[extropy-chat] Sheiks and sex (was OIL: Albertan tar sands)

[Mike Lorrey]

--- Charlie Stross <charlie at antipope.org> wrote:

> 
> On 17 Sep 2005, at 03:15, Mike Lorrey wrote:
> >
> > You also can't complain about taxes taken from those who believe in
> > taxes. Statists do not enjoy the protection of the non-initiation  
> > principle.
> 
> Y'know something, I was going to let this slide -- but you had to  
> stick it right up my nose.
> 
> "X does not enjoy the protection of law Y because they do not believe
> in law Y" (let's strip it right out of the context of libertarian  
> ideology and generalize it) is a really dangerous principle. Either  
> you're talking about a general law, in which case it applies to  
> everyone, or it's not a law; it's a group agreement among a bunch of 
> insiders, and -- hey! -- you've invented another group who are  
> explicitly outside your law because you pinned a label on them.

That is why it is a principle and not a law, however it is, in fact,
applied in law quite well in many ways. For instance: you murder
someone, you've given up your right to live, because by committing
murder, you've demonstrated that you don't believe in any such thing as
a right to live. You steal something from someone, you get fined (i.e.
your property is taken) because you've demonstrated you don't believe
in the right to property.

> 
> (Plus, my take on the non-initiation principle is that it's far too  
> easy to turn inside out.  There are forms of coercive behavior that  
> don't require guns, knives, or fists, after all, some of them are so 
> insidious that you don't realize you're being coerced at first: that 
> nice cheap inkjet printer, for example -- how were you to know that  
> it costs an arm and a leg to replace the print cartridges and by  
> opening the box you agreed that you wouldn't try to refill the one  
> that came with it? 

On the contrary, caveat emptor: as a responsible consumer, you should
have paid attention to the fine print on the box that said a) this
requires printer cartridge x, and b) such cartridges are only good for
y pages. You should then have inquired as to the price of cartridge x.
That you did not is your laziness and not coersion on anybodys part.

>Or: that nice peaceful gated community, how were  
> you to know that the clause about "accepted community standards"  
> would be used to threaten you with eviction if you dyed your hair
> blue?)

Because if you were a responsible consumer, you would have actually
read the contract. Nobody coerces you, you consent to it.

> 
> Personally, I believe in taxes. They beat the alternative hollow ...

Then, you don't get to complain when your elected representatives spend
your tax money on things you disapprove of, other than voting against
them next election. That is the contract you agree to by believing in
taxes and electing a representative government (and either voting or
not voting): its like putting your money in a trust managed by your
lawyer: you have to trust that they are acting in your best interest,
even when you think they aren't, or else end the whole experiment.

Mike Lorrey
Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH
Founder, Constitution Park Foundation:
http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com
Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com


		
__________________________________ 
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 
http://mail.yahoo.com