colonel@gloria.UUCP (George Sicherman) (09/14/84)
["Labor deserves respect; property, power." --The Slavertarian Manifesto] >> Perhaps we who are libertarians are just a little more >> concerned at how tacky it is to point guns at people and force >> them to go along with us (however well-intentioned the cause). "Tacky" is hardly the word! And those of us who are not libertarians accept that in any society the people with guns and followers will force us to go along with them. When central goverment relinquishes or loses this power, gangs assume it. "Well, David," said he, "since he couldnae be rid of the loyal commons by fair means, he swore he would be rid of them by foul. Ardshiel was to starve; that was the thing he aimed at. And since them that fed him in his exile wouldnae be bought out--right or wrong, he would drive them out. Therefore he sent for lawyers and papers, and red-coats to stand at his back. And the kindly folk of that country must all pack and tramp, every father's son out of his father's house, and out of the place where he was bred and fed, and played when he was a callant. And who are to succeed them? Bare-leggit beggars! King George is to whistle for his rents; he maun dow with less; he can spread his butter thinner: what cares Red Colin?" R. L. Stevenson, _Kidnapped_ (1886) -- Col. G. L. Sicherman ...seismo!rochester!rocksanne!rocksvax!sunybcs!gloria!colonel
mwm@ea.UUCP (09/20/84)
/***** ea:net.politics / gloria!colonel / 11:53 pm Sep 18, 1984 */ >> Perhaps we who are libertarians are just a little more >> concerned at how tacky it is to point guns at people and force >> them to go along with us (however well-intentioned the cause). "Tacky" is hardly the word! And those of us who are not libertarians accept that in any society the people with guns and followers will force us to go along with them. When central goverment relinquishes or loses this power, gangs assume it. -- Col. G. L. Sicherman ...seismo!rochester!rocksanne!rocksvax!sunybcs!gloria!colonel /* ---------- */ But does it have to be that way? A libertarian government (government == those with the guns) would only use force to dissuade others from the use of force [Ok, I concede, that would be an ideal libertarian government, with ideal people. Probably not with real people.] Since the US doesn't have such a governmnet, we support the "gang" that comes closest to doing what we want, as do the non-libertarians. The difference is, if our "gang" came into power, you would be free to do what you wanted until you started interfering with someone else's freedom to do so. How many other "gangs" is that true for? <mike
renner@uiucdcs.UUCP (09/22/84)
> >> Perhaps we who are libertarians are just a little more > >> concerned at how tacky it is to point guns at people and force > >> them to go along with us (however well-intentioned the cause). > > "Tacky" is hardly the word! And those of us who are not libertarians > accept that in any society the people with guns and followers will > force us to go along with them. When central goverment relinquishes > or loses this power, gangs assume it. > -- Col. G. L. Sicherman Any group with guns and followers that chooses to force others to "go along" with them *is* a government. This is the distinguishing characteristic of governments. When "central government" is replaced by "gangs," all we really have is a change of government -- most probably, a change for the worse. But it wouldn't have to be that way. There is no reason why I couldn't gather guns and followers in group self-defense. Others could come to trade, or join if they accepted the rules of the group. Those who came to steal or subdue would be fought. All without the protection of "central government." Scott Renner ihnp4!uiucdcs!renner
scw@cepu.UUCP (09/27/84)
In article <29200147@uiucdcs.UUCP> renner@uiucdcs.UUCP writes: >> >> Perhaps we who are libertarians are just a little more >> >> concerned at how tacky it is to point guns at people and force >> >> them to go along with us (however well-intentioned the cause). >> >> "Tacky" is hardly the word! And those of us who are not libertarians >> accept that in any society the people with guns and followers will >> force us to go along with them. When central goverment relinquishes >> or loses this power, gangs assume it. >> -- Col. G. L. Sicherman > >Any group with guns and followers that chooses to force others to "go along" >with them *is* a government. This is the distinguishing characteristic of >governments. When "central government" is replaced by "gangs," all we >really have is a change of government -- most probably, a change for the >worse. > >But it wouldn't have to be that way. There is no reason why I couldn't >gather guns and followers in group self-defense. Others could come to >trade, or join if they accepted the rules of the group. Those who came >to steal or subdue would be fought. All without the protection of >"central government." > >Scott Renner >ihnp4!uiucdcs!renner This is called Feudalism, but Feudalism is much more difficult to practice when you can't build semi-invulnerable castles (that only require a few people to defend). Of course, as the Man said, "Eternal vigilance is the price of freedom.". '...For might makes right until the've seen the light...' -- Stephen C. Woods (VA Wadsworth Med Ctr./UCLA Dept. of Neurology) uucp: { {ihnp4, uiucdcs}!bradley, hao, trwrb, sdcrdcf}!cepu!scw ARPA: cepu!scw@ucla-cs location: N 34 3' 9.1" W 118 27' 4.3"
lkk@mit-eddie.UUCP (Larry Kolodney) (09/28/84)
Most governments ARE nothing but gangs with guns, these are called
totalitarian states. Other governments are at least somewhat responsive
to the need of the populace, the U.S. govt. is one of those.
