From: jkreznar@ininx.UUCP (John E. Kreznar)
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: [ACLU] Reproductive Freedom
Date: 5 Jan 93 08:15:00 GMT
Followup-To: alt.society.civil-liberty
Organization: Independence Industries, Los Angeles

In article <1992Dec24.214222.3173@rotag.mi.org>, kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:

> In article <315@ininx.UUCP> jkreznar@ininx.UUCP (John E. Kreznar) writes:
> >In article <1992Dec18.175758.11568@rotag.mi.org>, kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:

> >> In article <312@ininx.UUCP> jkreznar@ininx.UUCP (John E. Kreznar) writes:

> >> >If a person's toil is applied, without that person's consent, through
> >> >taxation, toward an end that that person does not approve, how does
> >> >this differ from slavery?

> >> As long as the end is _collectively_ approved, why should it
> >> matter whether a given individual dissents, John, as long as he
> >> or she is free to leave the collective anytime they want, thereby
> >> forsaking all of the benefits, as well as the liabilities, of
> >> that particular Social Contract?

> >Some of us _have_ left --- long ago!  In fact, some of us have
> >recognized that we never actually _were_ members, because the
> >``membership agreements'' that we signed were silent to the point of
> >fraudulence regarding the full implications of membership.  And we do
> >every reasonable thing we can imagine to forsake all the benefits.  

> Every reasonable thing? Is that like "all due speed"?

> Do you drive on Interstates and Federal Highways? Do you benefit from
> the peace and security afforded by national defense? Do you benefit from
> consumer protections, trade protections, public health efforts? Do you
> use technology developed in large part by government-funded institutions?
> Do your news articles travel over the NSFnet backbone?

> Go live in a cave, without _any_ modern conveniences, grow your own food,
> make your own tools and utensils from raw materials, etc. etc. for a few 
> years, and then send me a smoke signal to let me know when you're no longer 
> dependent on Big Bad Government. I'll be watching for the signal. Heh.

(``Disservice'', not ``benefit'', is how I would describe some of the
items on your list.  However, I ignore this branch of the argument
because it leads away from the more important point, which follows.)

Benefits like those that you identify can be produced by voluntary
associations or even in some cases by individuals working alone.  In
fact, a ``benefit'' that could only result from compulsion is not
really a benefit at all on balance, because all value is negated by
the accompanying destruction of freedom.  Unfortunately, when your
government provides these benefits at below cost through the use of
compulsion, would-be honest providers of the benefits cannot compete.
Thus, responsibility for the unavailability of these benefits from
honest sources rests squarely upon those who employ compulsion to
provide them.

The lamentable truth is that it is very difficult for an honest person
to live in this world-wide den of thieves without accepting the
benefits of the theft.  One of his few defenses is to try to disavail
himself of the benefits of the crime to the point of extreme
inconvenience.  Unfortunately, he is too often greeted with scorn like
yours, telling him that his inconvenience is not extreme enough and
that if he is unwilling to join the thieves, he must go live in a
cave.

My own mother thinks I'm a fool for refusing Social Security benefits,
acceptance of which would make me party to the crime.

If your government were to stop providing these benefits at far below
cost (using resources taken without consent), permitting the market to
provide them based on their true cost, then you would have a case.

Imagine if you can the plight of a person who wishes to avoid acting
to compel his neighbors.  There is no reason for him to forego the
benefits of voluntary association, yet he finds many of these benefits
monopolized by nuclear-armed compulsory associations.  If he accepts
them, he contributes to the compulsion.  What is he to do?

You cannot legitimately demand payment for delivering a benefit when
the recipient makes a good-faith effort to refuse the delivery.  This
is what is called a ``compelled benefit'' in the uniform commercial
code.  I cannot be held responsible for benefits that I am compelled to
receive.  You can collect money by waving your nukes and demanding
tribute, but don't expect your behavior to be considered civilized or
decent.

Nothing you say justifies attempts by patrons of governments to
mandate membership in their associations.
-- 
        Relations among people to be by mutual consent, or not at all.
         ---John E. Kreznar, jkreznar@ininx.com, uunet!ininx!jkreznar
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.atheism