Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 8/23/84; site ucbcad.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!sdcsvax!dcdwest!ittvax!decvax!ucbvax!ucbcad!faustus
From: faustus@ucbcad.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Comments on Libertarianism
Message-ID: <4@ucbcad.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 5-Dec-84 09:55:26 EST
Article-I.D.: ucbcad.4
Posted: Wed Dec  5 09:55:26 1984
Date-Received: Sat, 8-Dec-84 04:45:46 EST
References: <1859@inmet.UUCP>
Organization: UC Berkeley CAD Group, Berkeley, CA
Lines: 37

> Non-universal charities ABOUND.  Just for example, the recent
> listener-supported radio fund raising drive for a Boston station was fond
> of pointing out that only about 20% of their listeners contribute.  The
> remaining 80% benefit from the station, too.  Presumably, the 20% (or whatever
> it turned out to be) who contributed this year count as "people", even
> though they contributed in the face of this statistic.
> 
> In fact, Wayne,  you'll find that almost all arts activities are
> not supported by getting a "fair share" from all of those people they serve.
> 
> You'll find a similar pattern, I think, in donations to the Salvation
> Army -- not all of those who wish the homeless to be fed give, but
> enough give to enable them to work.

There's a big difference between the arts and defense -- people get direct
benefit from contributing to radio stations, and they tend to be very
local. National defense is something that people do not directly
benefit from at all, and would almost certainly not be willing to pay
anything for if it weren't compulsory.

Furthermore, I don't know how often organizations that live off of
charity go under, but national defense is not something that should be
made so risky. If th Soviets knew that all it would take to get rid of
the U.S. defense would be to infuence public opinion enough, they would
start supporting "peace movements" much more than they are now.

> As for your notion that you can't rebuild society without rebuilding
> human nature, I'm not sure what you mean by that, but 
> the implication is that industrialization rebuilt human nature, because
> it sure rebuilt society.

Nobody 'did' industrialization, it just happened. I'm sure that Fulton 
didn't foresee everything that would happen to human nature because
of his invention of the steam engine... I can't think of many cases
of large scale intentional changing of human nature...

	Wayne