From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Thu Dec 07 2000 - 02:27:42 MST
michael.bast@convergys.com wrote:
>
> No, it's not a straw man argument, I'm not asserting something which isn't
> already in existence. What I'm talking about
> (government programs which do things groups of people want done) exists. What
> I'm talking about is that libertarians want
> to take that away from people, and tell them 1) You're better off without it,
> and 2) It wasn't yours anyway.
Well, it wasn't. And no one has a right to benefits stolen by force
from others. Ever.
> I may (and largely do) agree with that, but that isn't the point. You WILL
> BE taking away things people want when
> you get the government to stop doing the things you don't want it to do. I never
> said it was wrong to stop it, I think (mostly)
> it IS stealing. What I am saying is that we're a minority in this opinion, no
> matter how well we can back this up (facts, logic,
> reasons), but it's not something anyone wants to admit. We pretend that by
> shouting louder we're getting through, but what
> we're doing is making sure we never get listened to. Ever. I know this for a
> fact, from talking to people who make valid points
> about welfare, from their own set of values, there's a point where your facts,
> reasons, arguments, etc. mean nothing, and
> you are just causing them to shut you out.
> As long as that is true, you have to deal with it as it is, not as you wish
> it to be. We're not going to change people's minds
> by telling them they're wrong, that it's ok for some people to starve while
> others are billionaires, that the money they get from the
> government (and have gotten all their lives) isn't theirs.
Will you change there minds by telling them they are right when they are
not?
> My point, here, is that it doesn't matter how much we 'know' we're right,
> there are far too few of us to win this fight, this way.
> So, now what? How do we make things better? Things are already as they are,
> given how marginalized libertarians (and/or
> extropians) are, what good does it do to pretend it's otherwise, or act as if
> plains facts (about reality) don't exist?
No one is denying any plain facts of this type. But not mentioning the
truth because it is unpopular is surely no solution to anything.
> Also, here is my semantic alteration point - you say is it wrong to use
> force to stop force. What does force mean? Does
> what you mean by it match what most people mean by it? If not, do they know what
> you mean when you say it? I've seen an
> argument to counter the no-force initiation argument about taxes, and it's
> rather simple - taxes are the price you pay for living
> in a modern, industrial country.
Those are simply empty sounds. That there is this high cost due to
taxes does not at all show that taxes are a justified or necessary cost
of living in a modern society. You can make a pretty strong argument
that the society would be a heck of a lot more modern without taxes or
at least without such high taxes.
> Do I agree with that? No, but again, I'm in the
> minority on this. So, you say, it's force to make me
> pay taxes, it's countered with 'not by any accepted definition of force'. Try
> using the argument about police coming to jail you
> when you don't pay taxes, and they might shoot you. I guarantee you're going to
> find people who will blame you for not paying
> your taxes. And, again, there are more of them than us, and probably always will
> be.
The truth is not a matter of numbers. We are supposed to be a republic
not an unlimited democracy. Fundamental rights are supposed to be
inviolate by the State in this country. Pragmatic means of living as
congruently as possible with the truth do need to take numbers into
consideration though.
> There 'seems' to be an anti-government theme in our culture, but I don't
> know how valid it is. I know people get angry
> about specific governmental actions, but I really don't think there's a general
> 'Government = bad' sentiment. I have friends,
> acquaintances, co-workers, etc. from a large portion of the (American) political
> spectrum, and almost none of them are
> against the simple existence of government. Given that, arguing that government
> shouldn't be allowed to do anything will fall
> on deaf ears.
Don't start there. Start by asking how many people actually are afraid
of their government. Ask how many worry that their government will
erode their savings, cause conditions that will seriously erode their
medical alternatives, harm the business cycle enough to threaten their
jobs, come after them with a tax audit from hell and possible confiscate
some of their goods as well as money as has happened to some of their
friends and acquantainances. Ask how many think you just might end up
killed or imprisoned on some trumped up charge or with your economic
health and career ruined if you rock the boat too much. Ask how many of
them think it makes sense that this supposedly freest of countries has
more people in jail than any other per capita. Ask if they think it is
ok that the government can kick in their door at any time without
showing a warrant or even identifying themselves and terrorize their
household and even accidentally kill or maim some members on the basis
of a rumor of drug involvement. If they don't believe these things are
allowed by current statutes or that they happen then show them the
facts. Don't start by telling them all government is bad. Show them
the one they have is in many respects bad and getting worse and more
dangerous by the day. Then start explaining the roots of how it got to
be that way and what sorts of roots will avoid a lot of these evils.
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:32:14 MST