From: Subir Grewal <grewals@acf2.NYU.EDU>
Date: Tue, 28 May 1996 14:33:28 +0800
To: Jean-Francois Avon <jf_avon@citenet.net>
Subject: Re: [SCARE]:  "If you only knew what we know..."
In-Reply-To: <9605270445.AB06762@cti02.citenet.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.ULT.3.92.960527212530.289B-100000@acf2.NYU.EDU>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

On Mon, 27 May 1996, Jean-Francois Avon wrote:

[NOTE: I'm going to be going away later this week and network connectivity
will probably be intermittent for a month.  I'll have to unsubscribe to
Cypherpunks sometime soon.  Which is why I suggested we continue this
another time.]

:> Of course there are those who
:> fervently believe in the socialist ideal
:
:But, my dear, even in the most libertarian or AP-ruled world, they
:would absolutely free to give away *all* of their salary for the
:causes they consider valid.  Only, thoses who don't agree with them
:would not be coerced into thoses noble causes.

Socialists aren't really interested in "giving away money" to a particular
cause.  To put it in crude terms, they're interested in taking your money
(and that of others) to create a socialist (read collectivist) society.
To believe that socialists will be content in a liberal world because
philanthropy is not illegal is to misunderstand socialism completely.

:This paragraph seems to indicate that the only difference between
:libertarians and socialist is a mere difference of opinion and that
:everybody is justified to act on their beliefs.  But the socialists
:who pretend that are simply blanking out the fact that *they too*
:recognize that Reality Is since they want to use force to get a
:lunch out of the mouth of somebody who have one (and who happened to
:produce it himself) to put it in the mouth of another who didn't
:have.  Therefore, it is OK to deny reality when somebody come up
:with arguements against socialism, but it is darn convenient to use
:it (in the form of a loaded gun...)

Nope, the socialists don't believe they're taking "lunch out of someone's
mouth".  They believe they are creating a communitarian society where
there is no decadence, and each of us gets an approximately equal amount.
"progressive" taxation exists because socialists believe those who have
more (have taken more from society, benefited more from the infrastructure
of the state etc.) should put more into the communitarian pot.  That this
does not work in a society with any degree of freedom (and esp. a
democracy) is difficult to get through to socialists.  Most of them
believe that democracy, freedom and a socilist structure (read public
ownership of the means of production) are compatible with each other.
- From all evidence, they are sadly mistaken.

:Oh, you mean, "for them, anybody who pass a judgment of his own that
:contradict them should be killed"  I see...

Glad you noticed that.  Now tell me how AP for any other cause is
different?

:> Marx was not the first to poitn
:> out that institutions influence our actions, that we are products of
:> our times, that the choices we face are as much determined by our
:> own preferences as they are by the world around us.
:
:Well, of course, our perception of reality is context dependent.  But
:you seems to attempt to hint that truth is relative because knowledge
:is contextual.  It looks like an attempt on reason.

The statement I made has absolutely jack-shit to do with "truth".  It's
simply a comment on the insidious nature of institutions and how it may be
easy to ignore the variety of effects they may have.

:I think that by the nature of AP, this would be ruled out.  Maybe
:there would be a fanatic president, but he would preside nothing
:because nobody would be there to enforce his fanatic views.

That depends.  If enough people believe the AP tactics are threatening
they may support a rigid state that cracks down on AP groups in a
totalitarian fashion.  It may be possible to prevent this, but the only
way I can see it happening is if there is a greater level of
class-consciousness promoting a view of politicos and bureaucrats as
"them".  Till kids dream of becoming president I doubt it's about to
happen.

On income taxes, one of the most fundamental oppositions to income taxes
when they were first introduced was on privacy grounds.  It seemed to be a
gross invasion of privacy to have someone else know exactly how much you
were earning and from where.  I wish more people today looked at it in the
same manner.  Other objections include interference with the pricing
mechanism and incentives.

hostmaster@trill-home.com * Symbiant test coaching * Blue-Ribbon * Lynx 2.5
A fool must now and then be right by chance.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: Key Escrow = Conscription for the masses | 2048 bit via finger

iQB1AwUBMapbBRwDKqi8Iu65AQG6CwL/QfpVjlNq5rmo/L0Biv7iqrUtz5zHiPEe
Sje788mJDM1yj/Ri7QNMOIBuSZ7AToub3mpSI3udW23L80u7W8nwl+/gERJKk+uL
jpSdGjNGCjfIurxMPr3LxnBDDi/BQz6B
=CNuE
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----