Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!isishq!doug
From: doug@isishq.FIDONET.ORG (Doug Thompson)
Newsgroups: comp.society.futures
Subject: Re: Relevance of Daiell's postings
Message-ID: <799.23934284@isishq.FIDONET.ORG>
Date: 28 Nov 88 04:22:41 GMT
Organization: International Student Information Service -- Headquarters
Lines: 56


 
 e>From: eric@snark.UUCP 
 
 e>Nevertheless, he has hold of a basic moral truth that you, with all your 
 e>sophistication, are still evading. There is no 'public money'; there is 
 e>only stolen or extorted private money, and advocating *more* tax-funded 
 e>boondoggles makes one accessory before the fact to more crime. 
 
Hmmm. I guess that means there is no "public" either? Does that 
mean that there is no "family money", only stolen or extorted 
private money? Does that mean my church has no "church money", 
only stolen or extorted private money? 
 
 There obviously is a thing called a "public", and it also 
obviously has democratic decision-making apparatus through which 
such things as national defense and welfare are funded by the 
people, for the people. Now I suppose you think welfare and 
defence should be left to the free market too? 
 
And they say that the left is unrealistic . . .   
 
The "moral truth" that is relevant here is this: there is more to 
a civilization than individuals, the total of the individuals is 
greater than the sum of its parts, and that total is called the 
*public*. Without it, and without the collective action the 
awareness of it makes possible, it is very likely we'd all still 
be living under the law of the jungle *in* the jungle, those few 
of us who were living at all, that is. 
 
Humans are social animals, and interdependent ones at that. 
Without the help of others none of us would have ever even been 
born. "public" decision-making and spending is simply the 
civilized way of making life better for everyone. It's not 
perfect, but it sure beats feudalism where everything belongs to 
the most vicious bully, the toughest "individual". What happens 
of course in the absense of a democratic sense of the public good 
is that the most powerful individuals end up extorting fealty 
from weaker ones, and constantly fighting wars with ones of 
comparable power. In that model everyone loses. 
 
The individualism you worship, that which gives everyone some 
rights, regardless of personal power, is wholly a product of a 
strong sense of "public" good; it's good for everyone if everyone 
has rights. Well, everyone except a few monopolists who 
experience that some of their power is "stolen" to be distributed 
to those who have none. 
 
 
=Doug 


--  
 Doug Thompson - via FidoNet node 1:221/162
     UUCP: ...!watmath!isishq!doug
 Internet: doug@isishq.FIDONET.ORG