From: sa114984@longs.LANCE.ColoState.Edu (Steven Arnold)
Subject: Re: Why the hostility?
Date: Fri, 01 Jan 1993 01:08:44 GMT
Organization: Colorado State U. Engineering College

In article <ALEXJ.92Dec28113636@claudius.juliet.ll.mit.edu>, alexj@juliet.ll.mit.edu ( Alexander Jackl ) writes:
|> 
|> Douglas Meier in post <1992Dec26.21.2840.11849@news2.cis.umn.edu> mentions
|> "Free Shit Brigades which control several college campuses".
|> 
|> Could you explain that a little more clearly?  On most of the campuses I
|> have been on very few people would get political or upset about Objectivism
|> or it's opposite (which is...?).

	In general, the opposite of respect for human freedom is any attitude
which tolerates or justifies human slavery.  Needless to say, some philosophies
try to tolerate or justify a great deal of human slavery, others tolerate or
justify a lesser degree of human slavery.  But all are contrary to the philosophy
that all human beings are created free, that they have a right of ownership over
their own bodies, that this right necessarily results in the rights to life,
liberty and property, and that these rights must never be unilaterally abridged
or abrogated.

|> ALso I find it curious that you use the term "socialist" as synonymous with
|> "Anti-Objectivism".  Perhaps we are using different definitions of Objectivism.
|> In my understanding and interpretation "socialism" describes a particular 
|> economic theory espoused by Marx that is, in our culture and time period has
|> been negatively linked with communism (due to their owninnacurate use of the 
|> word for themselves... WHat does the philosphy of Objectivism have to do with 
|> socialism?

	Economics, my friend, is everything.  Absolutely everything!  An economic
system which forcibly takes what one person or group has produced and uses it for
the benefit of another is a socialist economic system, and it is also an economic
system which justifies, nay, DEMANDS, human slavery in order to function.
	I do believe that some taxes are justified.  In particular, a tax (by
which I mean forcible seizure of money from a person or group to be used for some
purpose) is justified if the purpose will benefit the person from whom the money
is taken, and provided the benefit in question is of such a nature that one
cannot live in a nation without receiving that benefit.  In other words, there
are certain goods that no one living in a nation can avoid receiving -- for
example, the national defense.  Everybody who lives in the US benefits from the
national defense.  The only way not to benefit from the national defense is to
leave the country.  Then, based on the principle that a person ought to pay for
the benefits received, and since living in a country like the US is a voluntary
affair, we conclude that if a person chooses to live in the United States, and
since they must reasonably know that they will receive the benefit of a national
defense if they choose to live here, we infer that they implicitly agree to pay
taxes to support the national defense.
	Social Security, to cite another example, is entirely different.  People
can easily live in America and not receive the benefits of Social Security.  One
cannot reasonably infer merely from a person's location that they wish to pay
into and receive the benefits of Social Security.
	The difference is rather subtle, so let me try to restate it one more
time: with things like national roads or the national defense, it is either
PHYSICALLY or PRACTICALLY impossible to live in the United States and not benefit
from these services.  If you live here, you almost certainly benefit.  With
Social Security, you must benefit only because the law says you must.  There is
not physical or practical necessity involved.  Hence, in the case of Social
Security, the government cannot infer that people who live here automatically
agree to be involved in the program; and to take money by force from someone who
does not agree to give it amounts to theft.  But with services like the national
defense, one must necessarily benefit from it if he lives in this country, and so
merely living in this country can be taken as implicit agreement to receive the
benefit in question, and having received the benefit, payment can be demanded and
collected by force, if necessary.
	I think that's about as clear as mud.....

Steve
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism