From: ivaliote@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Lotus )
Subject: Re: From each, to each
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 17:57:26 GMT

PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal) writes:
>>>>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.
Why does that logically follow?  

>>These would not be 250 million member
>>states.  States that large are, in my opinion, inherently impractical and 
>>just plain bad.
>>>>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 agree that they would get upset.  That would be a problem.  
>>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?
Heh.  This union is not socialist, and does not want to help people.  And yes,
they would put up a fight.  The question is how much?

>>>       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.
No.  The African American community isn't geographic.  I think you mean a 
neighborhood.  But I still don't understand your point.  Why can't some members
of a neighborhood be part of the new system, while others do not?

>>>       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.
Yeah.  Wonder what my chances are.

>>>>>       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.
I think both of our poits are true and not mutually exclusive.  People do
run like crybabies to the government way too often.  To me, that is a sign 
that reform is needed.  To you, it is a sign that we shouldn't bother and 
just eliminate the function.

>>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.
To me, the concept of abstention never carried much weight.  But I understand
your point.  I am not prepared to debate you at this point.  Why is it, 
however, that you are *sure* government can *never* do the job?

>>>          "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.
Thanks for that enlightenment.  That's the way the government works *now*.
If enough people weren't so darn lazy, the government could work a lot 
differently, like, say, as it was designed to?

>>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.
Again, defeatism is not big on my list.

>>>>>       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?
No.  Not *any* magnitude of atrocity.  But if you call snagging money from 
greedy folk to feed starving folk is an atrocity, then yes, I think it is OK.
I acknowledge that in a world where all that metters is property rights, that
would be a most heinous crime.  I could give a hoot.  I believe a good line
can if drawn, *if and only if* people get involved to affect reform and stay
involved to sustain it.  That is not, in my view, possible in a nation this 
size which is why I liek the smaller country idea.
(perahps held together as a loose milittary/economic federation).

>>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.

You are right in both assertions.  I'll just choose my eggs carefully. (I'll
look for grade-A jumbo heartless yuppie types and Trump specials. 

______________
Matt Ivaliotes				a.k.a. Lotus
ivaliote@ux1				lotus@uiuc 
>David Veal               University of Tennessee Div. of Cont. Education
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics