We survived WITHOUT safety edicts

"JG" wrote in message t...
"Wendy Marsden" wrote in message
...

JG wrote:

Gee, has anyone perceived a pattern here? With the exception of
McCourt's family, all the examples Wendy offered for consideration are
instances of "STARVATION BY GOVERNMENT"! (Okay, quasi-government
Valley Forge.) Too funny...

Just a quick morsel of food for thought. If starvation is usually
caused by the government, doesn't that imply that government
involvement will usually be required to end it?

"abacus" wrote
Just a quick morsel of food for thought. If starvation is usually
caused by the government, doesn't that imply that government
involvement will usually be required to end it?

The only mass starvations of the 20th century were caused by
gubmnt actions that blocked food from getting to the people.
So yes, sometimes gubmnt involved is needed to end those
policies that involve deliberately starving people.

Roger Schlafly wrote:
The only mass starvations of the 20th century were caused by
gubmnt actions that blocked food from getting to the people.
So yes, sometimes gubmnt involved is needed to end those
policies that involve deliberately starving people.

Hang on, I cited a few examples from the 18th and 19th centuries that were
caused by governmental actions, but that doesn't mean ALL mass starvations
were caused by the government everywhere.

Let's see, the 20th Century had the creation of the great dust bowl where
crops failed from over-farming and drought. There was also a few bouts of
pestilence (ever hear of a chestnut or an elm? Food crops got eaten,
too.) *MY* government didn't have the power to prevent these things.

There were mass migrations of immigrants to the cities (like my
great-grandparents) and there was also a HUGE population of share-croppers
and migrant farm-workers doing the agricultural work previously done by
slaves (slaves were at least supplied with food even if not freedom or
money.) I'd say the government ALLOWED these policies, but I don't think
they created the hunger.

There was a world wide epidemic of flu that killed predominantly people
in their highest earning years. It's a HUGE reach to say the Spanish flu
was caused by the Government, although sending the servicemen overseas in
WW1 probably aided in its spread.

Oh, and how about a Great Depression where people lost their jobs and
farms and couldn't buy food? I don't think you can honestly say that
was caused by governmental policies, unless you're referring to the
precursor of the SEC as a governmental agency and think the world-wide
economy is controllable.

I imagine you sitting there saying, "well, I'm not hungry and I don't know
anyone else who is hungry so hunger must not exist."

I find you puzzling - is this really how you think or are you just
trolling?

Wendy

On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 03:40:26 GMT, Wendy Marsden
wrote:

Roger Schlafly wrote:
The only mass starvations of the 20th century were caused by
gubmnt actions that blocked food from getting to the people.
So yes, sometimes gubmnt involved is needed to end those
policies that involve deliberately starving people.

Hang on, I cited a few examples from the 18th and 19th centuries that were
caused by governmental actions, but that doesn't mean ALL mass starvations
were caused by the government everywhere.

Roger claims to have a doctorate in mathematics yet he has difficulty
with the most basic principles of logic.

I find you puzzling - is this really how you think or are you just
trolling?

I ask myself that about him practically every time I read one of his
posts.

PF

Roger Schlafly wrote:

Migration, yes. Flu, yes. Unemployment, yes. I've lost track of your
point here.

People need the safety edicts - the welfare system run by the government -
to survive. And people without those benefits died.

Wendy

"Wendy Marsden" wrote
Migration, yes. Flu, yes. Unemployment, yes. I've lost track of your
point here.
People need the safety edicts - the welfare system run by the government -
to survive. And people without those benefits died.

And for you examples, you give historical events like the 1918 flu??!
You are not making any sense.

Wendy Marsden wrote in message ...
Roger Schlafly wrote:

Migration, yes. Flu, yes. Unemployment, yes. I've lost track of your
point here.

People need the safety edicts - the welfare system run by the government -
to survive. And people without those benefits died.

Wendy

This is an interesting conversation. I think that a governmental
policy of redistribution of wealth (which is what welfare benefits
are) does allow more people to survive harsh economic times - which
are often the result of governmental policies in the first place. In
addition, the current system of providing welfare benefits without
requiring the recipients to work for them but only to establish their
*need* results in more *needy* people because it becomes a lifestyle
choice for some, and for others it becomes a backup that they can rely
on rather than relying on themselves.

Safety edicts also save lives. But the cost of such measures is
usually some aspect of our freedom. I'm not convinced that many of the
safety measures currently being legally mandated (such as carseats,
bicycle helmets, etc.) are sufficiently beneficial to justify their
being required by law rather than optional.

Lowering the speed limit to 10 mph would also save lives, but we don't
generally consider the cost of such a measure to be worth the price of
such a limitation. On the other hand, we do consider speed limits and
various other traffic regulations to be reasonable limitations on
individual freedom in order to reduce accidents and their resulting
damage to an acceptable level. At what point - how many lives - does
the imposition of such measures and the resulting reduction in
individual freedom become acceptable?

I don't what the right answer is, but you've all provided me with some
food for thought. Thanks.

"abacus" wrote
This is an interesting conversation. I think that a governmental
policy of redistribution of wealth (which is what welfare benefits
are) does allow more people to survive harsh economic times - which
are often the result of governmental policies in the first place.

The track record is mixed. Most of the FDR New Deal policies
of the 1930s ended up making the Depression worse.

Safety edicts also save lives. But the cost of such measures is
usually some aspect of our freedom. I'm not convinced that many of the
safety measures currently being legally mandated (such as carseats,
bicycle helmets, etc.) are sufficiently beneficial to justify their
being required by law rather than optional.

Yes. Some safety edicts are so good that no one questions them,
but those you mention are debatable.

Lowering the speed limit to 10 mph would also save lives, but we don't
generally consider the cost of such a measure to be worth the price of
such a limitation. On the other hand, we do consider speed limits and
various other traffic regulations to be reasonable limitations on
individual freedom in order to reduce accidents and their resulting
damage to an acceptable level. At what point - how many lives - does ...

For most the 1970s-1990s we were told that the 55 mph US speed
limit was saving lives. But now that the national speed limit has been
dropped and many states have higher limits, there has been no increase
in the accident rate attributable to the increase.

Roger Schlafly wrote:
"Wendy Marsden" wrote
Migration, yes. Flu, yes. Unemployment, yes. I've lost track of your
point here.
People need the safety edicts - the welfare system run by the government -
to survive. And people without those benefits died.

And for you examples, you give historical events like the 1918 flu??!
You are not making any sense.

As an example of something causing starvation that wasn't caused by the
government. You have to extrapolate a bit: the 1918 flu was remarkable in
how many young and strong men it killed. That left families without their
earning power and subsequently one can presume that they went hungry. I'm
not claiming it was "mass starvation", but I'd bet my bottom dollar that
there was sporadic starvation as a result.

Wendy

Roger Schlafly wrote:

For most the 1970s-1990s we were told that the 55 mph US speed
limit was saving lives. But now that the national speed limit has been
dropped and many states have higher limits, there has been no increase
in the accident rate attributable to the increase.

No increase in the OVERALL accident rate, but more elderly are dying and
less healthy young men are dying on the interstate. The problem appears
to be one of disparity of speed. An old fogey going 50 is more likely to
be rear-ended and killed now that traffic is going 80 around them.

Wendy