On 26 May 96 at 21:39, Subir Grewal wrote:

Of course there are those who fervently believe in the socialist ideal

But, my dear, even in the most libertarian or AP-ruled world, they would absolutely free to give away *all* of their salary for the causes they consider valid. Only, thoses who don't agree with them would not be coerced into thoses noble causes.

and would probably feel justified in killing the do nothing libertarians

This paragraph seems to indicate that the only difference between libertarians and socialist is a mere difference of opinion and that everybody is justified to act on their beliefs. But the socialists who pretend that are simply blanking out the fact that *they too* recognize that Reality Is since they want to use force to get a lunch out of the mouth of somebody who have one (and who happened to produce it himself) to put it in the mouth of another who didn't have. Therefore, it is OK to deny reality when somebody come up with arguements against socialism, but it is darn convenient to use it (in the form of a loaded gun...)

(as opposed to old-style liberals, i.e. minimalists) who ostensibly form the state.

BTW, they do not "ostensibly" form the state. They simply *do*not*coerce* individuals into being sacrificial animals for the unearned benefits of others...

For them, inaction might be sufficient cause to initiate an AP campaign.

Oh, you mean, "for them, anybody who pass a judgment of his own that contradict them should be killed" I see...

I'd prefer a system that doesn't "target" people at all.

I'd prefer a pink elephant with wings. Do you think that govt does not target peoples?

One of the fundamental principles of justice is that it be comensurate (in some sense) to the crime, AP lacks that aspect. "Final solutions" are all it has, but final solutions aren't always desireable.

JB seem to agree with the view that turning our most productive individuals into sacrificial animals for the benefit of the less productive is not exactly a kind thing to do. I tend to agree. To say "commensurate" means that you must quantify various things in their proper context. I invite you to do so.

The question is not one of becoming a dictator, but rather one of what values will be protected, what freedoms will people have in the world/state you imagine. I think the values AP engenders are not the ones we want. We probably don't want to legitimize murder.

It does not legitimates murder per se. I don't think that JB ever said that murder was legitimate. He only explained that the technology makes it inevitable to happens and that he believes that the outcome will be a better society. You will note that to the act of murdering, he opposed many other actions, including many that leads to direct loss of lives. He claims that the positives will outnumber the negatives. As to the morality, by your own standards, of starting a "Vietnam" war, I suppose it is highly questionnable, or so you seems to indicate.

It's difficult to operate in a vacuum of principles/values, we can't simply say, "well whatever people will want to happen will happen and why not give them that choice".

Jim Bell does not believe that AP will evolve in a moral vacuum. On the contrary (and most collectivists think he is wrong), I think he believes that human beings have an intrinsic sense of justice and that this will prevail.

Marx was not the first to poitn out that institutions influence our actions, that we are products of our times, that the choices we face are as much determined by our own preferences as they are by the world around us.

Well, of course, our perception of reality is context dependent. But you seems to attempt to hint that truth is relative because knowledge is contextual. It looks like an attempt on reason.

:and who would want to take any politician's :place?

Only the fanatic

I think that by the nature of AP, this would be ruled out. Maybe there would be a fanatic president, but he would preside nothing because nobody would be there to enforce his fanatic views.

As I've said, the minimalist state is desireable in my opinion. The most efficient system of taxation is the truly flat tax (i.e. a fixed amount for each individual), since each person derives aprox. equivalent benefits from the minimalist state, their contributions are also equal. Each of us derives some benefits from the existence of the state, some of these benefits are non-exclusionary. Till these benefits are dependent on territory and jurisdiction taxation of those who reside within the jurisdiction/territory will have to be enforced.

That is absolute BS. It might have been true before, but with the advent of the net and of computers and smart cards, it is becoming a fallacy. If Visa or Mastercard can operate on a voluntary basis, the govt could also do it. The technology makes it possible that any individual who wish to subscribe to any of the various insurances the govt could offer might do so. Including contributions to finance museums, research projects, etc. And mandatory taxes could be enforced in period of emergencies like wars, if ever they happens. The population seems to have a very short memory: Before the great wars, there was *no* income tax. It is mainly with the advent of socialism, coinciding with the nuclear era, that the taxes were hiked to the level they are now. Johnson blew up whatever Eisehower tried to do. Of course, it started before them but Eisehower tried to get back to the old system. I guess what defeated him what that too many poeples longed for a free lunch... Anyhow, we have the technology to institutes a card that would give access to most services like health care, unemployement insurance, etc. Why don't they put it in place? [Cypherpunkishstuff] Hey guys, could you believe it? I actually closed a post with some tiny relevance to CP! Gee, my brain must have skipped a few cpu cycles! JFA I am not subscribing to CP. For me to read you, you must cc to me directly. DePompadour, Societe d'Importation Ltee; Limoges porcelain, silverware and crystal JFA Technologies, R&D consultants: physicists, technologists and engineers. PGP keys at: http://w3.citenet.net/users/jf_avon ID# C58ADD0D : 529645E8205A8A5E F87CC86FAEFEF891 I reserve the right to post publicly any private e-mail sent to me. Unsollicited commercial e-mail will be proofread at US165 $/h Any sender of such material will be considered as to have ac- cepted the above mentionned terms.