Re: The Property Protocol

Michael Lorrey (
Tue, 05 Nov 1996 14:16:23 -0500

banjo wrote:
> Michael Lorrey wrote:
> [SNiP]
> > What he said is someone who CHOOSES material privations is not
> > suffering harm, as it is a freely chosen activity. Someone who chooses
> > to remain an alcoholic,
> alcoholism is an addiction, a disease. Some people may choose to be and
> remain alcoholics, but others need help.

Nobody forced any one to drink. Its a voluntary action. The number one
quote of the addict is "I can quit anytime I want to" and they can. I
did. Someone who chooses to keep enjoying the effects of a substance
which ruins their lives obviously gets more out of the substance in
value than they lose elsewhere, so they are voluntarily accepting the
cost of their actions.

The contention that alcoholism is genetic is highly debatable, ANYONE
can becoe an alcholic. The wilingness to remain one is more a matter of
nurture than nature.
> I never mentioned alcoholism as dependent on the state of the economy.

I did. 2/3 of the homeless in America are substance abusers, i.e.
addicts. The majority of which have alcohol as their drug of choice.
Ergo, homelessness, once you understand the process of alcoholism, is a
natural funtion of substance abuse, and not the state of the economy.

> But come to think of it, i suspect you'll find that there are statistical
> correlations between Unemployment levels and, Violent Crime, addiction rates,
> suicides and mental illness.

yes, you use harmful drigs, yougo crazy, you lose your job, and you are
more likely to kill youself from despair over how much you screwed up
your life. I know, I was there once.

> > SOmeone who freely choses not to make the effort to obtain the education
> > to earn a good living voluntarily accepts the associated suffering of
> > living in poverty. I know, I was there once.
> >
> > THe HIGH poverty is a function of the amount of government subsidy for
> > reproduction among those who freely choose to remain in poverty.
> I strongly disagree. By your argument, if we exterminated those losers
> who "choose" to be poor, then we'll have "solved" poverty.

Well we've certainly proven that the opposite isn't true. We've spent
more on welfare in the last 20 years than on all the wars we've ever
fought, and there's more poor people than ever. Simple biology, you feed
a culture, and it grows. You kill it, it doesn't grow any more. However,
I DO NOT advocate this sort of policy with humans. I do advocate a
policy of cutting off the feed trough. THey have no right to feed off of
my productivity without my approval, just as I don't have a right to go
around with an uzi cleaning up the garbage.

> > Your Dale Carngie had it right. We are all free to chose wealth or
> > poverty, to choose to be with the families that love us or live alone
> > under bridges.
> ok, i dare you to *choose* to be a multi-billionaire.

I'm working on that right now as a matter of fact.

> Yep, extremist-woolly-liberal middle-of-the-road socialism.
> Not State Socialism.
> > What's wrong with consumer choice and the voice of the people?
> > Don't you agree with private property?
> > Or is contract law a problem for you?
> > Or, tort liability?
> Actually i take Mr Proudhons' stance that Property (in Capitalist terms)
> is Theft. If a mining company discovers, claims and mines a large seam of
> coal, then i believe that they have stolen it from me and by implication,
> the everybody else (aka The People).

Really, I never saw a title with your name on it. If the people pass a
law establishing the mineral claims system, then YOU voted on it buddy.
Funny though, I don't see you saying that income tax is theft, though.

> > << Banjo>>where is the proof ?>>
> >
> > USSR (past, and for good reason past), Cuba, China and many other nations
> > don't let the consumer decide anything. It's all state controlled.
> Communism, State Socialism isn't the only form of Socialism.
> It's unsophisticated and only useful for controlling peasant economies.
> There are many sucessful countries that are Socialist, look to Scandinavia,
> Australasia etc
> > Contrast the capitalist countries with these. Where would you want to
> > live? No consumer choice, no property, and only contract law based on
> > government regulation of business deals. Who has maximized the social
> > outcomes more? I admit the US has increased the fascist-socialist
> > regulations (private property gun control e.g. Republicans) and the Democrats
> > have reduced freedoms ways resembling communism (increased taxation used for
> > welfare programs). But then, I'm a Libertarian and can see the US slipping
> > away from "Ian's maximum social outcomes".
> Taxing the rich (a little) to aid the poor (a little) is not Communism.

Actually, the original term was better and more succinct: "Stealing from
the rich and giving to the poor." Taxation is theft.

> You ask me where i would rather live... hey im already here. Godzone New Zealand.

Actually, if there weren't a buch af anti-new-cu-lar nuts in government,
I would probably love to live in NZ.

> > << how does "maximal social outcomes" coincide with high poverty,
> > homelessness, a stuffed-to-overflowing penal system, and as
> >
> > Are you talking about the USSR and China? They are the lowest standard of
> > living I can think of in industrialized countries. They have high poverty
> > and overflowing prisons. The "homeless" in the US have the highest standard
> > of living than in "homeless"any other county. Even Jesus said the poor, they
> > will always be with us.
> Well, if jesus said it was ok then it must be, not!

just to show that it was true then as it is true now.

> The USA, USSR and China may be SuperPowers but they ain't the only countries
> in the world.

You take the big seven economies plus China, and the rest of the world,
sorry for the rudeness, ain't worth a bucket of hooey, in comparison.
> > Dale Carnegie? Mr. _How to Win Friends and Influence People_. You are free
> > to be rich or poor, it is up to you.
> Please inform the slum dwellers of Sao Paulo that they've chosen to be poor.

Sure they continually accept the government which represses them in that
squalor. They get the life they vote for.

> Some people don't win in a market economy.

Yeah, if your a lazy, drunk, no good slob, an economy that requires you
to work is a real pain in the butt.

> Im not against a market economy, but i feel that, like all things, it should
> be applied in moderation.
> Your argument that some people "are lazy, stupid or pessimistic too", implies
> the Calvanist doctrine that the rich deserve to be praised for the wonderful
> qualities that made them rich, and that the poor must be chastized for the
> being the worthless slobs that they self-evidently are.

So what are you saying......

> maybe we should drop this or take it to private email,
> is this on-topic for extropians ?

how about to alt.reeducation.of.leftist.nincompoops ?

> -banjo