---"Joe E. Dees" <email@example.com> wrote:
> Date sent: Fri, 11 Dec 1998 23:59:26 +1100 (EST)
> From: Terry Donaghe <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Subject: Re: Final Challenge to Socialists
> To: email@example.com
> Send reply to: firstname.lastname@example.org
> > ---"Joe E. Dees" <email@example.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Date sent: Fri, 11 Dec 1998 07:42:01 +1100 (EST)
> > > From: Terry Donaghe <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> > > Subject: Final Challenge to Socialists
> > > To: email@example.com
> > > Send reply to: firstname.lastname@example.org
> > >
> > > > In order for socialism to exist, the government must use
> > > > force it's citizens to pay taxes.
> > > >
> > > > Whether you agree that citizens have a right to money or
> > you
> > > > can't disagree that the government takes it's taxes by force
> > (violence).
> > > >
> > > > I therefore challenge any socialist/collectivist on this list to
> > > > explain how violence against individuals by the government is an
> > > > Extropian act. If you agree that violence against individuals
> > not
> > > > consistent with Extropianism, then why are you defending
> > > >
> > > > I also posit that Any attempt to defend socialism is also a
> > defense of
> > > > the government's use of violence against individuals.
> > > >
> > > > Comments?
> > > > ==
> > > > ----------------------
> > > In such a case, ANY government would be susceptible to the charge
> > > of extortion, laissez-faire representative democracy or
> > "I
> > > didn't vote for it" would prevent ANY government from collecting
> > > taxes needed for ANYthing - even to hire water or food
> > > or defend borders, or vaccinate children, or even to exist. In
> > > absense of any other authority, the law of fang and claw dictates
> > > that the bloodiest bully with the biggest gun rules, and at the
> > of
> > > his firing range would be the next big-gunned bloody bully's
> > > Life would certainly be a lot more nasty, violent, brutish, and
> > > then, to paraphrase John Locke. Joe
> > That's nonsense. Haven't you ever heard of spontaneous order? It's
> > not in our best interest to find each other. Your opinions show
> > government propoganda is working just fine. The only way to ensure
> > the sovereignty of the individual is to do away with government.
> > Also, governments can exist just fine with very little or no
> > Look at the US up until 1913 or so. Hell, look at the US up until
> > the early 60's. I think families paid less than 10% of their income
> > in taxes up until the Democrats decided to create a Welfare State.
> History belies so-called "spontaneous order" in society. It also
> be convenient for you to label those who disagree with you as
> propagandized; it relieves you from the uncomfortable responsibility
> of dealing with their valid objections in a logical, rational,
> cohesive and cogent manner.
> I, too, believe that our government can get by with less; I also
> believe (and as has been made abundantly clear on this list, I am
> not alone in this) that we cannot get by without some form of
> government to distill our individual choices into a group consensus
> to do those things that we as a society need to do and yet cannot do
> as individuals (say, popular elections, initiatives, and
> but this government needs to be constrained by rule of law from
> slipsliding down the slope from consensus to majority tyranny (say,
> a constitution).
> Joe Dees Cum Laude Philosophy, Fiscal Conservative, Social
> Liberal, Former Mensan and Ilian (1%) (I found them boring)
Ok, you support the existence of government. But do you support the existence of a coercive (violence, theft toward the individual) government? If so, how do you support those views in terms of Extropianism. If not, please explain how a non-coercive government could exist...
The Millennium Bookshelf: <http://www.donaghe.com/mbookshelf.htm>