josh@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU (J Storrs Hall) (08/30/85)
In article <1751@psuvax1.UUCP> berman@psuvax1.UUCP (Piotr Berman) writes: [Replying to Rick McGeer] > Saying that taxation is theft has as much sence as saying that property >s theft. Both statement state opposition to historically evolved social >institutions. As near as I can figure this out, you are saying "it doesn't make sense to say that the government is stealing because it has been doing so for a long time". > The notion of property is by no means absolute. ... Is this supposed to mean that there is no such thing as theft? > I do not know wheter the "taxation is theft" argument belongs to >net.politics.invectives or net.politics.slogans, but surely not in >net.politics.theory. If you want to have a minimal state, provide >arguments,... case studies but do not call all others habitual thiefs. >The purpose of your letter is to express your emotions. The purpose of >theory is study facts, generalize and predict. You have forgotten the statement Rick was addressing, namely that the recipients of government payments "owned" them. The question of whether it would be right to stop the payments depends critically on whether they are theft in the first place--so this outburst is somewhat misplaced. --JoSH
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (08/30/85)
In article <3471@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU> josh@topaz.UUCP (J Storrs Hall) writes: > In article <1751@psuvax1.UUCP> berman@psuvax1.UUCP (Piotr Berman) writes: > [Replying to Rick McGeer] > > Saying that taxation is theft has as much sence as saying that property > >s theft. Both statement state opposition to historically evolved social > >institutions. > > As near as I can figure this out, you are saying "it doesn't make sense > to say that the government is stealing because it has been doing so > for a long time". Let's rephrase it into libertarian terms. You are free to remain within or leave the social contract agreed to by you by your residency in the US. Paying taxes is merely your fullfilment of your side of the contract. The government has the right to enforce the contract you have both freely entered into and continually renewed. There is enough choice of governments in this world for you to take your pick in a more-or-less free market. To claim that there is no libertarian government for you to choose from stirs me about as much as arguments from breathe-airians (people who are trying to reduce food intake to the point where they can subsist solely on air. They do actually exist....) -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
josh@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU (J Storrs Hall) (09/04/85)
>> >[Berman] >> > Saying that taxation is theft has as much sence as saying that property >> >s theft. Both statement state opposition to historically evolved social >> >institutions. >> [me] >> As near as I can figure this out, you are saying "it doesn't make sense >> to say that the government is stealing because it has been doing so >> for a long time". >[Mike Huybensz] >Let's rephrase it into libertarian terms. Please quit lying to us, Mike. You know and I know that you have no intention of trying to understand the libertarian view of things in either the political or moral sense, and are merely being mendacious. To wit: > You are free to remain within or >leave the social contract agreed to by you by your residency in the US. Please note the implicit assumption that some condition into which you were born is considered equivalent to your signing a contract. Mr. Huybenz might as well have said "You are free to remain within or leave the contract of servitude agreed to by you by your being black." (to leave by the same means, altering the condition of your birth). >The government has the right to enforce the contract you have both >freely entered into and continually renewed. Oh? If it is a two-sided contract between partners with equal rights in the matter, why don't *I* have the right to enforce it, or more to the point, to interpret the points of the contract? The libertarian sheep's clothing on your statist wolf is slipping, Mike: contracts are to be interpreted and enforced by neutral arbitrators, not the parties. >There is enough choice of governments in this world for you to take your >pick in a more-or-less free market. To claim that there is no libertarian >government for you to choose from... >Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh ... Is a claim I never made-- in fact in the very letter you're replying to I gave a list of countries I thought had as good or better deal in freedom as the US. But by the time one reaches the age of majority, he has taken on a considerable overhead in terms of the culture of his native land--if I moved to Japan, for example, I would more or less have to start all over in terms of education, of socialization, of making friends and so forth--not to mention leaving my family behind or the pure expense of the move. I *dare* you to consider--just exercise your imagination, and think of a world where changing your government were as easy as changing your grocer. Or not to go so far, your insurance company. I dare you to comprehend what the world would be like if changing governments were as easy as you make it out to be above--if people really had a choice, if the "social contract" were really a contract. Imagine a world where Consumer Reports rated police franchises the way they do fast food chains. Imagine a world where lawmakers had to make laws people could understand, or no one would buy them; where judges had to be fair, or no one would hire them; where executives had to be competent, or no one would patronize them. Try taking your own words at face value, Mike. What if government really *were* a matter of voluntary contract? If you find it impossible to say what you mean, have a go at meaning what you say. --JoSH
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (09/05/85)
