Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site cybvax0.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxb!mhuxn!mhuxm!mhuxj!houxm!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh From: mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) Newsgroups: net.politics.theory Subject: Re: All hail the status quo! (esp. J. Giles) Message-ID: <347@cybvax0.UUCP> Date: Mon, 11-Feb-85 16:05:15 EST Article-I.D.: cybvax0.347 Posted: Mon Feb 11 16:05:15 1985 Date-Received: Wed, 13-Feb-85 03:20:15 EST References: <21183@lanl.ARPA> <647@unmvax.UUCP> <345@cybvax0.UUCP> <658@unmvax.UUCP> Reply-To: mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) Distribution: net Organization: Cybermation, Inc., Cambridge, MA Lines: 141 Summary: In article <658@unmvax.UUCP> cliff@unmvax.UUCP writes: > > In article <647@unmvax.UUCP> cliff@unmvax.UUCP writes: > >>> It's not wrong for a person to take money from himself. Why would it be > >>> wrong for a group to take money from itself? That's how taxes work out > >>> for a democracy anyway. > >> > >> Think hard friend, if you are alone on a subway, and two people enter it, > >> you are now a group. If those two vote that you should give them all > >> your money, then would it be wrong for a group to take money from itself? > >> That's how taxes work out for a democracy anyway. > > > > Your analogy breaks down rather rapidly. In practice, in the US, the groups > > do not form and break up so frivolously... groups are [relatively] stable > > and the taxation is predictable. And if you don't like one group, you can > > relocate rather freely. There is at least one US state without income tax > > (Alaska), and I believe there are several nations with no taxes as well. > > My original comment was addressing J. Gile's claim that: > > "It's not wrong for a person to take money from himself. Why would it be > wrong for a group to take money from itself? That's how taxes work out for > a democracy anyway." > > My analogy holds up well to the original claim. The original claim said > nothing of the frivolity of the duration of groups, nor the predictability of > the taking through force. Ah, my mistake. You are correct here in pointing out a fallacy of decomposition (what may be true for a group may not be true for any particular member of the group.) Thus, it may be right for the group to take money from itself, but wrong for it to take money from any particular member. > So it becomes legitimate if you ride the subway every day for a large portion > of your life and quite predictably the same two people enter it every day > and then force you to give them your money? Here we have a conflict between the group and an individual member. You have selected an example where the group's interest is unappealing. It is just as simple to pick a counterexample where the individual's interest is unappealing. Imagine a landowner who has a really good well. A drought comes, and the other's livestock is all dying because their wells dried up and the landowner (for reasons just as unscrupulous as those of the thieves) refuses to sell any of his abundant water. Here, most people would support the group's taking the water. > >> Actually, the fruits of someone's labor allowed someone to claim it. > >> You have to reach the land to claim it. Reaching unclaimed land (which > >> is NOT what the colonists did since there was already a group of people > >> using the land) is very much labor. The best source of unclaimed land > >> now is not on this earth, and you can bet your toenails that when someone > >> claims it, there will have been quite a bit of labor going into that claim. > > > > My, it all sounds so equitable. Until you consider that it's only the FIRST > > one to perform that labor who can benefit. "I'm sorry, you were born into > > the wrong historical time-frame to perform this labor to claim land, so > > you are denied access to the primary means of production. Because we all > > own it already. Nyah nyah." Perhaps if infinite resources were available > > at the same rate.... > > I was adressing J. Giles claim that > "At some point in the past someone came out to your land, pounded some > stakes in the ground, and said 'this is my land'. His ownership of the > land didn't come from any 'fruits of labor', he just claimed the land." > I was pointing out that what he said was quite wrong. I didn't say that it > was equitable, but the primary means of production is the human body/mind, > not a piece of land. The bare fact is that access to capital (in the form of land, resources, money, education, etc.) is an extremely important requirement for production. While bodies/minds are essential, they are seldom enough. Otherwise, India would be extremely rich. Thus, there is inequity involved in private ownership of resources when that excludes others from some sort of reasonable access. (In other words, I advocate a compromise between private ownership and communism.) > > For someone concerned with what's right and wrong, > > you seem to want to overlook a fundamental injustice that is addressed by > > the current system of redistribution, but ignored by libertarians. > > Thank you for phrasing your statement this way. I may *seem* to be ignoring > a fundamental injustice, but at least you don't pull the "you are a libertarian, > you hate all of humanity--you are mean and nasty" stuff that we seem to take > from all sides. I sincerely thank you for your realization that at least some > libertarians are concerned with "what's right and wrong." You're welcome. I've met very few people who think of themselves as scourges of humanity, so I try to be charitable and not provoke flaming. Sometimes I goof though. (Sorry about my previous note's crack about dictionaries.) > >> What people who rally around the democracy in the u.s. are really saying is > >> that they are well off and are happy that things worked out the way they did. > > And why shouldn't they? Why should they think that they'd be > > better off and happier under your system? > > Why shouldn't they? Because we are not a democracy. The people have much > less ability to influence our countries policies than we would have in a > true democracy. Some people even like to pretend that not only are we in a > democracy, but that our being such a government (which we aren't) somehow > justifies all the actions of our government. I admit it; at this time I prefer > to be a U.S. citizen than not. I just don't kid myself into believing that the > reason we have National Parks is because we are a "democracy." I don't even > kid myself into believing we are a democracy. For "why shouldn't they", see the following paragraph. I don't see why an individual would have more effect in a direct democracy than our present system. Please explain that separately. > > They already are the best off in > > the world: perhaps you should perform an experiment somewhere where there is > > less to lose? > > I hear you! I think it would be an excellent idea. I would like to see some > politically minded people have paper plans for a better government that can be > delivered into the hands of whomever overthrows some despot in another country. > Right now it seems that the works of Marx and Engels enjoy too much > experimentation without producing a sufficiently better country. I am all > changing peoples minds by example rather than force. I intend to be very > active in whatever local I settle on (after finishing my degrees), maybe I > will move back to New Hampshire where the local government is a democracy. > (If you ever get a chance to go to a town meeting back there, don't wait > for another chance...democracy in action is a great spectator sport). > BTW, New Hampshire has no broad based tax (including no income tax). > > > It would be so much more convincing there. Or does your small > > group want to inflict its ideas on the rest of us? I don't think you'd want > > to do it: sounds inconsistant. > > You are right. I don't want to "inflict" my ideas on anyone, however as long > as I am a citizen, you can bet I will vote to at least try to steer our > country to the side of liberty. I can agree with you above. I think experimentation is a good idea, so long as all the eggs aren't in one basket. Perhaps you missed a good chance to try your ideas in Grenada? After all, why should Ronnie be allowed to inflict his tired right-wing ideas there when an interesting experiment could be conducted instead. Perhaps a libertarian peace corps could organize a party there, and eventually win elected control of the island. -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh