Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site looking.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!looking!brad From: brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) Newsgroups: can.politics Subject: Re: The non-interference society; judgement in haste? Message-ID: <179@looking.UUCP> Date: Tue, 21-Aug-84 00:00:00 EDT Article-I.D.: looking.179 Posted: Tue Aug 21 00:00:00 1984 Date-Received: Wed, 22-Aug-84 00:41:51 EDT References: <8712@watmath.UUCP> Organization: Looking Glass Software, Waterloo, Ont Lines: 46 Ian, your arguments do bring out many of the good things that governments can do if managed appropriately. There are some more consideratons. 1) Governments are not managed appropriately. Unlike companies, which are managed for personal profit, Government officials strive for personal POWER. Now I trust far more somebody who is out to trade for my money than somebody who is out for power over me. If you don't know that this is the goal of the politician, in almost pure and simple terms, you've never been inside politics. 2) Almost all problems you stated are problems of information, and coordination of information, and computers are solving this. 3) If vast numbers of people truly do support this sort of system, they are encouraged to setup a "government corporation" within the system. They can elect their officers, and pay portions of their income to it. They can make the taxes scaled to punish the rich and reward the poor, or do it any way they like. They can have their corp buy out closing factories and support jobs. If the majority wants this corp, they will join it. It can provide all the advantages of government you seek. Except my thesis is that such a corp will go bankrupt quickly without the force of arms to support it. And if this is the case, where is the moral justification for using force of arms to support it. Unlike an army that defends a civilization, our government uses force to attack society. It's my impression that if anything, governments are MORE shortsighted than individuals. Individual freedom promotes individuality. Both for what is good and for what is bad. If we outlaw the physical crimes, the good easily outweighs the bad. There's enough evidence to say it's worth a try, at the very least. I find this much like the abortion issue. "pro-lifers" claim they have the interests of society (including the unborn) at heart, and they try to impose their will on others. "pro-choicers" claim they just want a world of individual freedom, where nobody is forced to have or not have an abortion. The pro-lifers state they have the right to use force because lots of people agree with them. The pro-choicers say the issue isn't clear, and should thus not be legislated. Well I'm a pro-choicer. As the debate in can.politics indicates, it's very clear that the issue isn't clear. Thus it doesn't belong in the law. -- Brad Templeton - Waterloo, Ontario (519) 884-7473