From: J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM
Subject: Re: Snuff Films was Re: Gladiatorial Libertarians [was Re: Pushkin Dueling...]
Organization: Lockheed Missiles & Space Company, Inc.
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 92 16:16:28 GMT

In <18vj7jINNgpa@news.aero.org>,Richard Foy writes:
>>: In article <18rp7rINNrop@news.aero.org> foy@aero.org (Richard Foy) writes:
>>:    To take the case one step futher.
>>:
>>:    Suppose there is  a mother who loves her children but is absolutely
>>:    stone broke desparate. Someone offers her a $10,000,000 trust fund
>>:    for her children if she will be the main star of a snuff film. That
>>:    is she agrees to be killed in a pornographic film.
>>:
>>:    Would this be legal in a libertarian world.
>>:
>>: I would hope not.  In that libertarian world, I would voluntarily
>>: contribute a certain percentage of my personal wealth to help this
>>: woman get back on her feet so she can support her family once again.
>>:
>>Hi Ronald,
>>
>>   I am a mother who loves my children but I'm absolutely stone broke.
>>Please send me a certain percentage of your personal wealth. When I
>>get back on my feet again, I will happily buy into your libertarian
>>fantasy utopia.
>>
>>
>>Kathy

>I am waiting with fascination to see how Ronald and any other libertarians
>respond to this post.

With the tax-us-blind Big Government we have now, most normal folks can't do
much for folks like Kathy--but that doesn't mean we don't want to.  Let's look
at our tax money and where it goes.  Almost 20% goes to interest on our debt.
Almost 50% goes to entitlement programs.  These programs have not seemed to
help much, have they?  Does Big Government create opportunity?  How much money
do I have left to give freely after Big Brother takes 40% of it?

Compare the government bureaucracy with the Red Cross or the Salvation Army.
If the Big Bureaucracy were voluntary, how many would contribute to a charity
which sends only 30 to 40% or revenues to its intended beneficiaries?  People
give to efficient charities for several reasons.  First, the government does
not give where I want to see the giving done.  I want charities which help
those starving in Africa, for example.  I give to charities which encourage
people to break free from the welfare state, such as the United Negro College
Fund.  Also, I give to charities where my $100 will bring $80 or more in direct
relief--unlike the $30 which make it to the intended beneficiaries in a
bloated government giveaway.

Here's another response to Kathy--I'll give to people like you if I feel that
you need help.  But do you think the starving children in Somalia need help
less than you do?  Am I supposed to help you before I help them?  Are *you*
giving to *them*?  Or do you need help more than them?  Should *they* be giving
their food to *you*?  Is your glass house still intact?  Let's not try to climb
the slippery slope--no philosophy can be all things to all people.

Tim Irvin   j056600@lmsc5.is.lmsc.lockheed.com
*****************************************************************************
"In a free government the security for civil rights must be the same as that
 for religious rights." -- James Madison, Federalist #51