> On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 09:11:50 +0300,
> holman@mappi.helsinki.fi (Eugene Holman) wrote:
>
>>In article
4ax.com>,
>>craig_stevens@no-reply-wanted.net wrote:
>>
>>Craig, please remember that I am writing from the Eastern Europe Standard
>>Time zone: we are seven hours ahead of the American Eastern Standard Time
>>and ten hours ahead of Western Standard Time...
>>
>>I never run away, but time differences and week-end commitments sometimes
>>mean that I do not respond immediately.>
> Explanation accepted.
>
>>>
>>Some would call that progress. Read John Kenneth Galbraith's *The New
>>Industrial State* (1967) for one view of the future of capitalism-
>
> See how you are against capitalism? Once again you're socialist though
you can't see it.
Galbraith's book is a study of the possible future of capitalism.
>>I am not a statist,
>
> But you are.
>
>>but I do believe that even in a capitalist society
>>some services are best provided by the state so as to ensure universal
>>access. Even you, I presume, think that policing, fire-fighting, and
>>national defense are best provided by the state.
>
> That is what is known as General Welfare in our American Constitution.
>
>>In all European countries
>>the situation that you have in the US, where many small cities lack both
>>internal public transportation as well as any link by train, bus, or air
>>other than that provided by private car, to the outside world would be
>>inconceivable.
>>
>>A certain minimal level of mobility is regarded as a civic
>>right.
>
> Not so. In America being able to drive a car is a privilege not a
civic/civil right.
Reread what I wrote. In European countries a certain minimal level of
subidized mobility is regarded as a civic right. In America it is not.
As you correctly stated, in America being able to drive a car is a
privilege. In Europe, being able to move from one place to another without
hving to own a car is regarded as a civic right.
>>Similarly, a situation where the decision to play the odds and not
>>insure the health of him/herself and his/her family is also regarded as
>>inconceivable. Call this statism if you will, I call it a division of
>>civic rights and responsibilities among those best able to provide them.
>
> Health care is not a civic/civil right. It is wrong for any people to be
led to believe that
> they are owed something which you cal a civic right which other people
have to pay for via
> forced government redistribution of wealth.
Different countries and societies have different ideas about what are and
are not civic rights. Most advanced societies regard universal health care
as a civic right and goverment responsibility. The United States stands
glaringly alone on this issue.
>>But then again, you live in a country that even has private prisons...
>
> What do you socialists do with your criminals?
We are not socialists. We imprison criminals, but not in privately owned
prisons. We also do what we can in the way of rehabilitating criminals,
meaning that their stay in prison is usually far shorter than it would be
for a similar crime in the United States.
>>>>A business has the luxury of being able to cater to its targeted
>>>>clientele rather than the responsibility of having to serve the
entire population.
>>>
>>> By your logic then Mercedes Benz should be providing the poor instead of
>>> them buying used cars.
>>
>>Not at all. By my logic Mercedes Benz's should be available to people that
>>want and can afford them, but some form of transportation should be
>>available, accessible. and affordable to those who do not want or cannot
>>afford Mercedes Benz's. As a footnote I might add that a considerable
>>percentage of the taxis here in Finland are late model Mercedes Benz's
>>(popularly called Merssu), see e.g.
>>
http://www.ylitalot.net/img.cgi?fname=photos/2006Koti3/9867_1.jpg.
>
> I know how Mercedes are "cheap" in Europe. They are expensive in America
due to taxes and
> duties.
The cheapest Mercedes-Benz here, a 150-B, will set you back