[Note to readers: I am strongly opposed to the excesses of libertarianism. For the purposes of this argument, I am adopting my interpretation of libertarianism to refute Josh's fallacious claims that taxation is theft. I claim that a "social contract" is a valid libertarian-style contract.] > >[Mike Huybensz] > >Let's rephrase it into libertarian terms. > > [J Storrs Hall] > Please quit lying to us, Mike. You know and I know that you have no > intention of trying to understand the libertarian view of things > in either the political or moral sense, and are merely being mendacious. On the contrary. I understand the libertarian point of view well enough to recognize that they quote their "principles" where convenient but forget about them where inconvenient to their self-serving goals. Thus I'm pointing out those instances. (I am strongly reminded of many political and religious demagogues who work the same way.) > To wit: > > You are free to remain within or > >leave the social contract agreed to by you by your residency in the US. > > Please note the implicit assumption that some condition into which > you were born is considered equivalent to your signing a contract. > Mr. Huybenz might as well have said "You are free to remain within > or leave the contract of servitude agreed to by you by your being black." > (to leave by the same means, altering the condition of your birth). I think I'm going to treasure a number of your responses (like the above paragraph) that I'm answering here, because they are precisely the kinds of responses I've given you as examples of unjustness of libertaria. Let's put aside (for the moment) the problem of new citizens (which hypothetical libertarias don't seem to handle well.) You are now an adult. You can come and go as you will. So why isn't the social contract entirely voluntary? > >The government has the right to enforce the contract you have both > >freely entered into and continually renewed. > > Oh? If it is a two-sided contract between partners with equal rights > in the matter, why don't *I* have the right to enforce it, or more to the > point, to interpret the points of the contract? The libertarian sheep's > clothing on your statist wolf is slipping, Mike: contracts are to be > interpreted and enforced by neutral arbitrators, not the parties. You certainly do have those rights. You may file a suit with the Judicial branch (note that you've agreed to the arbitor in the contract.) If you don't think the Judicial branch is neutral, you have several options. You can try to organize "consumer" pressure, or you may negotiate a contract with some other purveyor of governmental services. > >There is enough choice of governments in this world for you to take your > >pick in a more-or-less free market. To claim that there is no libertarian > >government for you to choose from... > > ... Is a claim I never made-- ... is also out of context of the remainder of my sentence. I didn't accuse you of that claim: I was pre-empting it. Cheap debating trick, Josh. > But by the time one reaches the age of > majority, he has taken on a considerable overhead in terms of the > culture of his native land--if I moved to Japan, for example, I > would more or less have to start all over in terms of education, > of socialization, of making friends and so forth--not to mention > leaving my family behind or the pure expense of the move. All very true. But that is economics, not coercion (by libertarian standards.) If the economics (read market) dictate that you remain here, sorry, that's the libertarian idea of fair. Nobody is stopping you from incurring those costs to exercise your right to make a choice. Or do you want a government handout for it? :-) > I *dare* you to consider--just exercise your imagination, and think > of a world where changing your government were as easy as changing > your grocer. Or not to go so far, your insurance company. I dare you > to comprehend what the world would be like if changing governments > were as easy as you make it out to be above--if people really had a > choice, if the "social contract" were really a contract. Imagine a > world where Consumer Reports rated police franchises the way they do > fast food chains. Imagine a world where lawmakers had to make > laws people could understand, or no one would buy them; where > judges had to be fair, or no one would hire them; where executives > had to be competent, or no one would patronize them. Guess what: we already have most of that. I've seen quite a number of reports from many sources evaluating the relative merits of the 50 states (and numerous nations) in all the categories above. Moving between states is as effortless as you wish. Moving between many nations is only a little more difficult. But keep in mind that the provider of services should not be coerced into accepting you as a customer for one of their social contracts. If they don't like your race or nationality or religion or language or job, they should be able to arbitrarily refuse to make a contract with you. So you mustn't complain if you cannot get to be a resident or citizen of any particular nation. > Try taking your own words at face value, Mike. What if government > really *were* a matter of voluntary contract? If you find it > impossible to say what you mean, have a go at meaning what you say. In the US and a number of other nations, government effectively is a matter of voluntary contract (for adults.) You still haven't shown me any evidence to the contrary. Children are a special case. When you explain to me how libertarian principles apply to guardianship (are spankings assault?) I'll provide as explicit an answer as you'd like. It might well be that our laws should be relaxed to allow any child to fend for himself at whatever age, emigrating if he so desires. -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
josh@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU (J Storrs Hall) (09/06/85)
This message is empty.
