From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: From each, to each
Organization: University of Tennessee Computing Center
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 16:27:55 GMT

In article <Bz66oA.Gvo@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> ivaliote@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Lotus ) writes:

>>>>>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.  

        I don't think it's time to go back to white male landowners running 
everything.

>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 am assuming that the United States government will get very upset
if they issue a decree about how Life Should Be and certain people and parts 
of the country decide they don't like it and are going to secede.

>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.

       And are you thinking the United States government is going to respond 
at all well to Maine or Illinois leaving and taking its tax dollars with 
it?  When those tax dollars could be helping the socialist union, which only 
wants to help people?

>>       Where?

>Well, there'd be other places.  And they could simply trade with other non-
>members.  An economy is not a geographic entity.

       A community is.

>>>>       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.

       A lot of people have set up their own socialist/communist 
communities.  All you need are a bunch of like minded people and a little 
money.

>>>>>>       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.

       Well, I think people all-to-quickly run from making things work and 
run to the government.  It's easier to have the government bang its gavel 
and say "This is how it shall be!" than to convince people to help of their 
own free will.

>When the citizens refuse to take part, then representative government 
>naturally collapses.  I believe that is what is happening here.

       If the people refuse to take part, perhaps that says that they don't 
want the government involved very badly.  Saying "no" or refusing to say 
anything at all is every bit being a part of the representative government 
as saying "yes."  We appear to have lost the concept of abstention.

>>>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?  

        That's the way government works.  Taxes always increase.  Everytime 
somebody wants to do something new, they raise taxes, because otherwise 
they'd have to take the money from somewhere else and alienate somebody.

>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.  

       Actually, you're paying the same in taxes (assuming they didn't raise 
taxes, which they would) and just cutting out the middle-man (government.)  
However, the government *likes* being the middleman.  It lets them place 
strings on the money, like the abortion gag-rule.  Good luck convincing them 
to give that power up.

>Make the government compete with private 
>charities.

       The government is not going to accept less tax revenue.  The *best* 
you can hope for is they'd require more charitable donations on top of the 
current tax bill.

>>>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?

       So, what?  You believe that any number or magnitude of atrocity is OK 
as long as you've got a good goal?

>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).

       That sounds like a varient on the old "To make an omlette, you've got 
to break a few eggs," which is great unless you're one of the eggs.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal               University of Tennessee Div. of Cont. Education
                         Information Services Group
PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu  (Mail to VEAL@utkvm1.utk.edu will bounce.)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics