>> > Jerry Mitchell wrote
>> > >You DO NOT have the right to take other peoples property (or
>> > >have the government take it for you). You must rely on
>> > >voluntary contributions and charity if you want to be moral.
>> > However do you get around? It must be rather limiting, restricting your
>> > routes to avoid any roads paid for by taxes. Or do you drive along (or
>> > in the bus or train) in a state of crushing and unremitting guilt?
>>Guilt?? He's talking about the politicians and the voters
>>who took the money. Annoyance, or perhaps the feeling of
?>being abused, is probably what he feels when using the roads.
>Nozick has an interesting essay on this somewhere in his _Philosophical
>Personally, I don't make a good libertarian because I can see no principled
>way to restrict government activities in the field of building social
>infrastructure like roads, public schools, etc, and collecting taxes to pay
>for it. This is not an argument for big government, which can be opposed on
>various bases, just a view that there is no knock-out argument in favour of
>minarchy. I think it can be shown that any pure minarchist position such as
>Jerry Mitchell seems to be advocating collapses into either anarchism or
>classical liberalism, once a serious attempt is made to defend it.
>I do think there is something damn close to a knock-out argument against
>passing laws based on the reasoning that "we don't want you to exercise
>freedom in certain ways that we find immoral". That, however, is a
>liberal view, not strictly a libertarian one.
1: It does annoy me to be driving around on roads that I know for a fact can
be built and maintained by private methods.
2: I dont have the perfect blueprint for Utopia, but I can tell you one
thing, that it wouldnt be funded via taxation(theft). The only honest
purpose of government in my opinion is the police, judicial system, and the
military. All these things could be funded through voluntary methods
(Lotteries, contract protection payments, etc.... use your imagination)
I would have hoped that a discussion list as open minded and as clever as
this, could not only imagine a moral government as such, but would probably
be able to go that next step beyond where I am and actually design some of
the workings of it. How many people here, when trying to convey topics that
we deal with (A.I, nanotech, etc.) hear "Thats impossible or" "Its WAY off
in the future beyond where we will be able to see it"? Stretch a bit here,
dont give up on a moral government because you dont think its possible, find
a way to make it work! Close the holes in any gaps someone points out and
thank them for helping. Look at the frameworks already put together for
designing A.I., they may not be exact specific intstructions on what code to
enter, but its a start. Doesnt everyone agree that theft (taking property
without permission) is wrong in principle? What about the idea that it is
wrong to initiate force or fraud?
The biggest hurdle I cant get past personally is this majority rule thing.
Why does 51% of the population get to hold the magic excalibur and wield
total control over the other 49%? What principle allows this and what
supports it? No, I dont have the alternative, but me not haveing the answer
doesnt mean that this is the best we can do... I never said I was a genius,
but it doesnt take a 200 IQ to grasp basic principles and know when your not
following them. Rather then trying to answer back to this with the usual
screaching of being practicial, try to think of a way to make the principled
approah the only practical solution, then you will have done more for
freedom then any government program could have ever done.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:39:49 MDT