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