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
History belies so-called "spontaneous order" in society.
> ---"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 violence to
> > > force it's citizens to pay taxes.
> > >
> > > Whether you agree that citizens have a right to money or property,
> > > can't disagree that the government takes it's taxes by force
> > >
> > > 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 is
> > > consistent with Extropianism, then why are you defending socialism?
> > >
> > > 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 otherwise.
> > didn't vote for it" would prevent ANY government from collecting ANY
> > taxes needed for ANYthing - even to hire water or food inspectors,
> > or defend borders, or vaccinate children, or even to exist. In the
> > absense of any other authority, the law of fang and claw dictates
> > that the bloodiest bully with the biggest gun rules, and at the edge
> > his firing range would be the next big-gunned bloody bully's border.
> > Life would certainly be a lot more nasty, violent, brutish, and short
> > 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 that
> 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 taxation.
> 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.
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 referendums), 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)
> Terry Donaghe: email@example.com
> Individual, Anarcho-Capitalist, Environmentalist, Transhumanist, Mensan
> The Millennium Bookshelf: <http://www.donaghe.com/mbookshelf.htm>
> DO YOU YAHOO!?
> Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
History belies so-called "spontaneous order" in society.It also must 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, coherent, cohesive and cogent manner.