Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cuae2!ihnp4!qantel!ptsfa!ptsfd!djo
From: djo@ptsfd.UUCP (Dan'l Oakes)
Newsgroups: net.misc
Subject: Re: humanity
Message-ID: <502@ptsfd.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 12-Oct-86 15:03:25 EDT
Article-I.D.: ptsfd.502
Posted: Sun Oct 12 15:03:25 1986
Date-Received: Mon, 13-Oct-86 05:45:20 EDT
References: <1111@kontron.UUCP> <1182@cybvax0.UUCP> <1120@kontron.UUCP>
Reply-To: djo@ptsfd.UUCP (Dan'l Oakes)
Distribution: net
Organization: Pacific * Bell, San Ramon, CA
Lines: 25

In article <1120@kontron.UUCP> cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>
>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).
>

And you, in turn, have a valid point IF you accept that making money is
a fortiori a non-aggressive action.  In particular, the stance required
is that making money in excess of the needs of yourself -- and, of course,
your dependents (if any) for the necessities of life (food, clothing, shelter,
education, and a basic level of recreation) is a non-aggressive action.  In
personal terms, that is to say "My need for a new VCR takes precedence over
any desire I may have to see that fellow over there fed," and to feel that this
is not in any way an act of aggression against that-fellow-over-there.  

I am not claiming that this an unethical stance; however, to deny that this is
in essence what you are saying, Mr Cramer, when you categorically define the
making (and, implicitly, the keeping) of money as "non-aggressive behavior"
-- to deny this would be simply lying to yourself:  bad faith.

Gomen nasai.

Dan'l Danehy-Oakes