GIVEN THAT NATURE ABHORS A POWER VACUUM, INTELLIGENT PEOPLE SHOULD
TRY TO FILL IT WITH SOMETHING THAT IS AT WORST BENIGN, LIBERTARIANS, WHO
WOULD LEAVE THAT VACUUM WIDE OPEN, ARE MERELY LEAVING THEMSELVES
VULNERABLE TO ATTACK FROM NON-GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES, WHICH WILL MOST
LIKELY BE MUCH LESS (AT LEAST IN THIS COUNTRY) AFFECTED BY PUBLIC OPINION.
--
larry kolodney (The Devil's Advocate)
UUCP: ...{ihnp4, decvax!genrad}!mit-eddie!lkk
ARPA: lkk@mit-mcrenner@uiucdcs.UUCP (10/03/84)
>> But it wouldn't have to be that way. There is no reason why I couldn't >> gather guns and followers in group self-defense. Others could come to >> trade, or join if they accepted the rules of the group. Those who came >> to steal or subdue would be fought. All without the protection of >> "central government." -- Scott Renner (renner@uiucdcs) > This is called Feudalism, but Feudalism is much more difficult to > practice when you can't build semi-invulnerable castles (that only > require a few people to defend). Of course, as the Man said, > "Eternal vigilance is the price of freedom.". > -- Stephen Woods (scw@cepru I was all set to flame, but then I reread my original article -- and by damn, it does sound a little like feudalism. The trouble is with the word "followers". I would like to replace it with "companions", or "other group members", or even "co-defenders of the people's libertarian movement against the corrupt influence of statist imperialists" Now it doesn't sound like feudalism. Scott Renner {pur-ee,ihnp4}!uiucdcs!renner
nrh@inmet.UUCP (10/03/84)
#R:gloria:-54200:inmet:7800140:000:2065 inmet!nrh Sep 30 14:55:00 1984 >***** inmet:net.politics / mit-eddie!mit-eddie / 7:31 am Sep 30, 1984 >Most governments ARE nothing but gangs with guns, these are called >totalitarian states. Other governments are at least somewhat responsive >to the need of the populace, the U.S. govt. is one of those. > >GIVEN THAT NATURE ABHORS A POWER VACUUM, INTELLIGENT PEOPLE SHOULD >TRY TO FILL IT WITH SOMETHING THAT IS AT WORST BENIGN, LIBERTARIANS, WHO >WOULD LEAVE THAT VACUUM WIDE OPEN, ARE MERELY LEAVING THEMSELVES >VULNERABLE TO ATTACK FROM NON-GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES, WHICH WILL MOST >LIKELY BE MUCH LESS (AT LEAST IN THIS COUNTRY) AFFECTED BY PUBLIC OPINION. About half of libertarians are anarchists, that is, they want NO state. The rest of us would prefer a minimal state with little or no mechanism for increasing its power. Both types of libertarians would be happy to cut back the state by about 95-98%, and then we'd no doubt start squabbling among ourselves about the last 5-2%. As for your assumption that a government should be affected by public opinion, it strikes me as a fine scare tactic (gosh, if the government isn't sensitive to MY opinion, it might lock me up), but since the mechanism by which government is affected by public opinion leaves it pathetically open to special-interest-induced growth, it's not clear to me that one shouldn't wish for a government that CANNOT respond to certain "public opinions". There are (happily) parts of our own constitution that do this, and have done it well. There is no state religion, and there'd have to be a pretty strong majority to impose one (not just a sensitivity to public opinion -- you'd need a 2/3'rds majority in congress). On the other hand, we have the "National Endowment for the Arts". Isn't it wonderful that our government is sensitive enough to public opinion to commit extortion and theft to support the arts? Surely our lives must be enriched by such a policy. Sensitivity to popular opinion has its points -- the problem is that government will do immoral and illegal things to pander to it.
