h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

From those who have to those who need.

>which Liverpool poet's son was my childhood playmate.<

Show me a Liverpudlian who doesn´t become a poet after a few s. Unfair advantage you have.

"many libertarians *do* find something sinister in such an organization being funded with 'stolen' money."

It isn't the funding of the organization that is sinister. It is the staling of the money. The two are quite separate. If some government has stolen money, it is better they provide a service for all people (like police, national protection) then pick and choose who it goes to (welfare).

Basically, both situations are forced theft, but in the first situation, the gov. trades a service for the money (although the citizen didn't necessarily agree).

In the latter, the victim of the government theft is not even repaid. The stolen goods go to another who has not earned it.

So basically there are 3 levels. In one, there is no theft. People are free to purchase insurance or protection privately, and are free to pool money to help the less fortunate. Regardless of the outcome, this is the only way law can be moral. In another fair payment is given, but the owner did not give consent. The worst is no consent and no payment.

Ilu, I´m still not happy about the "stealing" view you have. OK, when I was young and got my first paychecks, the percentage I payed into mandatory insurance would have looked much nicer in my pocket. Now I´m at the age one is nearer to "circling the drain hole", knowing I have a secure pension is a very nice feeling.

"The modern world, of course, is entirely different."

Very true. The modern world has far more riches and unnecessary stuff to go around. Science has improved immensely. And there is still tons of unsettled land. There is way more water than will ever be needed. All that must be done is some disinfecting/filtering. The resource argument is probably the worst of the bunch, because it so obviously false. All a government is good for is to keep people from threatening, thieving and killing each other.

" The indigenous inhabitants had to be slaughtered first."

I don't know a soul who believes they had to be slaughtered. Nor one who believes they had to slaughter the settlers. Slaughtering is quite an obvious infringement on the rights of the slaughteree.

"It is a worldview that holds, quite simply, that doing for others is contemptible; that doing for self is the purpose of human life; that altruism and service are somehow pathologies pushed by collectivists and should be subordinated to selfishness and greed. . . ."

But of course, anyone with an ability to observe the world around them can see this is a blatant lie. It is such an obvious attempt to paint conservatives as horrible people. How can any logical person construe "don't steal my shit" to mean "I would never give someone my shit"? No one can think that. But if one works on ones feelings, and distract one from thinking through the logic of it, one can be mislead. Even Rand did not have a problem with giving, so long as it was not compulsory.

Ed
"We stand on the shoulders of giants."

Yes, and giants who were justly compensated. I have no problem with working in a society in order to improve conditions if all are justly compensated.

It's not stealing at all. It's saying, "If you want to be a part of this society, you must at least pretend to be a decent person."

And private charity doesn't work. You've never read any Dickens, have you, Iluvatar?

TRiG.

Iluvatar, I find your assumption of an antagonism between "government" and people a little unfamiliar. I have always felt that in a democracy, even a representative democracy, that one has -- how shall I put it? -- a government of the people, by the people and for the people.

I know that in my particular situation, I don't feel that my elected representatives, even the ones I voted against, are some sort of distant strangers who are trying to control my life. I don't hesitate at all to pick up the phone and give them a piece of my mind (in the case of my MP, I gave her a piece of my Swedish Ivy the last time she came by my place). They're some of 'the people', just as I am one of them. They're my neighbours. I would much rather think of my elected representatives as my neighbours rather than as thieves.

Indeed. Government is just society's way of organising itself. (Did you even glance at that Greta Christina article I linked to?)

TRiG.

anhaga,

>a government of the people, by the people and for the people.<

Our latest revolution (yes - as a political entity, today´s Germany is a lot younger than the US) was mainly got snowballing by the slogan "Das Volk sind WIR." Translates as "WE are the people". They were the majority. It worked, without a single bullet fired.

TRiG, Greta Christina seems to not know about logical resoning.

"Because when you think about what government is -- or what it should be -- you realize that people who think government is a bad idea are essentially opposed to the idea of pooling resources."

Did this idea come out of her ass? It certainly is not a logical conclusion to say
government is bad, therefore pooling resources is bad.
Or is she merely saying you will realize this, without so much as attempt at giving any reason to realize this?

"To oppose the very idea of government, to think of it as at best a necessary evil, is to believe in the philosophy of "Every man for himself.""

Again, not a valid conclusion, unless the definition of government is "to do everything with at least one other person". She never gave any such definition. It is not the pooling of resources that conservatives are against, it is involuntary pooling. But no one ever argues back against this reasoning, because they can't. So they change the definitions, the subject, or both.

"It is to believe in the philosophy of "Screw you, Jack, I've got mine." It is to believe that sharing is bad. It is to believe in the atomization of society, the breakdown of social responsibility into smaller and smaller units."

Who ever said that government is defined as "that which is not smaller and smaller units?". I buy food from Fresh and Easy. Does the fact that I didn't grow it myself mean I love big government pooling my resources? Of course not. That is absurd, yet that is exactly what she is trying to convince people of.

"To believe that government is a bad idea is to believe that society itself is a bad idea."

???

Iluvatar, I'd like to ask you a question which is quite close to home for me. Considering your idea of 'fair compensation', in which the government doesn't 'steal' anything from an individual without providing commensurate compensation in services, etc. to *that particular individual*, what would your libertarian society do with a mentally handicapped child who will likely never contribute to her society anything anywhere nearly monetarily equivalent to the fiscal cost of her life?

I think you should consider carefully your answer, and I hope you would acknowledge that there are a great many able-bodied and able-brained individuals in both of our countries who will *never* be able to repay the state for the benefits they enjoy due to the simple fact of being born into a modern, democratic, industrial society.

>involuntary pooling<

You don´t have to volunteer. And you can avoid pooling in by getting out.

"when I was young and got my first paychecks, the percentage I payed into mandatory insurance would have looked much nicer in my pocket. Now I´m at the age one is nearer to "circling the drain hole", knowing I have a secure pension is a very nice feeling."

You surely were not so illogical that you truly believed you would stay young forever though, were you? If it wasn't taken out, anyone with a half ounce of reasoning ability can see they need to do something themselves. And about this nice feeling. Since when has a nice feeling justified theft? No one ever answered and gave a reason why the bum is justified in robbing the rich man at gunpoint, solely so the bum doesn't have to work? If you see someone wasting money, are you justified in stealing it, with the excuse that you will hold it, that they might need it some later year?

" I would much rather think of my elected representatives as my neighbours rather than as thieves."

So would I. Unfortunately, I tend to view things as they are, rather than as I would like.

The sane side of your brain tells you to keep some money for when you will need it - that´s thieving, by your definition?

"It's not stealing at all. It's saying, "If you want to be a part of this society, you must at least pretend to be a decent person.""

You haven't given any explanation as to why forcibly taking control ones property is not stealing. We need not talk of what is done with the money afterward, or how good it can make society or whatever. Lets just work on justifying forcibly taking another's property. Once we can justify that, we can move on to the society questions.

Pit:

I like that 'WE are the people'.

A fundamental part of my country's constitution and societal mind-set is 'Peace, Order, and Good Government'. That's what our Governments' prime responsibility is. Interestingly, up until the last moment of the draughting of the British North America Act of 1867 (a *part* of our Constitution) the phrase was 'Peace, Order, and Welfare'. Whichever version, from the beginning (which was a very, very long time ago, as is referred to in another part of our Constitution as 'pre-existing aboriginal rights') our society has been about getting along with and helping each other *without* any of this libertarian nonsense about coercion.