charity at the point of a gun (Re: dbts: Privacy Fetishes, Perfect Competition, and the Foregone)(fwd)

[Adam Back <aba@dcs.ex.ac.uk>]

Christopher Petro writes:
> 	In other words Jim, Fuck You. I, and I'd bet most people here,
> including Mr. May, are perfectly willing, and hell even eager to pay their
> share, to assume their social responcibility, they just get very, very
> angry at having to pay OTHER peoples social responcibility, and get very,
> very angry at having to pay for other shit (Senate Luncheons and Swimming
> Pools, the Militaries greatly inflated budget, all the waste that is todays
> federal government).

What is annoying is "charity" (social security) at the point of a gun.
Our "conscience" is being decided by government which is acting as a
broker for those lobby for their "need" and for your assets to be
stolen and redistributed to them.

What people aren't willing to pay for shouldn't happen.  Period.  If
that means people starve well those complaining loudest had better
dig deeper into their pockets.

Anything else is socialism tending to facism, as Hayek argues in The
Road to Serfdom.

> >No state can govern those who don't wish to be governed, violence or no.
> 
> 	Yes, but a state can kill those who don't wish to be governed. Can
> and does routinely.

That's what's so interesting about cyberspace, once the payment
systems get there -- government thugs can't beat up, murder, or
incarcerate anonymous nyms.  _Then_ Jim's "No state can govern those
who don't wish to be governed" starts to become true.

Adam