From: jim bell <jimbell@pacifier.com>
Date: Sat, 7 Sep 1996 05:22:41 +0800
To: jonathon <grafolog@netcom.com>
Subject: Re: Race Bit: C
Message-ID: <199609061750.KAA06787@mail.pacifier.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


At 05:05 AM 9/6/96 +0000, jonathon wrote:
>On Thu, 5 Sep 1996, jim bell wrote:
>
>> The way I see it, the status quo doesn't come "pre-justified":  It needs 
>> just as much a defense as any other proposal.  Its main advantage is that it 
>> tends to be more understood that most hypotheticals, because it's been 
>
>More understood, and just more accepted, because alternatives
>are hard to conceive, and even harder to popularize, without
>lots of red liquid running in the streets?

Since red liquid running in the streets is generally so reviled, one of the 
things which mystifies me is why there aren't more simulation-type programs 
used to test out hypotheticals, for example a "SimEconomy."   For example, 
you'll occasionally hear about a media news organization gathering a dozen 
or so volunteers in a room, and asking them to solve a problem like "The 
Budget Deficit" or some such.   The result of their interplay is generally 
used to explain why these problems are hard to solve.

I, for one, would love to be able to program in an immediate 25%+ reduction 
in military spending (added to that a 5%/year cumulative cut after that for 
10+ years), a 5% cut then a cap on Socialist Insecurity, 5% per year 
(cumulative,for 10 years) of reduction in welfare, along with similarly 
substantial cuts/caps in Medicare and a few other features.  Obviously, a 
computer-based simulation wouldn't just blindly do the cuts, but would also 
estimate the secondary and tertiary effects of such cuts, for example 
spending in areas whose economies are traditionally dependant on defense 
programs, etc.  

I'm not saying that I think these changes would be _easy_, politically, but 
if the average citizen were made aware of how simple the changes were, he'd 
be less tolerant of special-interest politics.


>	On second thoughts, let's just terminate
>	with extreme prejudice, each and every individual
>	who has worked in any capacity for any part of any
>	government agency in the us -- regardless of whether it
>	was federal, state or local, and regardless of whether 
>	they were president, janitor, or clerk.
>	All people in the employ of government agencies are death-dealers.

I hope you don't expect me to argue with this  B^)

Jim Bell
jimbell@pacifier.com