faustus@ucbcad.UUCP (10/04/84)
Look, I'm sick of hearing knee-jerk libertarians refer to everything that the government does as 'extortion'. If you are responsible, and pay for what the government does for you, it's not extortion or theft, it's just paying for what you use. For people who feel as though their political beliefs entitle them to a free ride (by not paying taxes), threat of force is necessary. Sure, it's 'tacky', but it's pretty tacky to use roads and public facilities that OTHER PEOPLE pay for, and take advantage of the military protection and police protection that they have no right to, while all the time whining that they don't want to pay for it. If you don't want to pay taxes, go and live in the mountains and declare yourself open to anybody who wants to come and kill you (you didn't want to pay for police...). Just don't take advantage of MY responsible views towards paying my fair share. Wayne
keller@uicsl.UUCP (10/08/84)
Dear Wayne, Just what is a "fair share"? Pretty soon we will all be paying our "fair share" at well over 50% of our incomes. Just because some people don't mind being slaves doesn't mean that the rest of us are whining. -Shaun
faustus@ucbcad.UUCP (10/10/84)
> Not everything the government does is extortion. Some of its > activities are quite beneficent. The problem is that those > activities, unless funded entirely by fees, are paid for by > money taken by force. So? That's not extortion, because the government does it, and the majority of people in the US support this form of tax collection. The difference between "extortion" and "legitimate use of force" is whether it's done by private individuals or by a democratically elected government. > Fine. Libertarians would (in general) be the last to insist > that anybody give them something they had not paid for. Show me a libertarian who would prevent the fire department from putting out a fire in his house because he did't pay taxes (and was too lazy to subscribe to a private fire department). > Jim Lewis, the Libertarian candidate for > US Vice President, has not paid federal income tax for 3 years > (this was his answer to a NY talk show host's question about what > impact his philosophy has had on his own life. HE DOES IT FOR > MORAL AND LEGAL REASONS, NOT BECAUSE HE WANTS A FREE RIDE. Convenient, isn't it? > Leaving roads and defense aside, what does the federal government do > with your taxes? Of course, you pay for these even if you don't "use" > them: > > Dairy farm price supports, Tobacco price supports (and > ongoing cancer/cigarette research), covert aid to (and so on) I never said that that I like what is being done with tax revenues. I think that a lot of the things you mention should be eliminated. But the best (and only) way to get rid of these things is by legitimate means, not by refusing to pay taxes and refusing to recognise the government's authority. > Crowing about how responsible you are, and not even questioning how > worthwhile the cause is that you're championing (government action) > doesn't strike me as all that responsible. I'm championing the government's basic right to tax people, not the things that they are using tax money for now. > Don't you understand? I don't want to tax you to accomplish my goals. > I'd willingly forgo public roads, public libraries, and the rest, were > they not implemented in such a way as to destroy any private alternatives. Then do something about it -- vote for people who will implement things like that properly. (Or run for office yourself.) Wayne
shad@teldata.UUCP (10/10/84)
> Just don't take advantage of MY responsible views towards > paying my fair share. > > Wayne Your "fair share" now totals more than $144,000 on the deficit. If you are "responsible" please make payment to the U.S. Dept. of Treasury as soon as possible. Thanks, we need more responsible people like you. Warren
bruce@godot.UUCP (Bruce Nemnich) (10/11/84)
In article <2732@ucbcad.UUCP> faustus@ucbcad.UUCP writes: >> Fine. Libertarians would (in general) be the last to insist >> that anybody give them something they had not paid for. > >Show me a libertarian who would prevent the fire department from putting >out a fire in his house because he did't pay taxes (and was too lazy >to subscribe to a private fire department). He said he wouldn't expect them to put it out, not that he would prevent them from doing so if they wished. -- --Bruce Nemnich, Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge, MA {astrovax,cca,harvard,ihnp4,ima,mit-eddie,...}!godot!bruce, BJN@MIT-MC.ARPA
