Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/

["Cristóbal Palmer" <cristobalpalmer AT gmail.com>]

On 7/17/07, Phillip Rhodes <mindcrime AT cpphacker.co.uk> wrote:
> That's because your B) above is not an accurate reflection of my
> position.  A better wording would be
>
> B) all tax collection in this country is accompanied with an implied
> threat of force for failure to comply.

I guess I have to ask, then, what role you think police should ever
play in any society. When is an implied threat of force for failure to
comply okay? Personally I'm a fan of the implied threat of force for
failure to leash your attack dog that might kill a toddler, for
example. I'm a fan of an implied threat of force for failure to
dispose of hazardous chemicals in a manner that won't contaminate our
drinking water. It seems to me your ideal (if I'm reading this
correctly) is that there is _never_ a circumstance when an implied
threat of force is okay. This could never work in urban areas. We live
too close to each other and are too diverse in our attitudes and
beliefs. There has to be some negotiated set of ground rules. There
has to be compromise. You might say: "But it's possible to negotiate
these things without the implied threat of force." My response is that
it's possible to negotiate such things when there's not a lot of money
involved, but what about when there is a clear disparity in bargaining
power? For example, what about the workers at the Smithfield plant in
Tar Heel (no joke) NC:

http://www.smithfieldjustice.com/

Just as with Lochner, these workers are being abused and have very
little bargaining power to better their own situation. If not for
labor laws backed by a government that has a monopoly on "legitimate
violence" ... then what? I seriously doubt that people with power and
profit at stake would magically start playing nice and cut fair
bargains if the state were to disappear. It's not rational of them.
People are supposed to be rational wealth maximizers, right? Why would
a company or individual with the power to shape/bend/abuse the market
for its own gain give that up? Your ideal requires the rich and
powerful to be irrationally magnanimous to work.

Cheers,
--
Cristóbal M. Palmer
Love as a predictor of technological success: http://tinyurl.com/2em6zs