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (09/12/85)
In article <3551@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU> josh@topaz.UUCP (J Storrs Hall) writes: > > to refute Josh's fallacious claims that taxation is theft. > > Mike's long long reply to my long reply to his original letter consists > mostly of repeating what he said the first time, so I'll spare everyone > of re-repeating the carefully documented and outrageously witty refutations > I made then. If I repeated myself, it's only because your so-called "refutations" showed your attention span to be fewer than 5 lines. In addition I made counter arguments, which you seem to hope will go away if you ignore them. > Instead, this opening note pretty well sums up Mike's > position and methodology, so let's examine it more carefully: Oh yes. Let's look at yours too. > He adopts his own "interpretation" of libertarianism. Oh, and of course your interpretation is the one, true, writ in stone, correct interpretation. Sorry, oh great arbiter of libertarianism, but your opinion does not designate true libertarianism. If you wish to say that something isn't libertarianism, then you will need to convince us of that by argument, not fiat. > This makes it > fairly easy to refute; he could, for example, adopt the interpretation > that "libertarianism really means Marxism" and go on to prove that it > was a very bad thing. And this is just about what he does. Is your interpretation "libertarianism is nirvana"? That would make it very easy to "prove" that it is a very good thing. Neither of us believes either extreme: my major interest is how big are the warts on libertarianism. We already can see the warts on democracy, capitalism, etc., because they are extant systems. > No matter > what a libertarian says, or proves, or shows, Mike replies "What you > really meant was thus-and-so." If we say no, he misunderstood, > he replies, > > I understand the libertarian point of view well enough > >to recognize that they quote their "principles" where convenient but forget > >about them where inconvenient to their self-serving goals. Shameless citation out of context here. I was answering your accusation that I had no interest in understanding libertarianism. You complain in the first paragraph or two that my responses are long: it's because I include the context, in the order written. > All that you understand, Mike, are your own fantastic interpretations. > I think the part about forgetting principles and self-serving goals > are projection on your part. Think what you like. If you expect us to believe you, you need to make an argument, not an ad-hominem attack. I followed my accusation with the example of taxes as a contract, which you had rejected without a libertarian rationale. > The rest of the opening note is Mike's "interpretation": > > > I claim that a "social contract" is a valid libertarian-style contract.] > > Let me put it to you as simply as possible: If you think the relationship > between citizen and State is the same as a the libertarian concept of a > contract, you do not understand libertarianism at all. Attacking a straw > man constructed of your own "interpretations" is merely time wasted. Do you seriously expect us all to take this on your mere authority? Where is your argument? > If you want to make valid, cogent criticisms of libertarian thought > (and mistake me not, such criticisms are possible), you first have to > build an exegesis of libertarianism WITH WHICH A LIBERTARIAN WOULD > AGREE; and only then, when you have demonstrated that you are talking > about the same thing, show the problems, the inconsistencies, and > whatever else is wrong with it. Pompous twaddle. First, I need say nothing that a libertarian would agree with to make a valid criticism of libertarian thought: I could simply go through some example of libertarian thought and pick out a fallacy of logic or argument. Second, how the hell do you know that no libertarian would agree with my interpretation? Or are you going to cry "heretic" and excommunicate him from the ranks of libertarians and thus retain ideological purity? You'll quickly enter a "are Catholics Christian" argument. > >> > You are free to remain within or > >> >leave the social contract agreed to by you by your residency in the US. > > >> Please note the implicit assumption that some condition into which > >> you were born is considered equivalent to your signing a contract. > > >... You can come and go as you will. So why isn't the social > >contract entirely voluntary? > > Suppose I begin spitting on you. You are free to walk away at will. > Does that mean that the relationship of spitter-spittee was therefore > a valid contract? Your "interpretation" not only has nothing to do > with libertarian thought, but is nonsensical. Your analogy is incomplete. What is the exchange of services that is comparable to taxes for defense, social work, law enforcement, etc? With an incomplete and thus incorrect analogy, I'm not surprised that you perceive nonsense: but it's in your own rhetoric. > >> I *dare* you to consider--just exercise your imagination, and think > >> of a world where changing your government were as easy as changing > >> your grocer. > > > >Guess what: we already have most of that. I've seen