From: jfh@beach.cis.ufl.edu (James F. Hranicky)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.anarchy
Subject: Re: alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.anarchyREFRESH
Date: 22 Nov 92 19:05:59 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.libertarian
Organization: Univ. of Florida CIS Dept.

In article <1992Nov5.122216.9960@vax.oxford.ac.uk> denning@vax.oxford.ac.uk (Iain Morrison) writes:
>In article <1992Nov4.144959.10963@uoft02.utoledo.edu>, jsteiner@anwsun.phya.utoledo.edu (jason 'Think!' steiner) writes:

>Well I suppose we might as well give up then, and continue with the 
>"best-of-all-possible-worlds" that we live in today. Gross inequality
>is obviously a "fact of life". My appologies for even suggesting that
>change is possible.

Of course, you don't see that the poor in this country are still better off
than the majority of peopole in more "egalitarian" countries, like China &
the former SU.

>> 
>>> > The person who deserves the bread is the person who worked for 
>>> > it.  Period.
>>> 
>>> Nope. The person who deserves the bread is the person who needs it. 
>>> Period.

So why work?
 
>> again, human society has never operated this way. all attempts at
>> forcing it too have only succeeded in taking the bread away from
>> everyone. those who cannot expect a fair return for their labor will

> 
>>> but there's the rub. Present western society isnt equitable. The 
>>> skills society/marketplace deems as useful vary from time to time - 
>>> at present intellectual attributes are valued more highly than 
>>> physical skills, but this is a fairly recent phenomenon. People 
>>> should be rewarded for achieving their potential, whatever that may 
>>> be.

It isn't equitable, but the poverty of Socialism is? You would rather have
everyone equally bad off than to have everyone inequally better off? Perhaps
you don't think of it this way, but Socialism is a guarantee for poverty.


>> and who will reward them? the state? and where will the state get
>
>Pardon me for aspiring to a more egalitarian future.

Pardon me for stating that egalitarianism is doomed from the start.

>>> The function of society should be to  protect the members from the 
>>> baser instincts of its constituent members and to enable everyone 
>>> to attain their maximum potential if they so wish.

This is the basic principle of the free market, but it means *everyone* should
have the right to reach their *highest* potential, and those of very high
potential should not be punished by being taxed to support those of lesser 
potential.

>> society is nothing more than the interaction of individuals. coercing
>> individuals to interact according to some social ideal about non-
>> existant "baser instincts" is doomed to failure.
>
>Who mentioned coercion? 

You are kidding, right? How do you expect to enforce this egalitarianism--above
you state the state will get this money from the communites, what by asking?
The most fundamental aspect of government is force, pure and simple. Taxes are
not gathered by asking--if you fail to pay you go to jail. For egalitarianism
to survive, those advocating it must force it upon others, or egalitarianism
will die off because it rewards inability at the expense of ability. Why would
those of ability continually work for others; why would those of inability 
work at all? I think if most people saw it this way, and saw that this is 
what our system is all about, perhaps they would rebel against it; or perhaps
they would just feel too guilty about it....

>> 
>> jason
>> 
>
>iain