From: asylvain@felix.filenet.com (The Chipmunk)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics
Subject: Re: Amputation (Re: Libertarianism vs. Government)
Date: 14 Aug 92 19:43:26 GMT
            <19429@fritz.filenet.com>
            <l8ipjkINNots@spim.mips.com>
Reply-To: asylvain@fritz.filenet.com (The Chipmunk)
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc,alt.individualism
Organization: Foundation for the Increased Wealth of Chipmunks

Written in article <l8ipjkINNots@spim.mips.com>
 by mpolen@gelato.mips.com (Michael Polen):

: The Chipmunk writes:
:|> Written in article <l82ic8INNlrd@spim.mips.com>
:|> by mpolen@gelato.mips.com (Michael Polen):
:|>
:|>: In article <BsJLpw.ICq@well.sf.ca.us>, dasher@well.sf.ca.us (D Anton 
:|>: Sherwood) writes:
:|>:|>
:|>:|> How about this?  You can reject police "protection", and not pay.  But
:|>:|> inability to pay doesn't count as rejection; rejection must be 
:|>:|> affirmative.  Rejectors would get a special card to flash that relieves
:|>:|> them of paying sales taxes....
:|>:|>
:|>:|> Rejectors (and those with whom they are doing business at the time) 
:|>:|> also can't be busted for vice, zoning violations, doing business
:|>:|> without a license or the like.
:|>
:|>: I love your idea.  It is exactly what we have today.  "Inability to pay" is
:|>: handled by our graduated income tax schedules and the sharing of property
:|>: taxes through rental rather than buying.
:|>
:|> This is a stupid remark.  It is absolutely nothing like what we have
:|> today, and you know it.  If you reject based on inability to pay, or
:|> whatever reason, you still can be busted for vice, etc.
:
: I did not relate inability to pay, you didn't read the next paragraph.

Hmmm?  Thot I did.  Musta misunderstood somewhere.  Sorry.

: I said that inability to pay is not rejection, it is inability to pay.
: We today protect those people through graduated taxing and social programs.
: Only the financially solvent are in a position to reject.

No, that's not it.  Rejection is rejection, and it means 100% total
rejection, regardless of ability to pay.  It's being able to drive thru
the state without being required to buy insurance that costs more per
month than what you paid for the vehicle.  It means that if you have an
accident, it's tough luck.  That's rejection.  That's NOT what we have
today.

What we have today are stiff penalties for having an accident without
insurance (as if the accident isn't bad enough).

What we have today are stiff penalties for being protected against
swallowing a certain set of unpopular substances.  Can I forgoe my
payment for the War on Drugs?

The point is this: not everybody agrees with all the things they are
forced to pay for, so we should have some means of them not paying for
them while not getting the service.

:|>: Rejection is today met by people
:|>: that decide to go somewhere else that has a political system they like
:|>: better.
:|>
:|> "Love it or leave it" arguments return to the fray.  As much as I
:|> realize this is probably asking too much, let's do please leave the
:|> discussion at some intelligent level.
:
: Based upon the original post from (I think) Anton, rejectors would have
: to forgo the protections others are paying for.  My example is to forgo
: the protection against murderers.

If I'm allowed to not pay for police protection, then yes.  However,
that option does not exist.  At all.  Period.  If I decide to buy my own
police protection, I still pay protection taxes, or I'm put into jail.
If I decide to educate my children at home, I still pay education taxes,
or I'm put into jail.  If I decide the War on Drugs is stupid, and smoke
a joint, I'm put into to jail.

: We do not allow people to voluntary decide they don't need police protection
: and therefor stop paying for it.

Police protection is always the example that's brought out of the closet
as a defense of forced payment for services rendered.  Fire protection
is one of the others, then education.

It may be true that there's a certain fraction of basic services which
needs to be provided by govt, and some means of forcing payment for
those services.  (note, that's *_may_* be true.)  But today's govt is
well beyond that certain fraction.

How about protection from evil non-standad screw-thread manufacturers?

The commitee for screw-thread standardization was finally discontinued 
in 1975.  I guess they finally decided that screws were fairly standard 
by then, so we no longer needed to fund that.  Then there's money the 
Army spent studying the weapons potential of frisbees.

But the list goes on.  Nearly every federal regulatory agency is duplicat-
ed in the state of California, plus large duplication even just between 
federal agencies.  When we had the recent train derailment that spilled 
pesticides into the river, there were some 36 state and federal burocra-
cies on the scene, staring at each other, while the situation worsened.

How about if I'm allowed to forgoe protection against train derailment?

More to the point of the quoted material, I am protected against paying
for sexual favors, eating certain substances, putting certain materials
into my body to make me more attractive, taking certain life-saving
drugs, living next door to factories or rental units, and being less 
charitable than I ought to be.

How about if I choose to forgoe THAT protection?  Will you allow it?  
Why not?

: I don't want to, and don't think many people want this.

That's true.  However, for the record, we are discussing ways of
solving current social problems which may or may not have current
popular support.  As you are most certainly aware, popular support is
not a sufficient argument for or against an idea.

First, the problem is to determine if the solution is good.  Then, if
it's good, but has insufficient popular support, the problem becomes one
of gaining the necessary support.

Let's face it, slavery was pretty popular in the 19th century.  I don't
think you'd use popular support to defend it today.  What we have today,
however, is a kind of partial slavery which has much the same support
that total slavery had a century and a half ago.

The question is, are we to continue increasing the slavery?  Or are we
going to just go along with the program, simply because it has popular
support?

-- 
The Chipmunk.
Opinions are mine, void where prohibited, taxed, licensed or regulated.
Even though they raised the rate for first class mail in the United
States we really shouldn't complain -- it's still only 2 cents a day.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:39561 ca.politics:6767