On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 17:31:13 +1100, Ron Baker wrote
(in message <Ruplb.42934$Z86.36134@twister.socal.rr.com>):

[long, sorry]

"Martin Crisp" <Spam.Bucket@tesseract.com.au> wrote in message
news:0001HW.BBBC30EB0119EC72F0284600@news.ozemail.com.au...

On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 2:42:13 +1100, Ron Baker wrote
(in message <ptclb.41439$Z86.34498@twister.socal.rr.com>):

"the cutest atheist" <herdofnerd(remove)@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ZB7lb.159907$bo1.52095@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

"Ron Baker" <rbaker4@msnn.com> wrote in message
news:Ff3lb.41095$Z86.7758@twister.socal.rr.com...

We provide for the disabled.

To what degree?

Again there are large differences between our two
systems. My impression is that Australia does a better job of
providing care for the disabled.

And I _am_ biased, as I'm
receiving social security benefits, and will be if legislation
doesn't change, for the rest of my life (I'm 38, and in pretty good
health considering I'm a sedentary smoker), or until I manage to
generate sufficient income that I fail the means test on my
payments. [Or until my SO receives at least 2 of: a new/fixed
spine, working calcium regulation system, and 2 full-eye
transplants]

The payments I receive are a matter of public record if you want to
cruise around
http://www.centrelink.gov.au/

You want "Disability Support Pension - Blind", "Carer Payment",
"Carer Allowance", "Family Payment".

Note: this is federal support, no state support at all of this
type. Instead some discounts on services (e.g. for the blind: car
registration is cheaper, or for their 4 main transport providers;
Taxi fares are discounted; and bus fares are non-existant).

We have a democratic system.
All individuals have one vote.

True. Though the differences between here and there regarding
'compulsory' voting, and the structure of the electoral process,
make it difficult for me to appreciate how that impacts the rest of
American society.

Yes, money can buy more campaign ads
and there are cases where an office has
more or less been purchased but there are
also examples where an office couldn't
be bought.

Whereas here it's difficult to tell, from Joe Voter's persective,
whether a position is bought or not. The parties choose the
candidates that run for parliament (upper and lower houses at both
State & Federal levels, for me), the parties decide what the jobs
are for each elected member.

Local elections (City & Municipal
level) are non-compulsory, and are only for aldermen and mayors and
such. Not dog catchers, police, ...

[we don't have 'county' or
'city' police, only State or Federal. And in Tassie there are very
few Federal, and the State police have expanded powers to act as
Federal Police in some respects]

The struggle between the powerful and
the less advantaged is inevitable and eternal.

Agreed.

We have a system that addresses it
with varying degrees of success, but
more successfully than most.

I would say the same here, though the means and areas of success
differ to some degree.

Private property rights are essential.

I would agree that at least some private property rights are
essential. It'd be damned annoying to find the neighbours had
'borrowed' the milk,

or the government had decided someone could
have mining rights on my property. [Oh, wait, they _can_ do that
here. Better I don't see if there are ancient alluvial gold
deposits 30feet under my back yard, I guess.]

If the disposition of property becomes
communal then politics will rule
the allocation of resources.

It already does in reasonable degree here. We are moving to a more
privatised system - our federally owned bank, our federally owned
telecommunications network, our state owned electricity supply, our
state owned transport system, ...

These public assets are being (have been in some cases) sold to the
private sector (i.e. the public!). Being sold from controlled by
those charged with helping maintain the public-good, to those
charged with maximising profit. Quite possibly, however the cost to
the public of the services will decrease, the question is at what
non-monetary cost.

I hear there have been power blackouts and similar problems in the
US this last year or so?

Meanwhile our state government has been
accused of doing all sorts of odd things while negotiating gas
supply to the state ["Basslink"]

Yet these same now-privatised systems are granted some monies by
government to provide discounts mentioned above).

I feel a little like I was once standing on a levelled playing
field, and now I'm standing on the lower slopes of a hill, and the
ground is moving, quickly, and unpredictably.

All advantage will cede to the political
class, and we know what whores they are.

At present it largely looks as though that has happened, the
political and corporate classes at any rate. Oh yeah, legal aid has
been cut back heavily here too.

</ end of tome>

I'm not a communist and
I don't know how to resolve this issue, but......

You have one piece of property that is of
ultimate value to you, that is your body.
You probably like the food on your shelf to
be your property.
It was previously the farmer's property before
you traded for it.

An unequal trade,

I can imagine grounds for that statement but
your argument:

the farmer can be expected to have tried for a
'profit' (by some measure).

This was actually the end of the statement, but it needed an 'as'
after the comma. And should probably have said 'maximise' rather
than 'tried for'. :-)

Admittedly this is kept under some
control in a free market, since the farmer must compete with other

If every tom ***** and harry can provide me with chickens in trade,
but I'm the only person who has a sheep, and I have a lot of sheep,
how many chickens can I get for my sheep? [presuming that both are
commodities of some worth]

Sheep are cheap for me to make, so I shouldn't be able to get many
chickens for them, should I?

Oops, sold Mr Jenkins a male and female lamb. He's started making
sheep too.

