From: ivaliote@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Lotus )
Subject: Re: From each, to each
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 23:31:08 GMT

>>>>Well, I am inferring more of a state 'by membership.'
>>
>>>        And what, pray tell, are the requirements of membership.  What
>>>do you have to do or be or agree with to qualify?'
>>That would be variable.
>       Variable based on?  Skin color?  Language?  Education?  Knowledge
>of socialist doctrine?  Party membership?
Based on the preferences of the founders.  These would not be 250 million member
states.  States that large are, in my opinion, inherently impractical and just
plain bad.

>>>> All those who do not wish
>>>>to participate would not be members of the socialist state, but rather members
>>>>of a different one.  Thus, their rights aren't taken away, but volunteered.
>>>       What exactly are you going to do with the non-members?  Leave them
>>>alone?  Perhaps since they aren't "members" of society, they obviously
>>>won't get state job.  Of course, in a socialist state, all you have are
>>>state jobs.
>>Not entirely ture.  The abstainers, chances are, would have sufficient numbers 
>>to produce their own economy.    
Again, you are assuming all of the U.S. will become members (for example).  I'm
thinking that maybe North Maine or Central Illinois would (unrealistically, but 
this is a political philosophy, after all) form up their own nation.
>       Where?
Well, there'd be other places.  And they could simply trade with other non-
members.  An economy is not a geographic entity.

>>>       Are you going to expel them from the country?  Are you going to
>>>give them their own villages to live in?
>>I don't know for sure,  This is not a practical normative approach...yet.  I
>>could envision, however, a groups of people 'purchasing a huge amount of 
>>land as a whole and setting such a 'membership' government up 
>>there.
>       If you're suggesting finding yourself an island and setting up a 
>socialist state, go for it.
I truly would like to.  I'd actually prefer some land in Montana.

>>>>>       Socialism (or one form of government institutionalized 
>charity) does
>>>>>not alone equal caring of others.  It is, in my opinion, 
>only a misguided
>>>>>application of that caring.
>>>>I didn't say they were equal.
>>>       You appear to be operating under the assumption that the only "real"
>>>way to care for the poor is through socialistic (government) programs.
>>No.  I saw that the only way to ensure that it gets done is to have the 
>>government require that a certain amount be spent on charitable efforts.  
>          The government itself can't insure it gets done.
>Even the government (especially the government) has plenty of cracks into 
>which people are going to fall.)
Yes.  But I feel that people all-too-quickly run from making government work.
When the citizens refuse to take part, then representative government naturally
collapses.  I believe that is what is happening here.

>>I 
>>agree that these programs are probably better off independent from thei
>>government.  The tax credit mentioned earlier was meant to deal with this.
>          "For your benefit, we've decided to raise your taxes six percent 
>and require you give our money to charity."
Raise them?  Raise them?  I thought the term tax credit was understood to mean
that you have to pay a smaller amount in taxes, equal to the amount you choose
to give to charity.  Make the government compete with private charities.

>>I admit that my beliefs are based on the assumption that the rich can't be 
>>trusted to help the poor.  I feel that assumption is historically backed 
>>up, and that it is also validated by my personal experience with the rich.
>>>> I felt it was an application of caring as well.
>>>>Whether it is misguided is a subject for debate.
>>>       Caring for the poor is not misguided.  Forcing others to care for the
>>>poor is misguided.  Like the folk wisdom says, two wrongs don't make a right.
>>>They make two wrongs.
>>I feel that it is simply being pragmatic.
>           Ends do not justify the means.  Because something is practical 
>does not make it right.
Well, that is a time-agrued debate, is it not?
I feel that if I help people in the net, in the long term, then what can be 
wrong?  (this isn't my belief entirely, but I'll advance it for the sake of 
debate).

>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>David Veal               University of Tennessee Div. of Cont. Education
>                         Information Services Group
>PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu  (Mail to VEAL@utkvm1.utk.edu will bounce.)

______________
Matt Ivaliotes				a.k.a. Lotus
ivaliote@ux1				lotus@uiuc 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc