[at-l] Really OT: Gov ain't good or bad

[jbryankramer@msn.com (J Bryan Kramer)]

> I guess it depends on how you measure quality of life. This
> nation is in the
> middle of the pack among industrial nations in such matters as
> longevity, and
> infant mortality. And ranks among the bottom in overall health
> care.

Japan has the greatest lifespan, and I don't think many folks think that the
Japanese have all that great a quality of life. They are packed in like
sardines, work very long hours, pay $5 for an orange, are xenophobic,
oppress women and live under a strict and unforgiving social milieu. However
like most of the countries at the top of the list for longevity they have a
homogenous population, so does Sweden. We don't have a homogenous population
and if you look at the statistics you'll find that it is the minority groups
who depress the longevity figures. I won't get into the reasons for that but
they are obvious. So compare apples with apples and so on.


 We have a
> system where the wealthy can get the best care in the world, but
> where most
> ordinary people so  unfortunate as get sick have to struggle with
> medical bills
> and skimp on medical care.

Bosh! Just about everyone who has a good stable job is covered by health
insurance, the health care system is vastly superior to Canada's where it
takes more than 16 weeks to get an MRI. Anyone not covered by insurance can
get treated just so long as they are willing to be humiliated by government
functionaries in the process. It is illegal for a hospital to turn anyone
away in this country. You are just playing liberal word games.


>
> It's probably easier to become fabulously wealthy in this
> country. But the bulk
> of human beings, here and elsewhere work for a wage and struggle
> week by week to
> get along, support their families and have a little time left for leisure.

Again: not factual. Who do you think are driving all those cars hauling
boats every weekend, and who is driving all those RVs, and who is playing on
all those golf courses, goes to amusement parks and the beach? I don't know
who you are associating with but this country is full of people who have
lots of free time. They may choose to sit around and drink beer and watch
football games but that is their free choice. People who refused to study in
school, didn't do anything to advance themselves and prefer drugs and booze
may not have such a great life experience. But they made that choice too.


>
> Most working people in this country do not "keep most of their
> earnings." Every
> penny that comes in each week is expended each week on those
> things our culture
> thinks are necessities. Now, as in Thoreau's time, most lives are
> spent in quiet
> desperation.

They get to spend their money on what they want to spend it on, not on what
some government flunky decides to spend it on. In Europe something like 60%
of all earnings are redistributed by government. That means they take money
from the worker ants, at gunpoint, and hand (after a suitable amount sticks
to the governments hands of course) it over to the lazy grasshoppers. The
grasshoppers are all too happy to provide their votes in exchange, of
course.


>
> I like money, but I like other things too much to have ever
> accumulated very
> much of it. Trails and the pursuit and the preservation of wildness are my
> current passion, but somehow trails and wildness have escaped the market
> economy. Only governments and an occasional non-profit
> organization provide
> places for humans to enjoy the woods and mountains.

Teddy Roosevelt, a Republican, had quite a bit to do with starting up the
national Park system. It is only enlightened self interest to preserve
unique lands and ecosystems.

>
> The logical extension of Bryan's arguments are that things like
> the Appalachian
> Trail and public parks and forests are socialist and should be
> banned. My query
> to those who say we have enough public recreational lands is
> simple. Which park
> do you propose we sell?

No problem with that, Escalante NM would be the first to go in my book,
followed by a lot of other western BLM, NF and some other NP and NM.
Escalante was a completely cynical and political creation by the Clinton
administration. Nothing is unique about the landscape since that type of
land is already represented in very big chunks by nearby Bryce, Zion and
Canyonlands. Clinton was just doing some political payback to the enviro
lobby while spitting on the locals who would never vote for him anyway.

I don't think there is any justification for some western states to by more
than 80% owned by the federal government. A lot of this BLM and NF land
would be better taken care of if it was in private hands. Someone will take
much better care of his own land rather than some federal land that he just
leases. If the land is spectacular: mountains, lakes and so on; then make
them into parks or monuments. Sell the rest.

 And if the answer is none, to tell me by
> what mechanism
> did we happen to hit upon the exact amount needed for now and
> into the future.
>