HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cbbrowne@csi.uottawa.ca (Christopher Browne)
Subject: Re: Taxation as Theft (was Re: Negative Income Tax)
Organization: Dept. of Computer Science, University of Ottawa
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 93 01:25:14 GMT

In article <93008.020107SPRAGGEJ@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> John G. Spragge <SPRAGGEJ@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> writes:
>In article <1993Jan8.042007.20526@csi.uottawa.ca>, cbbrowne@csi.uottawa.ca
>(Christopher Browne) says:
>>
>>If there's no individual "right", then it's going to be rather
>>difficult to determinine a way of having a state's "right," isn't it?
>
>No state has any rights whatsoever. A state represents an intellectual
>tool, a paradigm, and those (us) who use it may alter, reduce, change,
>or annihilate it at any time, and for any reason (or none).

Despite this assertion, there's lots of states out there that seem to
grab rights, taxes, and other things, and seem tenacious and difficult
to annihiliate.  The fact that they may not have any "rights" seems
pretty irrelevant.

>The debate over property rights boils down to two simple questions: can
>we define a set of rights by individuals over the physical world? And
>if so, do the current state arrangements (ie. real estate law, joint
>stock corporations, bank deposit insurance, et al) approximate this
>ideal?
>
>I do not argue in favour of "rights" for the state (an absurdity); nor
>do I argue that any rights stem from force. Might does not make right
>(and right rarely makes might, alas).

Unfortunately, we're left with the question: On what authority do
states act?  Call it "rights", call it "authority"; call it what you
will.

It still remains a problem.

Either a state acts based on the desires and authority of SOME
individuals (since there is so seldom unanimity, it will almost never
be ALL of them), and thus expresses "individual" authority, or else
the authority is based on something else.  That something else might
be a "supreme ruler," which STILL means that the state has no
intrinsic source of authority.

Religious states can claim to be ruled by God.  Secular states must
conversely be ruled by men (political correctness buffs BUTT OUT!).
In neither case is it apparent that the state is of any intrinsic
value or importance.

In any case, it appears that in theory, the state has little to do
with the issue of "property rights."

God may have some particular ideas about property.  That maybe ought
to be what is followed.  But the issue then doesn't have anything to
do with the state here.

Alternatively, "property rights" may be simply related to the
relationship of individuals to one another.  Again, "the state" isn't
terribly relevant.

-- 
Christopher Browne                |     PGP 2.0 key available
cbbrowne@csi.uottawa.ca           |======================================
University of Ottawa              | Genius may have its limitations, but
Master of System Science Program  | stupidity is not thus handicapped.
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada
Subject: Re:Help needed
From: mscs245@vax1.mankato.msus.edu
Date: 12 Jan 93 19:38:32 -0600
Organization: Mankato State University

help,
	I need some information on where to stay on an upcomming trip to
Tronto.  I want to stay in a hotel in the $75 - 100 range and would appreciate
any help you may have.

Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,can.politics
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: Taxation as Theft (was Re: Negative Income Tax)
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 06:17:40 GMT

In article <1993Jan4.000310.13273@athena.mit.edu> cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok) writes:
>
>even given this, there are some cases where individual opting out
>would be impossible because doing so would threaten the rights of
>others. the military is one case; how can the army defend my house
>but not yours, which is next door to it? same with the fire department.
>you might ask why i am willing to allow this.
>really, this prioritizes by saying that the
>right to life is at the top of the hierarchy, something i don't
>think (m)any would disagree with.
>

I thought, though I am not certain of this, that Objectivists were 
inclined to be opposed to funding the military via taxation but
only through voluntary contributions from its citizens and a volunteer
army...to discourage the State from becoming involved in foreign
misadventures easily...and because taxation for military purposes
was too great an assault on the right to property.

I can't imagine Objectivists supporting taxation for a fire department
...services which can easily be provided for via the market.

