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

"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."

Wrong, wrong, wrong. Resources are not infinite. It is not possible for someone with nothing to turn that nothing into something. Land that is unclaimed is largely unsuitable for farming. All of the natural resources worth having have been claimed and are guarded jealously through the force of law. There is nothing left. And you couldn't be more wrong about water - there are serious shortages pending due to climate change - in the Middle East, and in America.

Where you're right is that there is enough to go round, it's just that people won't share. And propertarianism prevents any kind of redistribution of wealth other than tiny amounts of "charity".

Don´t forget Africa:
http://www.oxfam.org/en/climatechange/impact-climate-change-water-resources

In Palestina children suffer many deseases in relation to the amount and quality of water. Israel controls water there.

In Southamerica, lands with great amounts of fresh water are being sold to foreing companies. Water is becoming the next big capitalist bussiness.

Post 606 Il:
>>
I don't know a soul who believes they had to be slaughtered.

Then maybe you should read more widely, talk to more people. If the deliberate handing out of smallpox-infested blankets to children and women does not count as slaughter, then maybe Josef Mengele was a misguided humanitarian.

KNOW YOUR COUNTRY'S HISTORY, BUBBA! Then get back to us.

Clive: In the absence of society what do concepts like "money", "property", "theft" actually mean?

I'd love to see an answer to this question. It's excellent.

TRiG.

Ed
"We stand on the shoulders of giants."

Iluvatar:
>>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.

Yours, maybe. I wouldn't know. But not mine. All I know is that they died penniless.

http://www.thelifeyoucansave.com/topic.html

The idea that everyone can stand entirely on their own two feet ignores the very real problem of the poverty trap, outlined above. In the real world, everyone exists within a support network.

What say you to that, Iluvatar*?

TRiG.

* Can I just call you Eru? It's easier to type.

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Thefts, Burgleries, Robberies and Graft, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and **general Welfare** of the United States"

Yes there are indeed glaring problems with the constitution.

"So, the society you have chosen to stay in keeping the needy alive = theft"

No. I am growing weary of people saying I said something quite on a different plane than what I did say. I never said keeping the needy alive is theft. I said forcibly taking someones money is theft. If I pawn a television set is it theft? No, it was theft when I broke into a house to steal it in the first place.

Forcibly taking my money. This is what the government does. Arguments?

Forcibly taking my money. This is generally termed "theft". Arguments?

"Where you're right is that there is enough to go round, it's just that people won't share."

Will they not sell?

"there are serious shortages pending due to climate change - in the Middle East, and in America."

I live in the middle of the sonoran desert. The colorado river goes dry before it reaches the ocean. Yet somehow my water usage costs me about 18 dollars a year. Most used H2O remains H2O after usage. Are you saying that no one out of billions has the ability to form a company to recycle water? They do recycle water. It is a fact. If water prices go up, more people will be drawn to the business, driving down the prices again. I disagree with you completely that all the natural resources worth having have been claimed. The more sciense advances, the more we will find to be resources. And even if they have been claimed, will they not sell?

"KNOW YOUR COUNTRY'S HISTORY, BUBBA! Then get back to us."

It is quite impossible for me to personally know long dead individuals, so I don't know why you are pointing out history.

Ed is pointing out history because you have a worldview completely divorced from reality. You are advocating a political system which would vastly increase human misery and which would very quickly break down. You are trying to make the world a horrible place.

And if you knew anything about history you would understand that.

TRiG.

"Forcibly taking my money. This is what the government does. Arguments?"

Why do you want more arguments when you've ignored the ones we've already given you?

If it were not for the government, your money would be meaningless, useless. Your assets (money, property, water supply, education, Internet connection ...) come to you as part of your membership of society. Society, though its representative, the government (of, by, and for the people, remember?) asks for a contribution back.

If you're a selfish pratt who doesn't want to contribute to society, why are you trying to live in society? There's plenty of desert out there. Be off with you!

TRiG.

Illuvatar, have you had time to consider the questions I asked you in post # 638 that I wrote out this morning?

Markets only work where people have stuff to sell in the first place. If me and my friends have everything and nothing is left, there's no market.

Just google "world water shortages" and have a read of some of the articles on it. Or read the previous link posted. Or read this
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2943946.stm
http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=29796&Cr=water&Cr1=agriculture

It's worth educating yourself about the issues.

