Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!caip!think!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
From: mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz)
Newsgroups: net.misc
Subject: Re: humanity
Message-ID: <1182@cybvax0.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 7-Oct-86 11:51:59 EDT
Article-I.D.: cybvax0.1182
Posted: Tue Oct  7 11:51:59 1986
Date-Received: Thu, 9-Oct-86 02:44:31 EDT
References: <1111@kontron.UUCP>
Reply-To: mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz)
Distribution: net
Organization: Cybermation, Inc., Cambridge, MA
Lines: 20

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?

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