How many chickens will I get if Mr Jenkins starts trading sheep?
[assuming all sheep are equal quality, equally able to meet demand,
...]

Given competition I expect I'll end up getting roughly what a sheep
is perceived as being worth in terms of chickens, and Jenkins will
get about the same. And that this will turn out to be less than
their worth when I was the only one providing sheep to the market.

farmers to attract your payment, and so must strive to reduce his
costs (or improve quality of the property exchanged, or provide
some other 'value') to maximise the amount of profit from the same

Maybe if I do something to my sheep at a small cost I can
disproportionately increase their apparent worth, or reduce their
overall cost of production - allowing me to operate with a higher
'profit' margin.

transaction. [This is why 'Cartels' are verboten in some (many?)
countries, and why monopolistic practices are also 'illegal'.]

If Jenkins and I team up, we will be able to act as though there
was only one supplier of sheep. And the chickens will really come
home to roost.

is not clear to me.

Worth is illusory,

all transactions are unequal but take place when
parties are willing to accept the degree of inequality,

people will
attempt to increase their advantage in the inequality.

Governments
are a necessary evil

to help control the means by which that
advantage is sought.

[and in my view the more essential the service the tighter grip
government should have, possibly all the way through to ownership.

People don't choose to be born into their social circumstances, so
the 'social contract' is, I think, at least partially invalid (lack
of consent)

- government providing/ensuring essential services in
that societal climate helps mitigate against the consent problem
with the 'social contract']

I was distracted while posting earlier...
Moral: don't post while distracted :-(

If it hadn't been the farmer's property he wouldn't
have been able to trade it.
If the farmer wasn't able to trade it why
would he grow it?
If people's wellbeing isn't related to their
labor they have no incentive to work.

If people's (lack of) well-being prevents their working?

As a humane society we provide for the incapacitated.

That sounds like a free lunch, to me. Or at least a free
light-snack. And as I've indicated I'm essentially living a free
lunch.

I'd rather not need to be. I'm trained in an area I enjoy,
and my ability isn't so deficient that I'm unemployable in that
area.

[see note near end - I have the wrong end of the stick...]

Or reduces
their ability to work to such an extent that others in the
free-market will always be preferred (better return on the
investment in labour)?

What are you calling well-being?
Affluence? Health? Ability?

all of the above (though in a different order if I were to rank
them).

They are in a feedback system.

If I am unhealthy it costs me more to take care of myself. I become
less affluent than I would be otherwise. If I am unhealthy my
ability to perform some activities may be less than required by an
employer [i.e. my abilities suffer].

If I am poor, I am less able to afford health care, and less likely
to be able to suplement my education to enhance my abilities
through study.

If I lack abilities that fetch a high wage/salary/income, then I
probably become poor. [and depending on the ability, possibly
unhealthy]

e.g. in my society my wife cannot be employed, her health
essentially prevents it, particularly when combined with the risk
of almost any work making her health worse

Ah, health.
.au You are in Australia?
Does your wife receive assistance?

Yes, a wide variety. As detailed.
I'm in no position to whine about Australia's social security
system.

(opening the way for
litigation).

?

My wife isn't totally incapacitated, or totally blind, and is
reasonably bright. She doesn't have anything communicable. So she
can, theoretically, perform useful work for a salary or wage.
However, her health is such that employing her would place a
financial burden on the employer (modifying the workplace to ensure
her safety), and most environments would still have potential for
furthering her ill-health. There's also the potential that her
limitations could lead to others being injured. Even if such were
not an employer's fault, the threat of potential litigation for
negligence is sufficient to further bias employers against her.

Should she be left with no support, or simply put down like a horse
with a broken leg?

No. As stated above.

Then surely she is receiving at least a free slice of pie at lunch?
And since the vast majority of our household income is at tax-payer
expense [admittedly after I'd spent some years paying into that
system, but I suspect I was even then slightly 'ahead of the
game'], it would seem the soup course with the hot roll as well.

If I win the lottery, am I not allowed to keep the proceeds, since
my well-being wasn't related to my labour, but to 'blind' chance?

If I inherit all my grandma's money (I'm the only grandchild who
didn't marry a Catholic, therefore I'm apparently due the lot...),
am I entitled to keep it, since it isn't tied to my labour?

You can keep whatever anyone agrees to give to you.
You can't expect that heart surgeons will earn
no more than grocery clerks.

I know telephone operators who earn more than systems
administrators, programmers, and systems analysts. There's more
opportunity for the latter to change their situation, I guess. But
that's the way it goes.

You may not ever see surgeons paid less than grocery clerks, but
worth is like beauty - in the eye of the beholder. [Gold and
marijuana are both >$300/ounce]

Apparently beauty can earn about the same as heart surgery, isn't
_that_ weird.

There is no rule that says that everything
in a moral position is an 'ought'.

OK, I think I see the relevance now. Sorry. You mean that, since
somewhere along the line what society provides must be paid for,
there is ultimately no free lunch. Whereas I read it as 'there
should be no proximate free lunch'.

Most of the above is a continuation of that mistake of mine. By way
of explanation, and because I think some of the differences in our
social climates are worth looking at.

sorry about the length.
:-)