quite a number of > >reports from many sources evaluating the relative merits of the 50 states > >(and numerous nations) in all the categories above. Moving between > >states is as effortless as you wish. > > The point is *exactly* that it is *not* as effortless as I wish. Can't > you even *conceive* of the idea of changing providers of government > services without being forced to change all of the other arrangements > of your life? You already have that opportunity: there isn't a single government service that you cannot buy on the market today. Private defense, police, schools, medicine, insurance, arbitrartion, anything you want. All it costs is more money, like private schools. > I really wish you would quit holding up these inane ideas of the > "social contract" and calling them libertarianism. But even more I > wish you could understand the real thing. A gross misrepresentation. Social contracts aren't libertarianism: they are consistent within it. But even more, I'm glad the "real thing" doesn't exist. -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
josh@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU (J Storrs Hall) (09/12/85)
In article <744@cybvax0.UUCP> mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) writes: >In article <3551@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU> josh@topaz.UUCP (J Storrs Hall) writes: >> He adopts his own "interpretation" of libertarianism. >Oh, and of course your interpretation is the one, true, writ in stone, >correct interpretation. Sorry, oh great arbiter of libertarianism, but >your opinion does not designate true libertarianism. If you wish to say >that something isn't libertarianism, then you will need to convince us >of that by argument, not fiat. Ok, why don't you go to all the libertarians you know (if any) and ask them whether my statement, "Taxation is theft, not a contract," or your statement, "Taxation is a contract, not theft," more closely reflects libertarian thought. >> This makes it >> fairly easy to refute; he could, for example, adopt the interpretation >> that "libertarianism really means Marxism" and go on to prove that it >> was a very bad thing. And this is just about what he does. > >Is your interpretation "libertarianism is nirvana"? That would make it >very easy to "prove" that it is a very good thing. Neither of us believes >either extreme: my major interest is how big are the warts on libertarianism. Bullshit. All you are trying to do is misrepresent libertarianism. >> No matter >> what a libertarian says, or proves, or shows, Mike replies "What you >> really meant was thus-and-so." If we say no, he misunderstood, >> he replies, >> > I understand the libertarian point of view well enough >> >to recognize that they quote their "principles" where convenient but forget >> >about them where inconvenient to their self-serving goals. > >Shameless citation out of context here. ... Since everyone reading my message had just read yours in the original, I trust no one was fooled... >> > I claim that a "social contract" is a valid libertarian-style contract.] >> >> Let me put it to you as simply as possible: If you think the relationship >> between citizen and State is the same as a the libertarian concept of a >> contract, you do not understand libertarianism at all. Attacking a straw >> man constructed of your own "interpretations" is merely time wasted. > >Do you seriously expect us all to take this on your mere authority? Where >is your argument? Actually I do expect people to believe me, when I say what I hold to be basic libertarian principles, that they are indeed basic libertarian principles. I expect people to claim that those principles might be wrong, but I never expected someone to say, as you did, "No, those aren't basic libertarian principles, libertarian principles are just the opposite." >> If you want to make valid, cogent criticisms of libertarian thought >> (and mistake me not, such criticisms are possible), you first have to >> build an exegesis of libertarianism WITH WHICH A LIBERTARIAN WOULD >> AGREE; and only then, when you have demonstrated that you are talking >> about the same thing, show the problems, the inconsistencies, and >> whatever else is wrong with it. > >Pompous twaddle. First, I need say nothing that a libertarian would agree >with to make a valid criticism of libertarian thought: I could simply go >through some example of libertarian thought and pick out a fallacy of logic >or argument. Once upon a time, Mike was called on to make a structural analysis of an airplane wing from the blueprint. "Garbage!" he said, "everyone knows that wood can't sustain loads like that." "But look here!" the engineer replied. "It says ALUMINUM right here on the blueprint." "My interpretation of engineering diagrams is that A-L-U-M-I-N-U-M spells 'wood'," Mike said. "Aw come on," the engineer complained. "At least you have to agree on what the diagram says before you can do a valid analysis of it." "Pompous twaddle!" is Mike's devastating reply. "I need say nothing that an engineer would agree with to make a valid criticism of this blueprint: I simply go through some subassembly and pick out a fallacy of materials. This strut, for example, is made of bone china." At this point, the engineer picks up the strut, made of titanium, and brains Mike with it... --JoSH