rs55611@ihuxk.UUCP (Robert E. Schleicher) (10/12/84)
The so-called "fair-share" of the deficit was posted by someone as $144,000. First off, I'll assume that this is really supposed to represent a per-capita portion of the national debt, not of the yearly deficit. Even so, a number like $144,000 is way out of whack. I thought our total national debt was somewhat grreater than $1 trillion, or 10 to the 12th dollars. With 230 million or so people (men, women and children), this translates to something more than $4000 - $5000 per person. I seem to recall reading a figure like $8,000 as the current per-capita debt. Thus, even if we are only counting members of the workforce, rather than total population, $144,000 is much too large (This is not to say that $8,000 per person isn't excessive; I think it is.) Bob Schleicher ihuxk!rs55611
renner@uiucdcs.UUCP (10/13/84)
> > Not everything the government does is extortion. Some of its > > activities are quite beneficent. The problem is that those > > activities, unless funded entirely by fees, are paid for by > > money taken by force. > > So? That's not extortion, because the government does it, and the majority > of people in the US support this form of tax collection. The difference > between "extortion" and "legitimate use of force" is whether it's done > by private individuals or by a democratically elected government. The difference you point out here is only one of legality. The act is the same regardless of whether it's done by individuals acting alone or individuals acting as an organized mob. Extortion is, by definition, the obtaining of a thing from another party by threat of force rather than by agreement. Scott Renner {pur-ee,ihnp4}!uiucdcs!renner
nrh@inmet.UUCP (10/14/84)
>***** inmet:net.politics / ucbcad!faustus / 10:45 am Oct 4, 1984 >Look, I'm sick of hearing knee-jerk libertarians refer to everything that >the government does as 'extortion'. Not everything the government does is extortion. Some of its activities are quite beneficent. The problem is that those activities, unless funded entirely by fees, are paid for by money taken by force. >If you are responsible, and pay for >what the government does for you, it's not extortion or theft, it's just >paying for what you use. Fine. Libertarians would (in general) be the last to insist that anybody give them something they had not paid for. >For people who feel as though their political >beliefs entitle them to a free ride (by not paying taxes), threat of force >is necessary. HOLD IT RIGHT THERE! Are you implying libertarians do this? Are you saying that anyone who does this wants a free ride? If so, you're out of line. Jim Lewis, the Libertarian candidate for US Vice President, has not paid federal income tax for 3 years (this was his answer to a NY talk show host's question about what impact his philosophy has had on his own life. HE DOES IT FOR MORAL AND LEGAL REASONS, NOT BECAUSE HE WANTS A FREE RIDE. >Sure, it's 'tacky', but it's pretty tacky to use roads and >public facilities that OTHER PEOPLE pay for, and take advantage of the >military protection and police protection that they have no right to, >while all the time whining that they don't want to pay for it. You're blurring the distinction between people who pay taxes and complain that they're too high and people who DON'T pay taxes. Watch your implications, buddy. I sure wouldn't mind paying for the roads and stuff that I use, but this is not an option. Why? Because your tax dollars and mine go to fund an inefficient way of building roads. If there WERE no public roads, there would be private ones. If there were only a few public roads, there would be private ones elsewhere. I am told that the majority of the road system in New England before 1850 was private, and one still finds toll bridges here and there. Leaving roads and defense aside, what does the federal government do with your taxes? Of course, you pay for these even if you don't "use" them: Dairy farm price supports, Tobacco price supports (and ongoing cancer/cigarette research), covert aid to various South American factions, Social Security (arguably the world's largest ponzi scheme), enforcement of gambling, prostitution, and drug abuse laws (about half of all law-enforcement money is spent enforcing victimless crimes, such as these), control of the national air-traffic-control system (better done privately), attempts to regulate what may be said in private newspapers (SEC attempts to make journals about the Stock Market "register" with them, and