In case someone wants to check what I said about Israel controlling the water in Palestina.
And in case Illuvatar wants to check what theft means for many:

http://www.thewe.cc/weplanet/news/water/water_war_leaves_palestinians_thirsty.htm

Iluvatar:

'Yes there are indeed glaring problems with the constitution.'

and yet you lamented a few days ago that the US Constitution is not actually in force anywhere.

'Forcibly taking my money. This is what the government does. Arguments?'

None from me, assuming that the IRS actually is sending the sheriff around to your place to collect after you've refused to file your return. Of course, if you've actually filled your tax return, there is no force involved.

'Forcibly taking my money. This is generally termed "theft". Arguments?'

Again, none from me. Forcibly depriving one of their property is *generally* termed 'theft'.

But . . .

taxation is a very *specific* type of property transfer, and it is a form of property transfer which is *not* generally termed 'theft'. You have chosen to improperly apply a general definition to a specific case.

To offer a parallel example, taking a person's life is generally considered murder. State sponsored capital punishment is therefore . . . murder? A soldier firing his weapon at an enemy with success is . . . murder? No. Neither of these cases are generally considered to be even 'manslaughter'.

You can only call taxation theft by an implicit redefinition of either or both terms. Taxation is not theft. Yes, it is taking your money, perhaps even forcibly. But it is not theft.




Property, of course, *is* theft.

I wanted to follow up on Iluvatar's response to my question about society's response to the mentally handicapped child.

Iluvatar's response, in part: 'I would hope some loving people would take care of this person. I would hope charity will be enough. I don't know what the society would do. How can I know? It depends on the people in the society, and on the people close to the child. If you see someone you are not capable of helping, are you justified in robbing a passer by in order to help?'

So, there is a responsibility to this child which, if she is to survive, must be born by those willing to bear the responsibility but those who don't give a shit can be parasites taking advantage of the caring people?

No. Even if you don't care, you have a responsibility to share in the support of the disadvantaged in your society, even if you must be forced to do so and, as I mentioned above, it is not 'theft'. It is simply being required to fulfil your responsibilities.

'I live in the middle of the sonoran desert. The colorado river goes dry before it reaches the ocean. Yet somehow my water usage costs me about 18 dollars a year. Most used H2O remains H2O after usage. Are you saying that no one out of billions has the ability to form a company to recycle water? They do recycle water. It is a fact. If water prices go up, more people will be drawn to the business, driving down the prices again. I disagree with you completely that all the natural resources worth having have been claimed. The more sciense advances, the more we will find to be resources. And even if they have been claimed, will they not sell?'




'Unlimited opportunities can be as potent a cause of frustration as a paucity or lack of opportunities. When opportunities are apparently unlimited, there is an inevitable deprecation of the present.' -- from 'The True Believer' by Eric Hoffer.

Readers of Hoffer (or, indeed, Wells) will understand whence frustration leads.

This post has been removed.

Paying what you owe is not theft.

No-one can earn any money or generate any resources without the state. Without the state, there is no civil society - there is just anarchy, and not in a good way. Life is nasty, brutish, and short. Without civil society, there is no way of sustaining a modern society or economy.

Any money-making opportunity depends on the background society and institutions. Pick any business or trade you like, and at a fundamental level it depends upon civil society to be both (a) possible, and (b) profitable.

Want to make a living by writing novels? Not possible without a constituency of literate people with a disposable income to pay for your book, and without the means of producing books - printing presses, paper factories, distribution networks, shops. All of which require a critical mass of other people who are educated, healthy, trained in their jobs, willing to leave their property unattended while they do so. It also requires a means of protecting your property (physical and intellectual) so that no-one steals your book (either in paper, or in terms of republishing it under their name).

None of this is possible without at least a minimal state guaranteeing mass education and healthcare, the rule and enforcement of law (civil and criminal), and a basic minimum standard of living for all.

Our novelist, therefore, benefits from all these things, and she must surely pay a fair contribution from the profits of her book to support the system and infrastructure that allows her to be a novelist for a living in the first place. Taxation is not theft, therefore, but the collection of monies owed in a way decided and agreed by democratic processes.