Re: Unicorn vs....

[Sandy Sandfort <sandfort@crl.com>]

C'punks,

On Thu, 26 May 1994, John E. Kreznar wrote, first quoting me:

> . . .
> > and I would have no *philosophical* problem with pursuing redress in
> > the king's court.
> 
> How could you do this, without incurring cognitive dissonance?

What cognative dissonance?  If I am satisfied that I am in the right, the 
so-called "government" is just another handy weapon with which to get my 
way.  I'd have no problem using a gun produced by slave labor, either.

> . . .
> Government differs from the oncoming truck in that its power comes from
> its constituency of willing clients generating a demand for its
> services.

This is philosophical gobblydegook.  There is no government.  People who 
call themselves the government derive their powers from their use of 
force and their ability to con or intimidate other people to recognize 
them as the "it" of government.  You have your government/client 
causality backwards.

> . . .
> But how do you deflect accusations of inconsistency and hypocrisy?
> . . .

I don't bother.  Their wrong; I ignore them.  

> . . .  You have apparently accommodated
> yourself to this inconsistency.  How?

There is no inconsistency.  There is no government for me to patronize.  
The folks who call themselves the government will sometimes do things 
that benefit me.  Great.  It doesn't mean I condone other things they do 
that involve the initiation of force.

> . . .
> Would you have any philosophical objection to taking welfare?

Nope.  I leave the reasons for this as an exercise for the student.


 S a n d y

P.S.  Reasonable minds may differ.  I apologize to John if I seem too
cavalier in my responses.  It's just that I've given these topics much 
thought over the years, and I'm satisfied with my beliefs.  John has 
raised good questions and I may yet be shown the error of my ways.  :-)
(Sometimes smileys, just like exclamation points, are justified.)