has, one at a time prosecuted those who refused), regulation of the following industries: railroads; interstate trucking; television (though less now); drug production; automobiles (try buying a Citroen or a Japanese car); mail (it is ILLEGAL to run your own mail system for first-class (letter) mail); medical care. >If you >don't want to pay taxes, go and live in the mountains and declare yourself >open to anybody who wants to come and kill you (you didn't want to pay for >police...). I don't have to go to the mountains. Any reasonable ghetto will do fine, if I want inadequate police protection -- paid for by taxation. As for going into the mountains, I'd do it in a minute, were I not convinced the IRS would still come calling (not to mention the state government, and the county....) >Just don't take advantage of MY responsible views towards >paying my fair share. Crowing about how responsible you are, and not even questioning how worthwhile the cause is that you're championing (government action) doesn't strike me as all that responsible. Feel free to pay your fair share, but look over the list above, and ask yourself: how much of "dairy farm supports", or whatever, is my fair share? Should I even be billed for part of it? Should I be forced to pay for any of it? Isn't it TACKY to threaten me with imprisonment so that some schools can have "free lunches"? Look, my argument is NOT that schools should not serve lunch, or that little old ladies should freeze in winter -- my argument is that government (when it does any good at all) does it very inefficiently compared to what private charities would do. As for the non-charitable activities, such as building roads, and running mail, I suggest that people do a little historical probing -- roadbuilding need not be a government activity (and before you rag me about how private roads would result in toll booths everywhere, try traveling on the NY state throughway, and then tell me how public roads are better). I've yet to see a coherent argument about why we need a public post office. The most loudly stated one seems to be based on votes: the postal lobby is strong, and Rural Free Delivery wouldn't happen if it weren't a US-run thing. Such bushwah! *I* am paying for Rural Free Delivery, and you tell me not to protest. *I* am paying for the honor of paying higher prices for milk, and you imply that I'm irresponsible. *I* am paying for the enforcement (by violence) of laws that strike me as moralistic, useless, expensive, and corrupting, and you ask me not to "whine". Don't you understand? I don't want to tax you to accomplish my goals. I'd willingly forgo public roads, public libraries, and the rest, were they not implemented in such a way as to destroy any private alternatives.
nrh@inmet.UUCP (10/14/84)
#R:gloria:-54200:inmet:7800143:000:5109 inmet!nrh Oct 11 20:00:00 1984 >***** inmet:net.politics / ucbcad!faustus / 11:15 pm Oct 9, 1984 >> Not everything the government does is extortion. Some of its >> activities are quite beneficent. The problem is that those >> activities, unless funded entirely by fees, are paid for by >> money taken by force. > >So? That's not extortion, because the government does it, and the majority >of people in the US support this form of tax collection. The difference >between "extortion" and "legitimate use of force" is whether it's done >by private individuals or by a democratically elected government. We need a rule on this net: no correction of diction without reference to a dictionary. That said: ex-tor-tion ... 1: the act or practice of extorting esp. money or other property; specif: the offense committed by an official who practices extortion. ex-tort ... 1 a (1) : to obtain from an unwilling or reluctant person by physical force, intimidation, or the abuse of legal or official authority: get by compelling: FORCE, EXACT <till the injurious Romans did ~ this tribute from us we were free -- Shak> - Webster's Third New International Dictionary Satisfied, Wayne? No reference here to illegality, for the term "extortion" doesn't depend on it. We went through this once before with the term "theft" as in "Taxation is Theft", and the same holds true for that word. >> Fine. Libertarians would (in general) be the last to insist >> that anybody give them something they had not paid for. > >Show me a libertarian who would prevent the fire department from putting >out a fire in his house because he did't pay taxes (and was too lazy >to subscribe to a private fire department). Read my statement one more