matt@oddjob.UUCP (Matt Crawford) (10/02/86)
"All money and no heart makes Jack a libertarian."
cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (10/06/86)
> "All money and no heart makes Jack a libertarian."
The assumptions here are fascinating:
1. That libertarians are unwilling to provide assistance to people genuinely
in need.
Most libertarians I know are involved in substantial humanitarian aid
activities, both the tax deductible sort, and the assistance that doesn't
qualify for any sort of tax deduction, and is therefore much more expensive.
2. That assisting someone in need is always the best thing that can be done
for that person.
There are people who are CAPABLE of working, but choose not, sometimes
out of sheer laziness, sometimes because of self-pity or depression. In
both cases, a little hunger can do wonders to encourage more responsible
behavior.
3. That opposition to government redistributing income is the same as
opposition to voluntary income redistribution.
The way that government redistributes income tends to assist a lot of
people -- many of whom are not poor by any definition. 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.
Clayton E. Cramermrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (10/07/86)
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
matt@oddjob.UUCP (Matt Crawford) (10/08/86)
In article <1111@kontron.UUCP> cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes: >> "All money and no heart makes Jack a libertarian." > >The assumptions here are fascinating: ... Your own assumption is fascinating: that "heart" == "giving away money" Matt Crawford
cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (10/11/86)
> 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? > 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). > 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 Incomplete, yes. But 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. Clayton E. Cramer
cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (10/11/86)
> In article <1111@kontron.UUCP> cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes: > >> "All money and no heart makes Jack a libertarian." > > > >The assumptions here are fascinating: ... > > Your own assumption is fascinating: that "heart" == "giving away money" > > Matt Crawford Why then, did you mention "All money" and "no heart" in the same context? I should mention that when I was poor and hungry I felt even more strongly than I do now about this subject -- I live comfortably enough now that the welfare system is just a nuisance. Work is the most effective welfare system known -- and hunger is the surest incentive to participate in work. Clayton E. Cramer
djo@ptsfd.UUCP (Dan'l Oakes) (10/12/86)
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
cda@entropy.berkeley.edu (10/14/86)
In article <1122@kontron.UUCP> cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes: >Work is the most effective welfare system known -- and hunger is the >surest incentive to participate in work. So you think that the approximately one-third of welfare recipients who are children should either work or starve? What kind of work do you propose? Child prostitution? Charlotte Allen
mcb@styx.UUCP (Michael C. Berch) (10/14/86)
In article <502@ptsfd.UUCP> djo@ptsfd.UUCP (Dan'l Oakes) writes: > . . . > 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. Well, in reality, all of us implicitly make this kind of decision every time we spent a cent on anything except charity, e.g., "My need to buy groceries takes precedence over sending my entire net assets to USA for Africa." How this can be viewed as an act of aggression against anyone escapes me, and I assume that Mr. Oakes is not taking up that particular point of view. Perhaps he can elucidate. I also assume that Mr. Clayton's "making money" is shorthand for "making money in a lawful, non-coercive manner" and I have taken it as such. Michael C. Berch ARPA: mcb@lll-tis-b.ARPA UUCP: {ihnp4,dual,sun}!lll-lcc!styx!mcb
cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (10/14/86)
> 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. > Care to tell me what definition of "aggression" you are using? It's clearly not a definition of the word that anyone recognizes. The only way that me making money is "aggression" against another is if I go over to that guy and force or threaten him into giving me something. You better work on your command of English. > 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. > > Dan'l Danehy-Oakes Again, you don't know what that word "aggression" means. Maybe you should go back to school and learn. Clayton E. Cramer
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (10/14/86)
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
cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (10/15/86)
> In article <1122@kontron.UUCP> cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes: > > >Work is the most effective welfare system known -- and hunger is the > >surest incentive to participate in work. > > So you think that the approximately one-third of welfare recipients who are > children should either work or starve? What kind of work do you propose? > Child prostitution? > > Charlotte Allen Children are not welfare recipients -- they are dependents of welfare recipients. As my previous postings have made clear, I accept the fact that AFDC is necessary. What I do not accept as necessary is supporting able-bodied men, or women without kids. Clayton E. Cramer