$640.00 to fill the tanks...

Jay Honeck wrote:
Honestly, you have to pass a test to drive a car, but there is no
"minimum requirement" for reproducing. Imagine what a lovely world it
could be, if only some basic skills were required of every human before
they had children?

There was a whole movement in the 1930's to do just that, the "eugenics
movement". It culminated with Hitler's experiments. So that one may not
be such a good idea.

Actually, there ARE self induced "requirements" to having a child that
MOST of us abide by. And institutions such as church and family set
"rules" for having children. It is just that when government does it,
it is a disaster.

Jose wrote:
Nothing in life guarantees you "fairness".


True enough. But the claim was made that capitalism is "fair". I
refute that claim. Nothing more.

Again, I say define "fair". Is it fair, for example, that
people who have squandered their opportunity for an education
in this country be able to obtain "free stuff" (i.e. food
stamps, welfare and 'earned-income credit' etc.) by virtue
of the fact that they have no job skills worth a damn....

....as opposed to people who have good paying jobs and paying
lots of taxes as a result of working hard to get a good education
and taking care of a family, etc. but as a result are not
eligible for any of the 'free stuff' (that they are in fact paying for!)

What's fair about that? That has nothing to do with capitalism
and all to do with socialism. When irresponsible behavior is
subsidized (or rewarded) you end up with more of it.

In article om,
"Doug" wrote:

Jay Honeck wrote:
Honestly, you have to pass a test to drive a car, but there is no
"minimum requirement" for reproducing. Imagine what a lovely world it
could be, if only some basic skills were required of every human before
they had children?

There was a whole movement in the 1930's to do just that, the "eugenics
movement". It culminated with Hitler's experiments. So that one may not
be such a good idea.

Actually, there ARE self induced "requirements" to having a child that
MOST of us abide by. And institutions such as church and family set
"rules" for having children. It is just that when government does it,
it is a disaster.

Educated populations tend to stop or slow down procreating.
an article in the Wall Street Journal stated that some countries with
low birth rates which already have a childbirth incentive are
contemplating increasing it.

Again, I say define "fair".

That would be up to the OP. I say there is no reasonable definition of
"fair" for which unrestrained capitalism is "fair". Life isn't fair either.

But ok, here's a working definition of "fair". If you could be put in
either position and not feel ripped off for not being in the other
position, then the situation is "fair".

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Bob Noel wrote:
In article .com,
"Andrew Sarangan" wrote:

Childhood immunizations. There are no children turned away without
immunization anywhere in America. There *are*, however, millions of
criminally stupid parents who don't GET their children immunized.

Explain that to the parents whose kids became
paralyzed/retarted/infected/died as a direct result of vaccines. I
know, the probability of that happening is low, but if it happens to
YOUR kid, it doesn't matter what that mathematical probability is. The
ones who actively choose not to immunize have taken steps to become
educated about the risks and benefits of vaccines than the vast
majority who blindly follow what the doc says.

are you serious? you think everyone who doesn't immunize has thought this
through?

True, not everyone has thought this through, that's why I said "ones
who actively choose not to immunize". But the ones who made a conscious
and educated choice should not be criminalized as negligent.



Try explaining to a
widow whose husband died in a small plane crash why everyone who
doesn't fly are criminally stupid, because flying is a vey safe
activity. As you know, flying is a calculated risk and a choice. You
can't force that upon everyone just because you and the FAA think it is
safe.

cripes. The vaccine is to prevent a deadly disease. Flying doesn't
prevent death (except maybe being bored to death by a non-flying
"life"). To use that as an example or arguement is dumb.


May be it was a bad example, I just wanted to make it aviation-centric.
But it is not a foregone conclusion that routine vaccines prevent
deadly deseases. There are arguments for and against, and it is our
responsibility to be informed. What I often see is that the people who
have never bothered to look into this are quick to label the others as
dumb or negligent so that they can feel good about their decision to
remain dumb.

Jose wrote:
Again, I say define "fair".
But ok, here's a working definition of "fair". If you could be put in
either position and not feel ripped off for not being in the other
position, then the situation is "fair".

Okay but who's 'feelings' are we going to use? I'm sure most criminals
'feel' that they have been treated unfairly... probably as strongly as
their victims feel they were 'unfairly' victimized.

Social engineering is never fair because it (by definition) treats some
people (or the activities they engage in) unequally (which isn't 'fair').

Thus, to be the most 'fair', a government should stay out of the business
of social engineering in any shape or form lest it favor one person or
group over another, which, is inherently unfair.

Okay but who's 'feelings' are we going to use? I'm sure most criminals
'feel' that they have been treated unfairly... probably as strongly as
their victims feel they were 'unfairly' victimized.

The feelings of the person who is defining "fair". To use the
criminal-victim example, if one were to be placed inside the body of
either the criminal or the victim, which would it be? If you can easily
make a choice (based on results, not ethics) then the situation is
unfair. If it's hard to make a choice (well, he stole my TV but I got a
new wide screen one from him once he got caught...) then maybe the
overall situation is fair. That is what restitution is about.

Nothing is perfect, I don't claim it is. But the word is not meaningless.

Social engineering is never fair because it (by definition) treats some
people (or the activities they engage in) unequally (which isn't 'fair').

If it does so in a successful effort to mitigate a different source of
"unfairness", then the overall situation is "more fair". I agree with
you in principle, but I don't think that applying it as an absolute is
warranted.

EVERY action is unfair taken in isolation.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Martin Hotze wrote:

"Jay Honeck" wrote:


You're right, Jet-A in this country *should* be much cheaper than
avgas.


what will you (OK, you can fuel auto-gas) do when they announce that avgas
will be taken from the market within the next - let's say - 12 months?

Use AGE-85. The vast majority of GA aircraft can use it with a few
hundred dollars of modifications.

Jose wrote:
Social engineering is never fair because it (by definition) treats some
people (or the activities they engage in) unequally (which isn't 'fair').


If it does so in a successful effort to mitigate a different source of
"unfairness", then the overall situation is "more fair". I agree with
you in principle, but I don't think that applying it as an absolute is
warranted.

The war on poverty has been going on for 40 years in the country.
Today there are roughly the same percentage of people living below
the 'poverty' line as there were back then. Has it been a successful
effort?

I think in the long term we will discover that letting Darwin's
theory run its natural course is the best way.

The war on poverty has been going on for 40 years

I said "successful" effort. The war on poverty, like the war on drugs
and the war on terror, are "unsuccessful" efforts.

What about public libraries competing with (and wiping out) private
ones, and competing with bookstores, encouraging people to NOT buy books
because they can read them for free? Fair?

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.