peter@graffiti.UUCP (Peter da Silva) (09/17/85)
A few comments on social contracts from one who is in the process of reneg- otiating his: > > > You are free to remain within or > > >leave the social contract agreed to by you by your residency in the US. > > > > Please note the implicit assumption that some condition into which > > you were born is considered equivalent to your signing a contract. > > Mr. Huybenz might as well have said "You are free to remain within > > or leave the contract of servitude agreed to by you by your being black." > > (to leave by the same means, altering the condition of your birth). > > I think I'm going to treasure a number of your responses (like the above > paragraph) that I'm answering here, because they are precisely the kinds > of responses I've given you as examples of unjustness of libertaria. > > Let's put aside (for the moment) the problem of new citizens (which > hypothetical libertarias don't seem to handle well.) You are now an > adult. You can come and go as you will. So why isn't the social > contract entirely voluntary? In the absence of a libertaria to emigrate to you can't regard the social contract as voluntary. There does not exist the option of negotiating with your feet that you seem to assume. I have come to the states because it is the nearest approach to a free society that I have been able to find. It is interesting to note that whenever a Libertaria attempts to form, for example in southern California, it gets squashed by the state which insists on enforcing the social contract on a group of people who have unanimously rejected it. This happens to both left-wing and right-wing Libertaria. > Guess what: we already have most of that. I've seen quite a number of > reports from many sources evaluating the relative merits of the 50 states > (and numerous nations) in all the categories above. Moving between > states is as effortless as you wish. Moving between many nations is only > a little more difficult. Speaking as one who has recently moved between nations, let me just note that moving between nations is an extremely difficult task even for a country as free as this. I would like to suggest you try it some time. > But keep in mind that the provider of services > should not be coerced into accepting you as a customer for one of their > social contracts. If they don't like your race or nationality or religion > or language or job, they should be able to arbitrarily refuse to make a > contract with you. So you mustn't complain if you cannot get to be a > resident or citizen of any particular nation. And what happened to "free and equal" partners? > > Try taking your own words at face value, Mike. What if government > > really *were* a matter of voluntary contract? If you find it > > impossible to say what you mean, have a go at meaning what you say. > > In the US and a number of other nations, government effectively is a > matter of voluntary contract (for adults.) You still haven't shown me > any evidence to the contrary. Try renegotiating your social contract by any means, and see how voluntary it really is.
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (09/18/85)
In article <210@graffiti.UUCP> peter@graffiti.UUCP (Peter da Silva) writes: > > Let's put aside (for the moment) the problem of new citizens (which > > hypothetical libertarias don't seem to handle well.) You are now an > > adult. You can come and go as you will. So why isn't the social > > contract entirely voluntary? > > In the absence of a libertaria to emigrate to you can't regard > the social contract as voluntary. There does not exist the option of > negotiating with your feet that you seem to assume. I have come to the > states because it is the nearest approach to a free society that I have > been able to find. One has no choice but to make SOME social contract, just as one has no choice but to eat. (The alternatives lead to the same result.) Your choice of which social contract is essentially free (sorry I wasn't clearer.) Libertaria would just be another form of social contract, putatively with lower overhead and simpler rules. > It is interesting to note that whenever a Libertaria attempts to form, for > example in southern California, it gets squashed by the state which insists > on enforcing the social contract on a group of people who have unanimously > rejected it. This happens to both left-wing and right-wing Libertaria. This is the same as the free-market monopolistic practice of underselling invaders of your local monopoly at the point of entry. The only difference is that power is the currency. In order to compete in the free market of government services, libertaria must be able to assert power: else it will be vulnerable to assimilation. The same as a small business forced to sell out to a too successful large competitor. > > Guess what: we already have most of that. I've seen quite a number of > > reports from many sources evaluating the relative merits of the 50 states > > (and numerous nations) in all the categories above. Moving between > > states is as effortless as you wish. Moving between many nations is only > > a little more difficult. > > Speaking as one who has recently moved between nations, let me just