eric@snark.UUCP (11/19/88)
I don't consider Jeff Daiell's postings 'intellectually fascinating'; he's a poor writer, cruder than he needs to be and (as you correctly point out) repetitious. Nevertheless, he has hold of a basic moral truth that you, with all your sophistication, are still evading. There is no 'public money'; there is only stolen or extorted private money, and advocating *more* tax-funded boondoggles makes one accessory before the fact to more crime. I agree that nation- and world-wide data highways are a good idea. I am therefore confident that the free market will build them, and drive the cost of use down to a triviality. Government intervention can only slow down this process, or (worse) pervert it to totalitarian ends. I agree that information freedom is important. Unlike some members of this list, I am putting *my own* time and energy into work towards this goal, rather than arguing for more theft-by-government to fund it. Go thou and do likewise. eric@snark.uu.net = eric%snark@uunet.uu.net --> Eric S. Raymond
smryan@garth.UUCP (Steven Ryan) (11/23/88)
>Nevertheless, he has hold of a basic moral truth that you, with all your >sophistication, are still evading. There is no 'public money'; there is >only stolen or extorted private money, and advocating *more* tax-funded >boondoggles makes one accessory before the fact to more crime. Oh, christ, where's that k key? -- -- s m ryan --------------------------------------- _ Then Guthrun crossed the wasted lands and combed her hair with sooty hands. Alone she watched the oceans churning, and sang of heroes, fame most yearning.
doug@isishq.FIDONET.ORG (Doug Thompson) (11/28/88)
e>From: eric@snark.UUCP
e>Nevertheless, he has hold of a basic moral truth that you, with all your
e>sophistication, are still evading. There is no 'public money'; there is
e>only stolen or extorted private money, and advocating *more* tax-funded
e>boondoggles makes one accessory before the fact to more crime.
Hmmm. I guess that means there is no "public" either? Does that
mean that there is no "family money", only stolen or extorted
private money? Does that mean my church has no "church money",
only stolen or extorted private money?
<Sigh> There obviously is a thing called a "public", and it also
obviously has democratic decision-making apparatus through which
such things as national defense and welfare are funded by the
people, for the people. Now I suppose you think welfare and
defence should be left to the free market too?
And they say that the left is unrealistic . . . <jeesh!>
The "moral truth" that is relevant here is this: there is more to
a civilization than individuals, the total of the individuals is
greater than the sum of its parts, and that total is called the
*public*. Without it, and without the collective action the
awareness of it makes possible, it is very likely we'd all still
be living under the law of the jungle *in* the jungle, those few
of us who were living at all, that is.
Humans are social animals, and interdependent ones at that.
Without the help of others none of us would have ever even been
born. "public" decision-making and spending is simply the
civilized way of making life better for everyone. It's not
perfect, but it sure beats feudalism where everything belongs to
the most vicious bully, the toughest "individual". What happens
of course in the absense of a democratic sense of the public good
is that the most powerful individuals end up extorting fealty
from weaker ones, and constantly fighting wars with ones of
comparable power. In that model everyone loses.
The individualism you worship, that which gives everyone some
rights, regardless of personal power, is wholly a product of a
strong sense of "public" good; it's good for everyone if everyone
has rights. Well, everyone except a few monopolists who
experience that some of their power is "stolen" to be distributed
to those who have none.
=Doug
--
Doug Thompson - via FidoNet node 1:221/162
UUCP: ...!watmath!isishq!doug
Internet: doug@isishq.FIDONET.ORGjosh@klaatu.rutgers.edu (J Storrs Hall) (12/02/88)
Doug Thompson writes:
e>From: eric@snark.UUCP
e>Nevertheless, he has hold of a basic moral truth that you, with all your
e>sophistication, are still evading. There is no 'public money'; there is
e>only stolen or extorted private money, and advocating *more* tax-funded
e>boondoggles makes one accessory before the fact to more crime.
Hmmm. I guess that means there is no "public" either? Does that
mean that there is no "family money", only stolen or extorted
private money? Does that mean my church has no "church money",
only stolen or extorted private money?
There *is* a significant difference between a nation-state and a
family, and it is the blindness to this difference that is the
vital essence of the garden of misconceptions Doug is heir to.
The the ultimate producers of wealth in a family *are* the parents.
Mommy and Daddy do *not* derive their income from taxing the kids;
they have outside jobs. Gifts to the kids are true gifts, not
stolen goods as in the case of "public" bounty.
Churches have "church money" because the private money they receive
is freely and uncoercedly donated.
There is, of course, true public money. Some $100 million is given
gratis to the government every year. However, it disappears in the
noise since the government steals ten thousand times as much in the
same period.
<Sigh> There obviously is a thing called a "public",
Oh, absolutely. There are also such things as theives, rapists,
and murderers. Just because one admits the existance, at some
level of abstraction, of a collective entity, does not make it
moral for that entity to violate the rights of individuals.
The fact that the "public" exists does not imply that individuals
do not exist!
... and it also
obviously has democratic decision-making apparatus through which
such things as national defense and welfare are funded by the
people, for the people. Now I suppose you think welfare and
defence should be left to the free market too?
Try this insight on for size: The political and the economic
systems are *both* simply collective decision-making mechanisms.
Furthermore, a wide variety of other systems is available.
Which should be used for what applications is *not* properly
a matter of ideological reflexology...
And they say that the left is unrealistic . . . <jeesh!>
...left, right, populist, *or* libertarian.
{lots of heart-rending stuff about "nasty, brutish, and short"}
Political science is still in its alchemy stage. All systems,
from anarcho-capitalistic to pure communism, are built on a
framework of mutually agreed-to rights and privileges.
If poli-sci had advanced as fast as comp-sci in the 20th century,
we'd be living in a utopia. Question for the group:
Why hasn't it?
--JoSHjbush@ficc.uu.net (james bush) (12/02/88)
In article <Dec.1.17.23.44.1988.9194@klaatu.rutgers.edu>, josh@klaatu.rutgers.edu (J Storrs Hall) writes: | | If poli-sci had advanced as fast as comp-sci in the 20th century, | we'd be living in a utopia. Question for the group: | Why hasn't it? Probably due to the sinful selfish nature of man. Political ssytems not taking this into account are in trouble already. -- James Bush, Ferranti, Houston The Bible - the "source code" of life "Righteousness exalts a nation,but sin is a disgrace to any people." Prov. 14:34 Internal: jbush,5230, mail A/3204, room A/3602 External: ..!uunet!ficc!jbush All opinions are my own, and do not represent those of my employer.