time, (louder, please) LIBERTARIANS WOULD (IN GENERAL) BE THE LAST TO ****INSIST**** THAT ANYBODY GIVE THEM SOMETHING THEY HAD NOT PAID FOR. Get it? I surely would not stop anybody from putting out my burning house, (depending on their methods) but I don't feel I've the right to INSIST on it unless I've paid for it. >> Jim Lewis, the Libertarian candidate for >> US Vice President, has not paid federal income tax for 3 years >> (this was his answer to a NY talk show host's question about what >> impact his philosophy has had on his own life. HE DOES IT FOR >> MORAL AND LEGAL REASONS, NOT BECAUSE HE WANTS A FREE RIDE. > >Convenient, isn't it? Cheap shot, and untrue. He went through a great deal (threats to him and to his mother that he'd go to jail, mandatory court appearances and interviews) because of his decision, and for what? Sure, he's glad he keeps the money, but I suspect his life would have been considerably simpler without it. He's convinced of his (and your) right to not pay taxes, and stood on his convictions. I don't hear of you taking any risks, such as publicizing civil disobedience, so perhaps you should consider whether you'd have the guts to do it if the government did something YOU didn't like. If not, how "convenient" was Lewis' action? > >> Leaving roads and defense aside, what does the federal government do >> with your taxes? Of course, you pay for these even if you don't "use" >> them: >> >> Dairy farm price supports, Tobacco price supports (and >> ongoing cancer/cigarette research), covert aid to > (and so on) > >I never said that that I like what is being done with tax revenues. I think >that a lot of the things you mention should be eliminated. But the best >(and only) way to get rid of these things is by legitimate means, not >by refusing to pay taxes and refusing to recognize the government's >authority. The *ONLY* way? Holy revisionism! Quick -- no American Revolution in 1776 -- we'd best re-write those history books. Seriously: what do you consider legitimate? Was "bracket-creep" a legitimate way to RAISE taxes? If not, why not? If it was not legitimate, should one pay those taxes ANYHOW? Why? >> worthwhile the cause is that you're championing (government action) >> doesn't strike me as all that responsible. > >I'm championing the government's basic right to tax people, not the >things that they are using tax money for now. And I say to you: do not think that you can build a government such that taxes are not abused. Badly. Do not bother to defend taxation on the theory that it MIGHT someday be used for something good. Remember -- you're advocating extortion to support the government -- oughtn't you to have a VERY GOOD CAUSE for doing so? >> Don't you understand? I don't want to tax you to accomplish my goals. >> I'd willingly forgo public roads, public libraries, and the rest, were >> they not implemented in such a way as to destroy any private alternatives. > >Then do something about it -- vote for people who will implement things >like that properly. (Or run for office yourself.) Indeed I will. I have (voted that way, not run for office). There's no state income tax in Alaska because people did just that (Thank you Dick Randolph). Wouldn't you call participating in this discussion a good way of drawing the attention of voters to my cause? - Nat Howard
mwm@ea.UUCP (10/21/84)
>***** inmet:net.politics / ucbcad!faustus / 11:15 pm Oct 9, 1984
Then do something about it -- vote for people who will implement things
like that properly. (Or run for office yourself.)
/* ---------- */
I'd rather try and provide competitive services that do things right. But
the government won't let me in most cases, or takes money from me to help
them compete with me.
<mikesteven@mcvax.UUCP (Steven Pemberton) (10/25/84)
<6118@mcvax.UUCP> cancelled from rn.
hayes@westcsr.UUCP (Sean Hayes) (10/31/84)
This idea of having private fire brigades, etc. was, I believe, tried out in London in the early days of fire-fighting. My history might not be correct here but I think you will find it was not a resounding success, ( several fire engines arriving at scene, arguments over which should put out the fire, getting in each others way, luckless householder watches his property being destroyed :-). Governments and institutions might not be giving the best possible solutions, but make sure you have really got something better before you pull them down. Sean. "It is immoral to use private property in order to alleviate the horrible evils that result from the institution of private property" : Oscar Wilde.