Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bellcore!ulysses!allegra!princeton!rutgers!sri-spam!nike!ll-xn!mit-amt!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
From: mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz)
Newsgroups: net.misc
Subject: Re: humanity
Message-ID: <1191@cybvax0.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 14-Oct-86 14:26:46 EDT
Article-I.D.: cybvax0.1191
Posted: Tue Oct 14 14:26:46 1986
Date-Received: Tue, 21-Oct-86 00:28:51 EDT
References: <1111@kontron.UUCP> <1182@cybvax0.UUCP> <1120@kontron.UUCP>
Reply-To: mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz)
Distribution: net
Organization: Cybermation, Inc., Cambridge, MA
Lines: 45

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

Then my point is valid because: 1) coercion against theft and tax evasion is
analogous.  There is a standing threat to potential violaters, and the vast
majority are never actively coerced.  2) The criminality of theft and tax
evasion revolve around the question of ownership.  Part of the social contract
you must abide by as a citizen is the agreement that the government owns a
portion of your income.  Neither theft nor tax evasion need be aggressive:
both may be fraud (which is also generally considered criminal by normal
people and libertarians alike.)

> > 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.)
> 
> ... 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.

Read my paragraph again, Clayton.  Sound out the big words if you need to.
It explains exactly what you demand.

Evidently Clayton want laws to read like this:  "This law doesn't coerce or
threaten good people who don't break it, only bad people who do break it."
That way the majority of good people isn't coerced, and only the minority
of bad people is.  :-(
--

Writing with conviction is no substitute for writing with a rational argument.
-- 

Mike Huybensz		...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh