[FoRK] Fwd: Vast Differences in Compensation.doc
Gregory Alan Bolcer
gbolcer at endeavors.com
Mon Mar 15 06:45:19 PST 2004
Okay, I see where we disconnected. My opinion is that I am
generally for victim compensation funds as they typically are not
cash grants when set up and administered by the US government.
I don't feel strongly about it one way or the other related to
common defense issues and federal jurisdiction murder statutes.
I agree that handing out cash for nothing other than being in the
wrong place at the wrong time is a bizarre concept.
That said, my understandinig is that the purpose of Victim
compensations funds is to ensure two things: 1) equal justice
under the law, and 2) mitigation of the economic impact of any
event, manmade or not. Almost every government at all levels
has a victim compensation fund.
The ones that use cash grants typically are only at the county
or state level to offset the cost burden to the family for seeing
justice done. Only the most sovereign individualist libertarians
think that the level of justice should be commeasurate with
the level of ability to support it. For 2) I found a really good GAO
breakdown of the primary economic impacts.  I think it makes
a lot of sense to restore the engine as quickly as possible due to
the butterfly effect.
I found another good document on how the comnpensations
are being doled. It's a hodgepodge of tax exemptions: reduced
income taxes, exclusion of death benefits, estate tax reduction,
charitable donations treated as exempt, exclusion and cancellation
of certain types of indebtness, etc. My interpretation is that it's
removing the onerous governmental obligations that wouldn't
have been paid anyways and making sure there's no disincentive
to being a future productive citizen. It's truly a Miltonian (Friedman)
For funds like the 9-11 fireman's fund--it's a completely different
story as the contributions are voluntary as you can vote with
your feet/checkbook--yet another Milton Friedman influence on
our way of viewing economics.
From: fork-bounces at xent.com on behalf of Russell Turpin
Sent: Sun 3/14/2004 12:40 PM
To: fork at xent.com
Subject: RE: [FoRK] Fwd: Vast Differences in Compensation.doc
>First, where did I say compensating murder victims?
You didn't. You said (a) that anti-terrorism belongs
to the federal government, which is true, that
therefore (b) the federal government should
compensate the survivors of terrorist victims.
I'm questioning the rationale in this. It seems to
be something like: (1) if combatting some
misbehavior X is the duty of the government, then
(2) the government should compensate those
who are killed by that misbehavior. I pointed out
that few people hold to this rationale with regard
to state governments and crime, since that
questions why we should hold it with regard to
the federal government and terrorism.
I apologize if I incorrectly inferred your rationale.
Learn how to help protect your privacy and prevent fraud online at Tech
Hacks & Scams. http://special.msn.com/msnbc/techsafety.armx
FoRK mailing list
More information about the FoRK