Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ukma!rutgers!bellcore!texbell!sugar!ficc!jeffd
From: jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell)
Newsgroups: comp.society.futures
Subject: Re: Daiell vs. Shein
Summary: A Positive Approach
Message-ID: <2275@ficc.uu.net>
Date: 20 Nov 88 07:36:27 GMT
References: <8811172035.AA07909@snark.UUCP> <8811181529.AA06739@pinocchio.UUCP>
Organization: Ferranti International Controls
Lines: 51

In article <8811181529.AA06739@pinocchio.UUCP>, bzs@PINOCCHIO.BERKELEY.EDU (Barry Shein) writes:
> 
> Had he said something more interesting/germaine than "Hitler was a
> socialist!" there would have been no problem.

  I wish BS would quite taking this out of context.  Someone replied to
  a wish that computernets be funded voluntaristicly by sneering,
  "Sounds like something Ronnie would write."  I objected to the
  guilt-by-association, and pointed out that, just because Hitler
  liked chocolates, it doesn't mean that every chocolate lover is
  a socialist.  It was an analogy, not the main point of my posting.


> 
> 
> Post some interesting proposal to fund networks or some such thing
> relating to the future of technology based on a Libertarian view of
> the future 

  I did.  Private, non-coercively funded, competing and/or cooperating
  companies.  But there are other ways, including users' associations,
  cooperatives, nets provided as incentives or fringe benefits,
  etc.  Means that don't involve forcing persons to pay for 
  something they don't use. 

> 
> (other than tied by some vague thread of "who pays the bill") 

  I'm sorry BS doesn't consider this important.  I find it a 
  matter of fundamental justice.  If computer users force
  the taxpayers to fund a net, should gunowners demand 
  tax-paid firearms?  Or church-goers a subsidy for their
  expenses?   All too often, we translate "needs" and 
  "wants" into "rights" -- that is, too many people believe
  they are entitled to good or service X just because they
  want it, and therefore feel entitled to compel others to
  provide it.  Whether one does this directly (i.e., with a
  Saturday Night Special) or indirectly (i.e., via the
  Income Robbery Syndicate) is irrelevant.  It's still
  wrong, and right-vs.-wrong is the most basic question of
  all.

Thanks for reading.

Jeff Daiell
(opinions my own, at least until the IRS confiscates them)
  


-- 
                   Fiat Justitia, Ruat Caelum