RE: Fighting the cybercensor

[Sean Roach <roach_s@alph.swosu.edu>]

This time I have opted for a point by point.
At 07:59 PM 2/5/97 -0800, jim bell wrote:
...
>The kind of effects I'm thinking of are primarily the "military spending" 
>situations, where:
>
>1.  Large numbers of potentially competent and useful people get put into 
>useless jobs:  "Army, Navy, and Marines, and Air Force" spring to mind.   
>(Those people who still think military spending is really necessary 
>obviously haven't read AP.)
This point I can not argue with, at least not directly.  I do believe that
the military way is wasteful of resources.  However, this is one area that
has actually benefitted the lower-income bracket in that it gives them
"inexpensive" (off-chance of death) access to good training.
>2.  Large amounts of money are spent on military hardware, money which goes 
>to fund  people who would otherwise develop useful products in the 
>non-government private sector.
Three things that promote technological growth, expansion, war, threat of war.
As for expansion. we really have no where else to go.  As for war and threat
of war, the computer was invented during a war, atomic energy was harnessed
during war, the internet was created during threat of war.  Many
advancements, though not all, come to benefit society later.  For that
matter, steel was probably invented during a war as well, but I can't prove it.
>3.  The patent system decreases competition, increases profits and prices in 
>the marketplace due to government actions to allow and enforce monopolies.
The patent system gives the innovator a reward for ingenuity, that person
can decide what to do with the invention for a short period of time, after
which it becomes available to all.  (BTW I really think that computer code
should be copyrighted and not patented, this allows others to reproduce the
work independantly without repercussions, gives the necessary protection,
makes it more obviously a form of speech.)
>4.  Government employees are paid more for their activities than they would 
>receive in the private sector.  Ironically, in this case an 
>"apples-to-apples" comparison is misleading:  It would be wrong to compare a 
>middle level government manager to his counterpart in private industry, 
>because to postulate there is such a government-job assumes that the 
>private-sector would do it post-AP.  

To this I can't argue, business is certainly leaner than government.  Of
course most desert plants are more robust than their resource-wasteful
wetland counterpart.  Where there is a near-bottomless supply of material,
as in taxes, true streamlining really doesn't happen.  Remember, the
automobile really didn't become anywhere near fuel-efficient until after the
energy crisis.
> 
>>If you are right then governments would effectively lose the ability to tax,  
>>with or without representation, as most people do not agree on everything,
>>like how their money is spent.  However, even now, as pointed out in some
>>recent posts, our tax money is used to foreward the goals of a few, these
>>few want to eliminate guns, crypto, free speech, ect.  Although we are in
>>oppostition, our money is still used to foreward the goals. 
>
>Yes, the main effect of AP is the elimination of the ability to tax.  Now, 
>nothing would prevents individuals from continuing to fund an organization 
>called a "government" so that it could do those (non-coercive) things that 
>individual wants to see done.  But I think it'll be amazing how many of 
>those heretofore-funded-by-govt projects (previously promoted as being 
>wanted by a large fraction of the citizenry) that evaporate when the public 
>is given the option to continue to fund them voluntarily.
>
>
>Let's suppose, hypothetically and for vast simplification, the government 
>engages in two activities, "A" and "B."   Further suppose government taxes 
>from two groups, let's call them "Alphas" and "Betas."  It is traditionally 
>thought that Alphas like spending on "A",  but hate spending on "B".   
>Likewise, it is figured that Betas like spending on "B", don't like spending 
>on "A".    
>
>Post-AP, one might innocently suspect that maybe the "Alphas" would simply 
>fund only "A",  while Betas" would donate money for activity "B".   Assuming 
>the amount of funding for those activities was equal, you might think that 
>things could go on as they already do.  But no.   The reality is that 
>"Alphas" merely like spending on "A" _more_ than they do "B", and they will 
>tolerate their own money being used for both only because the "Betas" are 
>similarly forced.  Add volunteerism to the whole mix, and not only would 
>these two groups only fund just what they really wanted, they would soon 
>discover they don't even want the level of spending they previously argued 
>for, pre-AP.
As it is, the "A" group, that's not us, is being promoted with virtually all
of the capitol, the "B" group, us, is being attacked in policy and attempts
are being made to keep us from getting any bigger.
...