cover up, and then face no personal
penalty. The Law must not be mocked.

BK>> So, now you are saying the *CHILDREN* know best?

BL> At eighteen they vote, get married, buy a house, go to gaol...
BL> who said anything about children? Persoanlly, I

BK> Actually, you said kids. Didn't know they did that for 18 yr
BK> olds.

 Here in Oz, you can't get a driving licence until you're 17. The age
group they measure for excessive night-time accidents is 18-24. Of
course we all know this just bureaucrats wanking. No politician is
going to alienate the 18-24 age group of voters!

BK> Life is risky, but bad drivers risk other people's lives. Now
BK> all you have to do is identify where the numbers cross.

 The majority of "hoon" accidents are single-car (with perhaps a
telegraph pole or a tree). To me, it makes more sense to get rid fo
the telegraph poles, move the trees back a bit, and keep the young
drivers. Only abureaucrat would see the obvious solution...get rid of
the drivers. I'm waiting for one of them to suggest a man with a red
flag in frotn of the car.

 The most common multiple-car fatality is a semitrailer on the
highway. We can't do away with semitrailer transport, but we can
build two-lane highways so all collisions are in the same direction.
You don't solve the problem by using Law to restrict a randomly-chosen
group of individuals... you solve it by *increasing* their freedom to
do what they like - by some other means. If it costs more, then that's
the price of doing business.

BK> As to smoking, I hate it, smoking killed too many close to me.
BK> However, I support your right to do it, as long as I don't have
BK> to breathe it.

 I don't agree. If I have a friend who smokes, then I am quite happy
to accept the infinitismal risk his smoke imposes on me. On the other
hand, if I have a friend who likes to carry a loaded weapon and shoot
it randomly, I would not accept that risk, no matter how much he
enjoyed it. Society only works through a *reasonable* tolerance of the
likes of others. To me, any fear of casual secondary cigarette smoke
is so unreasonable as to be neurotic. Long-term, in a club or such is
a different matter. To ban smoking in a public park, outdoors, is well
beyond neurotic... it's insane.

BL> The problem we have is the idea of "reasonable* risk. The risk
BL> of giving someone else cancer if I smoke in a public park is as
BL> close to zero as risks come

BK> Irrelevant. I don't want to breathe your smoke, regardless of
BK> risk. You don't have the right to impose so much as discomfort
BK> on me.

 There is an obvious reply which I won't use, but it goes something
like ... you. Who lets you decide what *I* can do? What made you
superior to me in a public place? If you don't like me, go away. And
if *you* can decide what *I* can do, then what if I insist that you
only wear black because colours offend me? Where does it end?

 I had a friend who used to get up and walk off every time someone
lit a cigarette becasue he was "allergic" to tobacco. When I asked him
how come this "allergy" only happened after fifty years, when 40% of
the entire population smoked, he became an ex-friend. The poor man
was trying to use it as a control mechanism. SWe call them wowsers
here in Australia. It used to be the evils of drink, now it's tobacco
and the campaign is much more scientific but it's still wowsers
running it.

 I was a heavy smoker for 25 years, and it's 25 years since my last
cigarette, plus one heart attack and ulcers, both down to smoking,but
havign smoked rougly 350,000 cigarettes, the idea that a whiff of
casual smoke can damage me is silly. I'm just not that fragile. What
concerns me more, is people burning logs in winter, *all* winter, or
bushfires...

BK> Good. I can go out the back door of the plant on break, sit on
BK> one of the benches out there, and a smoker sits on the other,
BK> 20 feet away, and I can still smell his smoke, and it bothers
BK> me.

 How do you feel about bushfires (wild fires?) and wood-burning in
winter? Or do you believe that it is the tobacco plant alone that has
carcinogens when burned?

BK> small child and leave that child afraid of dogs. Keep the dogs
BK> under control.

 It amazes me that you can say that, and advocate the freedom to bear
arms! ROFL! I'd rather take my chances with a psychotic poodle than a
psycho with an M-16.     

BL> that *all* dogs can turn vicious, which is silly.

BK> No, it's not. I've seen it.

 What, *all* of them? When did you see my dog turn vicious? I must
have missed you standing in the corner.

BK> Hell, any but the very small dogs are bigger than a cat, and
BK> cats can do real damage.

 ROFL! A trained attack cat! This is going from the sublime to the
ridiculous, Bob. Are you having a lend of me, or what?

BK> Would you allow mice to run free around your children?

 I'd rather do that than put them on a leash. People would giggle at
me.

BL> They define risks as *less* than zero. Here in Oz, once a
BL> driver gets a licence there is a provisonal period on "P"
BL> plates. The blood-alcohol allowed in ZERO! and that's insane.
BL> You can have 0.01% alcohol after eating a ripe mango! For
BL> everyone else, the limit is 0.05%.. and that's reasonable. Zero
BL> is silly.

BK> Never heard about the ripe mango.

 Then substitute any succulent fruit. Alcohol production is a natural
process in ripening fruit. Mangoes are best when a bit "off." My point
is that ZERO is an insane level for *anything*. It can't be measured.

BL> We're being turned into the nanny state where no risk is
BL> considered too small.. and none are allowed.

BK> The pendulum swings. I guarantee, if it goes back it will go
BK> too far.

 I don't think so. Law only seems to go one way... more and more
restriction for better and better reasons.

Regards,
Bob

 
       



--- BQWK Alpha 0.5
 * Origin: Precision Nonsense, Sydney  (3:712/610.12)