BL>> Governents should *not* try to run the economy...

BK>> In every case where the govt stays out of the economy the
BK>> people, as a mass, tend to be very poor, with a few very rich.

 BL>  I didn't say they should stay out of it, just that they
 BL>  shouldn't try to run it.

 BL>  You can never find a Robin Hood when you need one - tax is
 BL>  the correct tool to move wealth from rich and poor...
 BL>  steal from the rich and give to the poor.

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

...

 BL>  nice superannuation. The rich want it all, and that is the
 BL>  correct attitude for creating wealth which once created,

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

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

...

BK>> Which requires more govt intervention to get big business out.

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

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

...

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

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

...

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

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

...

BL>> obviously happy to take the tiny risk of being killed by their
BL>> inexperience on the road at night... but the Nanny State knows
BL>> best. Like hell they do.

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

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

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

...

 BL>  I'm shocked that you can't see this as a restriction of
 BL>  personal freedom, Bob. Life is risky. The only safe part
 BL>  of life is the dead part at the end. If I am willing to
 BL>  accept the small risk of being killed driving a car (so
 BL>  long as I do not increase the risk to others
 BL>  *unreasonably*) then what business is it of a government?
 BL>  It's the same with smoking.

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

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

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

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

 BL>  council has just banned smoking in all public parks! They

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

 BL>  also insist they all dogs have to be on a leash on penalty
 BL>  of $200... even a toy poodle! Government keeps advertising

 Ever seen a small dog attack a child. It may be easy to stop,
 but it can do damage before you get to it. And it can scare a
 small child and leave that child afraid of dogs. Keep the dogs
 under control.

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

 No, it's not. I've seen it. Hell, any but the very small dogs
 are bigger than a cat, and cats can do real damage.

 BL>  might as well say that all children can bite, or all mice.

 Would you allow mice to run free around your children? Mice
 other than *YOUR* pets?

 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
 BL>  insane. You can have 0.01% alcohol after eating a ripe
 BL>  mango! For everyone else, the limit is 0.05%.. and that's
 BL>  reasonable. Zero is silly.

 Never heard about the ripe mango.

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

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

BOB KLAHN bob.klahn{at}sev.org   http://home.toltbbs.com/bobklahn

... It takes only one feminist to change a...what the hell's so funny?
--- Via Silver Xpress V4.5/P [Reg]