Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!caip!rutgers!lll-crg!lll-lcc!pyramid!voder!kontron!cramer
From: cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: net.misc
Subject: Re: humanity
Message-ID: <1120@kontron.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 10-Oct-86 17:02:16 EDT
Article-I.D.: kontron.1120
Posted: Fri Oct 10 17:02:16 1986
Date-Received: Sun, 12-Oct-86 03:32:35 EDT
References: <1111@kontron.UUCP> <1182@cybvax0.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: Kontron Electronics, Mt. View, CA
Lines: 32

> It's really nice of Clayton to come right out and demonstrate how stupid
> his rationales are.
> 
> In article <1111@kontron.UUCP> cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
> > We object to coercive redistribution of income for the same reason we object
> > to the draft -- if it's really such a good idea, and it really has majority
> > support, you don't need to force it.
> 
> Why then should we coerce to enforce any law then?  The vast majority thinks
> keeping their posessions is a good idea: why then do we need laws against
> theft?
> 

You have a valid point IF the coercive redistribution of income applied only
to a minority of the population, and IF you fail to distinguish between
criminal actions (i.e. aggressing against others) and non-aggressive behavior
(making money).

> The answer is that there is an advantage to be gained by violating socially
> desired conventions.  Conventions that make lots of socially useful sense
> cannot be supported in the face of too many violators (freeloaders.)
> 
> Plainly, Clayton, your argument is incomplete at best.
> -- 
> 
> Mike Huybensz		...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh

Incomplete, yes.  But if you want to argue that the welfare state represents
majority will, you are going to have to explain why people have to be forced
to support it.

Clayton E. Cramer