From: aburt@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu (Andrew Burt)
Subject: Re: Want _Your_ Blood to Boil too?
Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci.
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 92 13:04:32 GMT

In <1992Aug12.133116.7026@dcatlas.dot.gov> joet@dcatlas.dot.gov (Joe Trott) writes:
>Its all well and good to voice an opinion over the value of bbs access, i.e.
>information access, but comparing it to food or other necessities of
>biological life places it in a dangerous context.  This same context is used
>now as a matter of course to justify the wholesale violation of the
>individual rights our government was chartered to secure.
>By what right does one take by force from those who have *earned* in order
>to provide products and/or services to those who have not?

I'm the one who state the opinion that the net/information is a "necessity"
but I never, in any way, suggested securing it by force...  How do you
derive that from my statements?

In what way do "we" (our government) now secure food for all citizens
*by* *force* ?  Or shelter?  I've never seen the government seize someone's
house for the purpose of letting a homeless person move it; nor can I remember
offhand the government confiscating bread from the grocery store to
feed anyone.

I'm saying that society "protects" certain types of necessities from
the capitalist market -- not by taking them by force, but by guaranteeing
"equal" access to all and perhaps subsidizing their cost (i.e., having
everyone pay a share via taxes rather than only the consumer paying).

I consider public education in this category.  Regardless of the quality
of our school system, I think the idea of free access to education a
fantastic idea.  I am saying that the net and information in general
falls in this category.  Another example would be a public library.
I am arguing for the network equivalent, a "public net".  Clearly these
cost money to operate, but are not operated for the personal profit
of the operators.

>Maybe the product is something as basic as food, but while it is a shame
>that some people don't have enough, by what right do you take, by force,
>to provide for them?  I too value information (among many other things), and
>could not do my job well without it (thus damaging my earnings potential).
>As a result, I value information, and access to it, and so I will pay for it.

Suppose (taking this to its conclusion) that parents had to pay,
each individually, for their children's entire education?  Why, we'd
be almost as good as 8th century Europe...

>That is a decision based on Reason, and I expect to be permitted to gain
>from making good decisions (as I expect to be permitted to suffer for my
>bad ones).

Of course, but the concept of "society" and "government" is that
we cannot accomplish as much as individuals as we can as a group.
Not everyone in the group may agree, but they are still expected to
honor the "laws" and "customs" agreed to by the whole.  So this
argument does not contradict the need for keeping the free market
out of certain areas (which is what I meant by "protect" if that
wasn't clear).
-- 

Andrew Burt 		   					  aburt@du.edu

      "And that, my liege, is how we know the Earth to be banana-shaped"
Xref: sparky comp.org.eff.talk:5394 alt.allsysop:35 alt.bbs.ads:1239 co.general:1151 alt.bbs.allsysop:629 comp.bbs.misc:500 alt.activism:14823