From: seth@mivax.mc.duke.edu (SETH)
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
Subject: Re: Funding the govt.....(Re: Just a few...
Date: 7 Jan 93 21:22:00 GMT
Organization: Duke University Medical Center
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1if5l5INNnlm@mirror.digex.com>, dzik@access.digex.com (Joseph Dzikiewicz) writes...
>In article <1993Jan6.152831.27823@nynexst.com> baruch@nynexst.com writes:

>Second, another good method of preventing crime is to educate potential
>criminals.  This benefits everyone who lives in the same society as
>the potential criminal.  So shouldn't everyone pay for it?

Right. Smart criminals.

>That's the purpose of governments: to do things that are for the common
>good.  And governments do not allow people to opt out (by not paying
>taxes, for example) and still receive benefits.  Makes sense to me. 

I believe the Soviet Government used the same logic.
Those who protested were sent to Siberia "for the common good."

>As another purpose of governments: how do you regulate shared resources?

Once one station lays claim to a frequency, they can sue anyone who
"steals" it.  Besides, there are plenty of frequencies, and radios 
need not be limited to AM & FM.

>Therefore,
>voluntary groups of broadcasters regulating themselves would not work,
>because there's always some jerk willing to mess things up for
>everyone.  (Witness the number of people out there happy to spread
>computer viruses.)

And yet the computer universe is getting along JUST FINE, thank you.
Witness the number of people making anti-virus programs (personally,
I know of no one who's ever been hurt by a computer virus).

>More to the point, you assume that you, as an individual, have absolute
>ownership of something.  However, that is not the case.  Individuals
>do not have absolute ownership of anything: the government has partial
>property rights to everything via emminent domain.  The government has
>agreed to not exercise its rights as long as you fulfill certain
>obligations to it, including paying taxes and not breaking the law.
>If you don't like that arrangement, you might try to find somewhere
>lacking in government.  

I disagree vehemently, but choose to try to fight the government rather
than suck up & surrender...the attitude "love it or leave it" has
always bother me.  I prefer "do something or be quiet".

>Might I suggest Somalia?

They have lots of little governments.  The more, the merrier! (not)

>Which leads to my final point.  Objectivism is a utopian world-view,
>and like most utopian world-views depends on the good will of those
>who live in its society.  A capitalist anarchy in which everyone
>pays only for what he wants and must pay for his individual protection
>does not lead to Rand's Atlantis.  It leads to Somalia or Beirut.

I could care less for a world full of Ayn Rands.  Capitalist Anarchy
would, in my opinion, be perfect.

I could be wrong, but many of the world's governments are all partially
responsible for Beirut and Somalia.

To some extant, anarchy and objectivism are utopian and may never be 
fully achieved, but I believe progress towards either goal of anarchy
or objectivism is worth the effort.

Just because there may never be utopia doesn't mean we should resign
ourselves to living under the yoke & misery of someone else's
distopia.

As far as depending on other's good will of others...neither objectivism
nor anarchy say you can't defend yourself.  Even with all the money spent
on our all-protective govt, when the burglar/rapist/murderer shows up,
you are still on your own.  There's little the police can do, and we are
paying for almost nothing.
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism