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

[Jim Burnes <jvb@ssds.com>]

On Tue, 10 Nov 1998, Adam Back wrote:

> 
> Christopher Petro writes:
> > 	In other words Jim, Fuck You. I, and I'd bet most people here,

Don't split hairs, Petro.  Tell us what you really think. ;-)

> > 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.
> 

(1) Social transfer payments at the point of a gun are involuntary
compassion.

(2) Involutary compassion is usually called rape.  You are forcing
me to "love" some other person.  To adopt them not only as a proxy
family member, but as one that cannot be "cutoff" if they waste
my charity.  Of course I must not only pay for them, but I must
pay for the bureaucrat that manages this family member.

Combine this with the US Govt defining a sex life as a "right"
(witness free Viagra) and you come up with some pretty 
chilling scenarios.

(do people have the "right" to a sex partner?)

Apparently involuntary compassion at gunpoint is not beyond
justification by the US fed govt and the propagandized sheeple.

Whats to stop rape of selected human beings by agents of
the federal government?  (ok, maybe thats going a little
too far

Rape by proxy, thats the federal government for you.

jim