Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uwm.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!unix.cis.pitt.edu!rhg2
From: rhg2@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Rich  Graham)
Newsgroups: alt.individualism
Subject: Re: Kennedy wasn't the first.
Message-ID: <21703@unix.cis.pitt.edu>
Date: 18 Jan 90 17:00:22 GMT
References: <89348.161937BROWN@NCSUVM.BITNET. <1372@becker.UUCP. <461@smcnet.UUCP. <51@zds-ux.UUCP. <467@smcnet.UUCP. <67@zds-ux.UU <2540@odin.SGI.COM. <90008.000413HERSCH@AUVM.BITNET. <1856@osc.COM> <21642@unix.cis.pitt.edu> <1999@quiche.cs.mcgill.ca>
Reply-To: rhg2@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Rich  Graham)
Organization: Univ. of Pittsburgh, Comp & Info Services
Lines: 70

In article <1999@quiche.cs.mcgill.ca> utility@quiche.cs.mcgill.ca (Ronald BODKIN) writes:
>	Well I can't imagine how you draw a link between communists,
>whose raison-d' etre is to IMPOSE controls on other people's lives
>and advance the cause of statism and groups which HAPPEN to be
>unpopular for irrational reasons.  

Easy, they're all examples of people recieving social persection for a
characteristic which we claim to believe they are welcome to hold.  We
say "we think people should be free to hold any beliefs they like and 
express them whenever they like," and then socially and economically 
punish people for doing just that.

Also, all (existing) govt. by its very nature exists to impose controls 
on people's lives.  The problem isn't the desire to impose controls, but
what controls are to be imposed.

>
>Frankly, I am DELIGHTED when
>communists suffer heavily in private dealings.  Just as it pleases
>me when a man who successfully overcomes a conviction due to a
>technicality is nonetheless ostracized.  

So then if you were to say "I may not agree with what you say, but I'll
defen your right to say it", the statement "but I'll see to it that you
never work in this town again" would appear in parantheses.

>To some extent, a group
>which advocates the communist position is almost at the point of
>advocating criminalactivity and the fact thatthey'd like to get
>democratic support is totally irrelevant.  However, its
>too dangerous to pursue these people along these lines, although if
>communists were elected it would be people's foremost requirement
>to oppose them in any sense.  

What you're saying is that communsists are so dangerous that, if allowed
to actually hold jobs and stuff, they could convince the stupid public
into electing them into office, and enacting their programs.  The only 
way to stop this is to "shun" them socially and economically.  Public 
debate and free election is just not enough.  This all may be true, but 
I maintain that it is contrary to the philosophical foundation of the 
US govt. system.

BTW, what's inherently dangerous with making economic decisions based
soley on the economics involved (ie who to hire, sell to, etc), and
political decisions soley on political ideas (ie who to elect)?

>	And, before you whine about the destruction these bastards
>have brought on themselves by their offensive views, how about the
>destruction that socialism and general government regulation has
>wrecked on so many lives, both directly and (more usually) as a very
>subtle, persistent drain.

A. Do you accuse everyone who disagrees with you of whining?  Is it
whining when I do it, and complaining or asserting when you do it?

B. Just what is the fair destruction that holders of offensive views
deserve?  Are there similar punishments due people who have offensive
sexual practices or offensive religious beliefs?

C. How about changing the way government does things by VOTING.  
I'm not going to argue the relative merits of communism with you.  I'm
not communist or socialist.  Frankly, I think that those sorts of
controlled economies are doomed to failure.  But I intend to defeat
these people in public debate and at the ballot box.  I don't think
there's any need to starve them too.

-- 
Richard H. Graham
University of Pittsburgh - CIS
rhg2@unix.cis.pitt.edu