From: Dale Thorn <dthorn@gte.net>
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 1996 21:55:23 -0800 (PST)
To: Huge Cajones Remailer <nobody@huge.cajones.com>
Subject: Re: Redlining
In-Reply-To: <199612110147.RAA24444@mailmasher.com>
Message-ID: <32AE4C11.7839@gte.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Huge Cajones Remailer wrote:
> At 5:37 PM 12/10/1996, Jim Wise wrote:
> >On Tue, 10 Dec 1996, Dale Thorn wrote:
> >> The logical implication here is that a thousand people "getting
> >> together" and doing something is no different in principle than one
> >> person doing that something.  Not a valid implication, although the
> >> result is not necessarily false on a per-case basis.

> >Actually, I think this is a very valid implication.  One of the main
> >ways in which statist societies justify their restrictions on
> >individuals is by reifying large bodies of individuals and giving
> >them their own rights and responsibilities _as_a_seperate_entity_.
> >To speak of a mass of individuals, whether you call it a corporation,
> >a collective, or a government, as having a different set of rights
> >than the individuals who make it up, is the heart of statism.

[snip]

If you're saying that it's wrong (bad, whatever) for corporations to have
special protections and so on (taxes, other things) that don't apply to
individuals who are (for example) not part of any corporations, then I
do agree with you.

OTOH, the evils which can be accomplished in practice (never mind theory)
by power groups such as large corporations, which cannot be accomplished
by individuals (or cannot in practice be defended against) are a problem
that society has addressed, sometimes on a case-by-case basis (usually
better), and sometimes through big legislation, which often far outlives
its usefulness.  I hope we're at least seeing the same points.