From: jfh@reef.cis.ufl.edu (James F. Hranicky)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.anarchy
Subject: Re: Open letter to the libertarian right
Date: 8 Nov 92 20:30:31 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.libertarian
Organization: Univ. of Florida CIS Dept.

In article <1992Nov3.222018.9935@vax.oxford.ac.uk> denning@vax.oxford.ac.uk (Iain Morrison) writes:

>>>I do believe that being rich while other people starve to death is
>>>equivalent to economic rape and murder.  However, I do not believe
>>>in the Robin Hood principle of steal from the rich and give to the
>>>poor.

In the semi-capitalistic countries of today, there are fewer poor than
not, and certainly fewer poor than in the socialist countries. This is
bad? You fail to look at the big picture.

>> 
>> It's a matter of perspective.  While I believe it's good for rich people to
>> provide charity, I don't believe they're necessarily evil if they don't.
>
>Why should the poor rely on charity? A touch demeaning dont you think.
>How can one justify vast differences in income?

Demeaning? What, people should just be given everything? The justification
for vast difference in income is that the rich have, in most cases,
served the consumer the best. It seems to me that its demeaning that
the responsible hard workers should be punished for it by being forced to 
pay for those who won't work.

It's demeaning for the poor to have to say "Thank You?"

Egalitarianism will always fail because it removes reward for merit--so
why would anyone work hard, or eventually work at all. For mankind to 
survive, people must work. The fewer there are working, the fewer goods
and services there are per capita, and the worse off everyone is.

>> 
>>>  Just as I do not believe in punishing people who rape and
>>>murder, I do not believe in punishing people who economically rape
>>>and murder.  I don't exactly think rapists and murderers should be
>>>praised either.

This is incredible--one, likening the rich with obvious violators of
individual rights, then not punishing the true criminals. 

Apparently, your idea of hurting someone is not helping someone.
Well, do you have any savings? Are you hungry? Have you, today, 
not done *everything* in your power to help those who are being *murdered*
by those who work? You haven't? Are you a murderer, too?

If not helping someone is hurting someone, then you are partly guilty
for all human sufferings. You should be ashamed of yourself by your own
standards of value. Notice that if all those people who "have money"
gave it all away, there would be impoverishment for them, and almost
no gains for the rest of the world, plus no capital accumulation, which
is the source of production. In short, you advocate poverty for all,
rather than anyone being rich.


>>>  But not only is letting the poor starve to death
>>>passive violence and coercion, property by definition is backed up
>>>with active violence and coercion.   Why must property be actively
>>>violent and coercive?  
>> 
>> Because people who think they need it more than you do tend to be violent
>> and coercive in stealing it.  Because everyone's existence is endangered if
>> they have no way of defending what is rightfully theirs.
>                                        ^^^^^^^^^^
>
>again who decides? For example does our royal family rightfully own any of
>"their" possessions (hint NO!).
>
>and what about land in general? "A common treasury for all" methinks - the
>levellers knew a thing or two! 
>

Property ownership is decided, in a free society, by those who have *worked*
and saved up enough money to buy it. Land in general falls under this
principle.

>>>Who deserves a loaf of bread more, someone who was brought up in
>>>an environment beyond their control and is starving to death,
>>>or someone who has money because they had enough contacts and
>>>little enough compassion to gouge others?

You act like no one gives to charity. You are wrong.

>> 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.
>

Well let's just establish that you are a Marxist--"From each according
to his ability, to each according to his need."

The person who worked for it deserves it, as I said before, because
people need to work to survive. What if no one worked? There would be
nothing to give but the bare minimum supplied by nature.

This is your idea of a great society?

>> Why does property ownership suggest some evil tendency in society?
>
>Well I thought all property was theft, or something like that :-)


Common ownership is theft. Common ownership implies you have taken
from those who produce and given it to everyone else. This is theft.


>Personally I think things are pretty warped when a bond dealer 
>is valued more highly than a nurse for example.

Will you step in and correct everyone's point of view according to your
own?

>
>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.
>

Sound just like capitalism in its pure form. Have you made a conversion?
 
Jim Hranicky (jfh@reef.cis.ufl.edu)

Xref: sparky alt.politics.libertarian:1825 alt.society.anarchy:709