You are deadset opposed to giving a meal to a starving person so that
they have are able to think clearly enough to exercise their vote
properly...yet you seem perfectly willing to steal from individuals
to have a publically-funded fire department...what a misplaced set
of priorities!

Gerald
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,can.politics
From: james@cs.UAlberta.CA (James Borynec; AGT Researcher)
Subject: Re: Taxation as Theft (was Re: Negative Income Tax)
Organization: University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 21:32:54 GMT

marky@engin.umich.edu (Mark Anthony Young) writes:
>Fire protection is easily provided by the free market system.  You
>simply enroll in one of the Fire Protection companies that operate
>in your area.  If your house catches fire, they'll come and put it
>out.  If you pay for deluxe service, they'll come when your neighbour's
>place catches fire and keep it from spreading to your place.  For
>people who don't want to get fire protection, there'll be freelancers
>around most places -- people who'll bring the trucks to your fire and
>dicker with you over the price to put it out.

A more common "free market" system would be for a freelance fire
deptartment to offer to buy your (burning) house for say 10% of
its real value.  Anti-trust laws, who need them :-)

>Military is a bit more complicated, but can still be done.  I can 
>afford to arm myself and some retainers enough to protect me from
>small threats.  For larger threats I can band together with people 
>across the country to buy more expensive equipment that will be
>available to members of the corporation as required.

>Our companies can then offer protection to individuals.  If a
>foreign army enters your area, we'll come and get you out and pay
>to set you back up again when the fighting's over (not great, but
>better than death).  If 40% or more of your community signs up to
>our protection plan, you get community rates.  We'll come out and
>protect your whole community from the foreign invaders (tho' only
>members get recompense for damages).  

>Of course, some people would rely on their neighbours' protection 
>to protect themselves; but then, under your welfare system, some 
>people would rely on their neighbours' charity to keep the poor 
>people from rioting.  All in all, my system for protecting people
>is no worse than yours for feeding people, and my system has the
>added benefit that no one has to give any money for _any_ service
>they don't want.

Until the 40% who DO pay for the military get mad at the 60% who
don't.  

You are missing a DISPUTE settlement mechanism.  Who pays for that?
Is that theft?  Is it a violation of your property rights?

j.b.
PS.  Arguing about taxes is like complaining about the weather.
Everyone does it, but it does precious little good.
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,can.politics
From: cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok)
Subject: Re: Negative Income Tax (Was: Social programs)
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 06:13:24 GMT

In article <1993Jan6.042644.27527@julian.uwo.ca> larocqu@gaul.csd.uwo.ca (JOHN LAROCQUE) writes:
>>How can you accuse me of espousing dogma...apart from asserting a
>>single principle, that of popular sovereignty, I haven't been advocating
>>any ideology...and the advocation of popular sovereignty is basically
>>asserting the position that everyone is entitled to their personal
>>beliefs and a right to voice them politically through 
>>their right to vote...which is a method more than an ideology.
>
>Ugh. Popular sovereignty? I am feeling very sick to my stomach. Who sends
>people off to wars? Elected politicians. Who raises your taxes and smiles
>and says its the will of the people? Elected politicians. And who is
>responsible - no not the politicians, but the Canadian people who are all
>suckers for believing that other people can solve their problems.

this is ridiculously simplistic. true, ultimately the voters are responsible,
but there is more to it than that. there are perverted systems which need
to be fixed. look at the choices you had in the last election. can you
blame the voters for picking the wrong flavor of yuck?

>Popular sovereingty.
>If that is the case than I declare individual indpendence

you have no right to do that within our society. if so i and many others
would have done so long ago. you *could* however drop the hysterics and
try to convince those around you that you have something of value to say,
that you have a better idea for them to listen to.

>against the popular state and pronounce judgement on those who exercise
>authority against me solely because a majority of electors (morons) have
>elected them to do so.

oh please. calling everyone a moron accomplishes nothing. everyone is
*not* a moron; most just don't have the education that the few do. and
the understanding of how rotten the system is, or what the alternatives are.
why don't you help remedy that?

>A truly wicked system.

maybe so, but what are you doing about it?

>***FEAR*AND*LOATHING**FEAR*AND*LOATHING**FEAR*AND*LOATHING**FEAR*AND*LOATHING**
>**  John LaRocque         **   "If you're the new messiah.. I'm going to be  **
>**  marshall.law@uwo.ca   **   the one to drive in the nails"  MARSHALL LAW  **
>***FEAR*AND*LOATHING**FEAR*AND*LOATHING**FEAR*AND*LOATHING**FEAR*AND*LOATHING**

oh. you're one of *those*.
for one, could you explain this "marshall law" business to us?
or "fear and loathing"?

--
charles
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,can.politics
From: godfrey@vxdesy.desy.de
Subject: Re: Abandoning the Politically Powerless
Followup-To: soc.culture.canada
Organization: (DESY, Hamburg, Germany)
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 23:26:51 GMT

In article <davecb.726412882@yorku.ca>, davecb@nexus.yorku.ca (David Collier-Brown) writes:
> 
> In article <13782@grayt> grayt@Software.Mitel.COM (Tom Gray) writes:
>   I have the duiubtfull pleasuer of belonging to a labour union at a
> university which has testified before the labour board that a broad class of
> university-educated members, both male and female, are the perpetrators of a
> form of sexual discrimination, because university education is obviously a
> matter of (male?) privelege.  [Yes, I know that doesn't make any sense.  It
> isn't supposed to.]  
>  They've defined who their friends are, and have no use for anyone else, and
> anything at all can be used as a distinction between friend and enemy.  The
> labour board, having a responsability to **their** friends, follows a
> similar line of reasoning.  The Ontario Government, having a comittment to
> gender equality, also follows suit (after all, sexual discrimination is
> trendy).
> 
>   This turns us from a government of laws into not a government of men, but
> a government of fads.
>   Alas, this is very much the kind of polarization we've seen in the
> excited states, with the success or failure of a party depending very
> much on the publicization of particular positions, not on broader issues.
> 
>   I often claim we learn from the U.S.'s mistakes.  I'm not sure how we
> can learn from this one.
> 
> --dave
> -- 
> David Collier-Brown,  | davecb@CCS.YorkU.CA | lethe!dave
> 72 Abitibi Ave.,      | 
> Willowdale, Ontario,  | York Postmaster and
> CANADA. 416-223-8968  | occasional sendfail(8) consultant.

None of the above makes any sense at all

Laurence

Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,can.politics
From: marky@engin.umich.edu (Mark Anthony Young)
Subject: Re: Taxation as Theft
Date: Fri, 08 Jan 93 01:31:28 EST
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor
Followup-To: can.politics,talk.politics.theory

golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
>If I am advocating a limited democratic government...how can I
>be arguing that there is one right and true way to run a country...

I was referring to past discussions we have had on the nature of
"fundamental human rights".  You have said that every rational
person has these fundamental rights, that these rights are
limited _only_ by each other, and that any action that otherwise
restricts those rights is immoral.

In particular, you said that there is exactly one policy on gun
control that is moral (tho' you did not explicitly say what that
policy was).  You allowed no differences due to local morality or
conditions.  Rights are rights are rights.

You are now saying that the only right and proper way to run a
country is through a limited democracy.  No variations due to
local morality or conditions.

You stuff yourself into a tiny box labeled "Fundamental Human
Rights" and loudly proclaim that you have all the room in the
world.

>I would argue that simple majoritarianism is not sufficient...

At what point did I say that majoritarianism was the rule?  I
never did.  I never even said that democracy was necessary.
I said that government action is inappropriate to the extent
that it offends the morals of its people -- the greater the
offence the greater the inappropriateness.

By greater offence I do not mean a greater number of people
offended, but rather separate people each more offended.

>A society can often be judged extremely quickly by how it
>treats its dissidents.

I agree.  The mathematics is not terribly difficult, either.
Dissidents are offended by the way the gov'ment is doing things.
If the dissidents are maltreated, they only become more offended.
Also, people who weren't offended by the gov'ments original 
actions are offended by the way the dissidents are treated.
The total amount of offence increases when the dissidents are
mistreated.  Thus the government is acting inappropriately 
when it mistreats dissidents.  QED

No need to invent spurious rights.

Also note that the mistreatment of dissidents is not _a priori_
inappropriate, but relies on the fact that it offends someone
when you mistreat them or their friends.  It's a property of
the human race.  If humans were all masochists, there'd be
nothing wrong with mistreating dissidents, since they'd _enjoy_
it.

...mark young

NB:  I have altered the follow-up line to exclude scc (sighs of
relief echo around the net) and to include talk.politics.theory.
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada
From: d40937@aiken (Jean Yves Desbiens)
Subject: Re: canadian subway
Organization: Ecole Polytechnique de Montreal
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 16:29:32 GMT

Jeremy Westerman (jsw@dcs.ed.ac.uk) wrote:
: 
: For interest the Paris Metro also uses rubber wheels. In fact, before they put
: engines in the trains, the coachs were pulled by horses!

The technology for the Montreal metro is imported from france so
that is not surprising.

Jean-Yves Desbiens                  | d40937@info.polymtl.ca
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,can.politics
From: rich@boreas.whoi.edu
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada
Subject: Re: Question(s) about Upcoming Election
Date: 13 Jan 93 03:08:06 GMT
Organization: Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution

In article <1993Jan13.003305.2963@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> ash@sumex-aim.stanford.edu (David Ash) writes:
>In article <C0r0LF.2u5.1@cs.cmu.edu> clamen+@CS.CMU.EDU writes:
>
>>I certainly think that students should be to mail votes back to the
>>home riding, regardless of their present location.  Their permanent
>>residence (for undergraduates, anyway) is still their parents' home.
>>However, I am not sure that general ex-pats (like the 1 million
>>Canadians who live in California with Brad (Hi!)) should be allowed to
>>vote.
>
>I would be adamant that Canadians in the U.S. on TC-1 visas should be
>able to vote in Canada.  These people are not U.S. citizens or permanent
>residents nor are they about to become the same;  they are Canadian
>citizens and no policy of the Canadian government should be permitted to
>disenfranchise a group of Canadian citizens.
>-- 


Yet another badly-thought-out position....let's see it again:

>no policy of the Canadian government should be permitted to
>disenfranchise a group of Canadian citizens.

Does that mean (for example) you want to drop the age limit for voting? 
What about prisoners? The mentally insane? Large numbers of citizens
are *already* disenfranchised.

I've been here in the US as a student for almost 5 years now - my
choice. Just what right do I have to vote in (say) my parents riding?
Do I know the local issues, the politicians? Do I pay taxes there? Is
the parliamentary system served by having me vote a blind party ticket
from another country?

I think not.

(I will admit that it might have been nice to vote in the referendum
last fall, but I knew so little about it that I can't really say my
vote would have been an informed one. And is democracy a method whereby
large numbers of ill-informed votes really add up to the best choice?)

--
Rich Pawlowicz ----------------- INTERNET: rich@boreas.whoi.edu
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
"Home of the 99 cent squid burger (cheese extra)"
--------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,can.politics
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: Negative Income Tax (Was: Social programs)
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 06:09:11 GMT

In article <1993Jan7.052049.2084@athena.mit.edu> cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok) writes:
>i am ceasing my involvement in the discussion i have been conducting
>on this newsgroup related to rights. it has totally degenerated
>into silly, circular arguments. i see no purpose in continuing to
>attempt this argument given the tactics of my current opponent.
>and this discussion is not appropriate to this group anyway.
>i'm sure most of the recipients of this group will be happy to see it go.
>
>if anyone wants to discuss this further, introduce it into
>talk.politics.theory, or something like that.
>especially you Gerald -- i would love to see the people
>over there rip your "rights" to shreds. i just don't have time
>to do it anymore all by myself. and just *try* your anti-objectivist
>rhetoric in alt.talk.objectivism or alt.politics.libertarian.
>

It is kind of difficult to rip the assertion that "the individual
is sovereign" to shreds...

It should be noted that you have cut-and-run before you have given
us a clear, unambiguous procedure for setting up a legitimate government,
a government which even you admit is necessary at least to adminster
the courts and the police.  This, of course, is something Objectivists
never get around to...the government just sort of exists, and acts
appropriately by accident.  Objectivists aren't big on discussing
how a state gains authority legitimately from the citizenry.

Objectivism fails on the political level...it fails to recognize,
to steal a phrase, that the government must be of the people, by
the people, and for the people...that individuals are not only
rational entities, but political entities, and that there is not
only an economic structure to society, but a political one, and
that the individual rights must be protected in either, and that
political liberty is as important as economic liberty.

Gerald

Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,can.politics
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: Taxation as Theft (was Re: Negative Income Tax)
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 15:16:00 GMT

In article <C0JDJr.xH@mach1.wlu.ca> dmccrea6@mach1.wlu.ca (doug mccready F) writes:
>Most economics is based on there being property rights. How can it be said,
>as it was in the last post that most people can be against property rights.

>If that is the case, why would anyone want to stay in a country which did
>not enter into giving their citizens such a basic right? True, I have not
>been following this thread long enough but am quite interested. Is it not
>correct that the federal government proposed entrenching property rights
>into the constitution?

But it failed way before it even got past the peoples conferences...

...the status of property in Canada right now is really more of a 
privilege than a right.

Part of the problem is that the extremists on both ends of the property
rights debate really confuse the issue.

We should include property rights in the constitution, but the context
by which it is included in is critically important.              

Gerald
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada
From: robinson@mdivax1.uucp (Jim Robinson)
Subject: Re: Unique, eh?
Reply-To: robinson@mdd.comm.mot.com (Jim Robinson)
Organization: Motorola - Mobile Data Division; Richmond, BC
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]
Date: 11 Jan 93 23:20:35 GMT

Brian J Ross (bross@spartan.ac.BrockU.CA) wrote:
>godfrey@vxdesy.desy.de (Laurence "I was fired from NRC" Godfrey) writes:
>: In article <1993Jan9.020927.5639@philmtl.philips.ca>, ray@philmtl.philips.ca (Ray Dunn) writes:
>: > This newsgroup is really quite unique.  I can think of no other that I read
>: > regularly where I could expect to see all 22 new articles on the same
>: > thread and by such a small number of people, as I saw today.  Although this
>: > is an extreme example, soc.culture.canada always has a remarkably small
>: > number of subject lines for the volume of postings.  How boring.
>: 
>: Does that surprise you for a group which concerns itself with Canadians?
>: 
>: Laurence

>Hey Larry! Tell us about yourself!
>Canada is boring; Larry Godfrey is interesting!

Perhaps he'll tell us why the NRC fired him???

(sorry, couldn't resist :-)
-- 
Jim Robinson
robinson@mdd.comm.mot.com
{ubc-cs!van-bc,uunet}!mdivax1!robinson

Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,can.politics
From: kdc@ccu.umanitoba.ca ()
Subject: Re: New DND Min
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 14:10:28 GMT

In article <29483@oasys.dt.navy.mil> absmith@oasys.dt.navy.mil writes:
>Would anyone care to comment on the appointment of the
>new Min for DND?


  A R R G G H  !
  Call an election and get rid of this govt!
 
  Ken D. U of Manitoba

Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada