Remember when I said we should have a new constitutional convention to discuss some of those things that should be discussed. Howard has reminded me of one of them. It is often argued that we do not have a democracy, but we have a democratic republic. We supposedly have a capitalist economic system. But in actuality we do not have a total capitalist society, do we? We have many items that are provided by the government: Postal Service, National Security, and Social Services. It has always been my belief that there are certain essential elements that should be provided to all citizens of a society: basic transportation, basic communications, basic health care, adequate power, food and water. Our government regulates each of these to whatever lower degree to which capitalists pay them enough to agree. If we co-op so as to provide all citizens with basic necessities at base/no profit prices, then the capitalists are free to play above that level. Say for example, everyone is to be provided with one line of the least expensive form available into a residence, for argument's sake, let's call that regular present day telephone line, complete with long-distance access within the nation. That is the bottom line, so that the capitalists can offer better lines, better transmission, better whatever. Those that need more that what is decided to be the minimal citizenry entitlement can choose between the ever increasing capitalist competitors. We just saw how one large area can be affected by non-cooperative entities, the black-out. There are already battles over fresh water being waged in many places in our country and around the world. If we do not start to get a handle on how we are going to provide for all of our citizens in all areas of the country on a nationwide basis, we are going to get the continual migration of people to those areas where they are provided, further taxing their provisional capabilities. It is madness people.
Look closely at what is stated in our own Declaration of Independence:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.That was the founding ideal of this great Nation, not persecution of the people, not enslavement of the people, not a government that controls its people, but a people that controls its government.
It says, however, that we are all entitled to life, and life takes some element of essential need. It says we are entitled to liberty and the pursuit of happiness. We have less of that now than when the nation and the Constitution was written. They are separate but equal entitlements. We should have a government that provides essential services instead of one who provides oppression and feeds the greed. I guess that makes me a Social-Libertarian or something, huh?
Actually there are some strong moral issues that do needed to be decided one way or the other that apply as rule of law. Drugs are one and Abortion is another. I have discussed my beliefs in both previously, but to rehash:
Drugs are not the problem, the effects of the drugs might be to some people. We should help those people and not warehouse them in prisons where they are non-productive. The War on Drugs is a futile and costly battle and those resources could be used elsewhere. [Update: To parallell what is said below, I would rather see doctors involved in treating the addiction and keep the courts and cops out of it, except for policing bad actors. I again say that I may not agree with the necessity of one poisoning one's own body, but as long as they neither threaten or harm another person, I support their right to do so.]
Abortion is an appalling form of birth control. There are cases where it is fair to terminate the pregnancy, like health of the baby, health of the mother, rape or incest. Fight the moral battle in the streets and churches and keep the courts out of it. I don't like it, but I would rather doctors were involved than not. To me, it is kind of like free speech: I may not like what you say, but I support your right to say it ... I may not like what you do to your own body and prospective progeny, but I do respect your right to do it. Almost anyone who is contemplating abortion most likely knows the consequences of their decision and do not need counseling, but the doctor should not do the procedure unless he believes she has been adequately informed as to the consequences of the procedure.
More later, I am sure.
Posted by Tiger at August 16, 2003 06:56 PM | TrackBackNot to be picking nits, but we have a *right* to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness - not an entitlement. The "right" implies we are free to seek it on our own without government interference. The "entitlement" you speak of implies that someone else must give us something.
Posted by: Harvey at August 28, 2003 01:04 PMPerhaps you don't realize that 96% of homes across the country are already wired for POTS (Plain Old Telephone Service).
While providing "free" LDS sounds like a good idea, use limits would be required to prevent abuse. Many people who lose their POTS service do so because they run up enormous LDS bills.
Then who would cover the prepay? The Govt? The telecom industry has a labor intensive overhead to maintain...so traffic is paid up front...or on very short terms. Before your LD call is connected your LDS company has paid for x number of minutes per day on that connect in a hub.
The telecom traffic stream is a commodity...traded as capacity shifts with usage....as the power grid does. The LDS companies are all interconnected at major switch sites. So one day a call from point A to point B cost them X, the next day it may cost them Y. There is no way to predict as outside forces or events often determine where and when call patterns will change. That's why you get a "circuits" busy on major holidays. A national disaster such as 9/11 or the recent power outage and the whole system must reroute and the contracted rates are no longer in effect..the LDS companies absorb the loss of running the extra traffic off-net by loading hundredths of a cent on other routes. Off-net frontloading is at the wholesale level...further thinning profit margins.
Long distance runs on less than a 1% profit margin...LDS averages returns of a couple of tenths of a cent per minute margin on connects. The reason it is viable is the massive scale...billions of minutes run daily.
So if the govt. accessed part of the income stream by mandating free service at afixed rate, the whole enterprise becomes unable to sustain itself as least-cost-routing is key. Arbitrage only works when the commodity is free to seek the lowest price.
BTW-I've lived in many countries where the Govt.owns and operates the telephone company...it sucks BIG time...don't even go there.