note that > moving between nations is an extremely difficult task even for a country as > free as this. I would like to suggest you try it some time. There are usually costs involved in changing providers of services. Uncoerced choice isn't necessarily free of cost. Take for example the replacement of one employee by another. Usual costs include departure costs (X weeks of notice, other contractual matters), costs of finding and interviewing new candidates, moving expenses, training time, and the learning curve. > > But keep in mind that the provider of services > > should not be coerced into accepting you as a customer for one of their > > social contracts. If they don't like your race or nationality or religion > > or language or job, they should be able to arbitrarily refuse to make a > > contract with you. So you mustn't complain if you cannot get to be a > > resident or citizen of any particular nation. > > And what happened to "free and equal" partners? Am I a free and equal partner of McDonalds when I go in for a hamburger? What if I ask them for a steak, and they refuse to cooperate? Are you suggesting that they should be coerced into the provision of steaks, when they have determined that they can maximize their profits with their current menu? So why should any state be coerced into granting you (as a voluntary immigrant) any status that it doesn't wish to grant you? > > In the US and a number of other nations, government effectively is a > > matter of voluntary contract (for adults.) You still haven't shown me > > any evidence to the contrary. > > Try renegotiating your social contract by any means, and see how voluntary it > really is. I could emigrate to another nation tomorrow. Upon changing my citizenship (by renunciation or accepting other citizenship), I can cut any claims to taxes on my future earnings, conscription, or other requirement by the US government. -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
josh@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU (J Storrs Hall) (09/20/85)
In article <762@cybvax0.UUCP> mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) writes: >I could emigrate to another nation tomorrow. Upon changing my citizenship >(by renunciation or accepting other citizenship), I can cut any claims to >taxes on my future earnings, conscription, or other requirement by the US >government. >Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh Mike's argument: by throwing away his income from sources in this country, he can prevent the government from stealing part of it. Well, Mike, if I burn my furniture as firewood it will prevent your breaking into my house and stealing it. That does not make your doing so the less theft. --JoSH
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (09/20/85)
In article <3700@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU> josh@topaz.UUCP (J Storrs Hall) writes: > In article <762@cybvax0.UUCP> mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) writes: > >I could emigrate to another nation tomorrow. Upon changing my citizenship > >(by renunciation or accepting other citizenship), I can cut any claims to > >taxes on my future earnings, conscription, or other requirement by the US > >government. > > Mike's argument: by throwing away his income from sources in this > country, he can prevent the government from stealing part of it. > Well, Mike, if I burn my furniture as firewood it will prevent > your breaking into my house and stealing it. That does not make > your doing so the less theft. What a dishonest misrepresentation. I need not "throw away" anything: I can liquidate properties and ownerships, and take my profits with me, and buy anew in my new nation. I can exchange my current job for another. Earnings from within a nation are not much different than any other sort of social contract. They are analogous to sharecropping, where you pay the landowner a portion of your crop for the use of his land. You can switch to any other landowner freely. Thus, taxation on earnings is just another non-coercive social contract that is compatible with libertarianism, despite JoSH's misrepresentations of it as "theft". -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
josh@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU (J Storrs Hall) (09/25/85)
In article <767@cybvax0.UUCP> mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) writes: >In article <3700@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU> josh@topaz.UUCP (J Storrs Hall) writes: >> Well, Mike, if I burn my furniture as firewood it will prevent >> your breaking into my house and stealing it. That does not make >> your doing so the less theft. > >What a dishonest misrepresentation. I need not "throw away" anything: >I can liquidate properties and ownerships, and take my profits with me, >and buy anew in my new nation. I can exchange my current job for another. >Mike Huybensz Oh dear. When Mike breaks into my house and robs me of my furniture, the reason it isn't theft isn't because I could have burned the furniture beforehand. The reason is that I could have sold it beforehand at a yard sale. I stand corrected. --JoSH [For Mike and anyone else who missed it, that last line is an ironic sarcasm. I stand, you see, because I have no furniture...]