[Craig] However, In general whenever anything is redistributed, the recipient is better off & the provider less so. Obviously, this doesn't make it right.
[Arlo] I also think in very narrow terms, yes, the provider is "less so". But let me take an extreme to prove a middle. Let's say the government requires everyone to contribute $1 a year of their earnings to fund public libraries. In the narrowest sense, yes, the "provider" is one dollar less well off than before. But in a much larger sense, having an educated citizenry creates an environment and community where everyone benefits, in terms of labor and citizenship. The educated person is less likely to require assistance, more likely to be self-sufficient, and so in the long run that one dollar net "loss" is vastly overshadowed by everyone being "better off". [Krimel] Arlo addresses some of the intangible aspects involved but let me add that Craig's statement makes certain assumptions that just ain't so. It is simply not true that redistribution is necessarily one sided. In any economic transaction redistribution occurs. Value was redistributed when Jack traded his mom's cow for a bag of beans. The issue is not whether redistribution will occur but what rules should govern it. Currently 10% of the world's population controls 85% of the wealth while 50% of the population control a mere 1% of the wealth. It would seem that currently wealth is being redistributed in a fairly lopsided direction. Obviously that's not right. [Craig] Now we have reached a fundamental question. Force opposes free action. Free action is of fundamental importance according to Ham's metaphysics (Essentialism), Platt's interpretation of the MoQ (when he's not being reactionary), Micah's Objectivism. That's why we all are often on the same side of an issue. [Arlo] I'm still not quite sure what this suggests? That the only legitimate collectivist programs are those that involve "force"? What would be problem, in your opinion, of moving to a privatized police force? Is it simply "armed competition", that you'd see competitors shooting at each other? Would you say that the potential for unequal representation? Special treatment for some citizens? (Why would that be a problem for law but not for health?) Is this also an indication that you find programs like public land management, public libraries and public roadways immoral? What about the establishment and regulation of currency? Is that a legitimate roll of government? Does that involve "force"? [Krimel] Again Craig's statement contains faulty assumptions. Force is not that only thing that opposes free action. Nor is freedom of action necessarily good, as anyone who has ever tried to pick out wallpaper can testify. All societies from ant colonies to the Giant aim to proscribe limits on free action. Puritans attempted oppose free action by shunning those who freely chose to act outside of accepted limits. Seminole Indians believe it is to an individual's advantage to live in a society. Thus, it is against his own interests to violate the rules of that society. Those who break the tribal law are not thought to be criminals; they are thought to be insane. No penalty is placed upon the offender. He is allowed to continue living with the tribe but is not permitted to participate in tribal activities. He may be reinstated in the tribe by asking the aid of the medicine man, who tests him to see if he has returned to his senses. It is the use of violence that is of concern here. Given to array of options available to limit freedom of action when is violence an appropriate option. Take Pirsig's policeman with a gun. The gun is never an option for enforcing parking tickets or tax codes. But it is viable tool for dealing with resisting arrest. Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
