Hey Chris:

Smart aleck question here, but since you find it ironic or even absurd for a
libertarian to take a paycheck, or even use things like emergency services
in the form of the police or the fire department, or let's extend the
absolutist argument here even further and suggest that a true libertarian
would not drive on the right side of the road, or heck, even USE public
roads . . . (does that make my four-wheel drive truck libertarian?)

If that is ironic, then wouldn't a socialist, in the same absolutist form
you place libertarians in, have to be in nothing but open marriages?  Or,
would they be along the lines of the Yahoos in 'Gulliver's Travels' or the
collective in the Republic, and only "gather for procreation" whenever the
collective needed some children to replace dwindling numbers of the
collective?

Wouldn't a socialist have to share things like toothbrushes, socks, and
underwear with the collective?  Wouldn't a good socialist eschew all forms
of toiletries?

If so, . . . and for both socialist forms of toiletries and matrimony . . . 

eeeeeeuuuuuwwwwww!


Absolutely yours,
Matthew Guy
Rhetorical monkey wrench and mere spectator.

-----Original Message-----
From: UTC Staff E-Mail List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
Christopher J Stuart
Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2006 3:09 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [UTCSTAFF] Taxes and Ironies

Joe,

Ironies abound.  What you call a "forcible extraction" of money from the
taxpayer's pocket is only the tyranny of the majority in a representative
democracy, which goes to show once again, that a libertarian with courage is
still a minority in this country, as is a socialist.  My man in the senate
is Bernie Sanders.  He's a man; he's got courage; he rarely wins.  

You're right about the fundamental nature of our difference, but I get to go
home with my paycheck knowing that I don't in principle despise the very
system which made it possible.  I may have mentioned before that I know of
three people who accept the label "Libertarian" and all three pick up a
state check every month.  In other words they profit from the very system
they claim they would like to see torn down.  That, to my mind, is called
cynicism. Something like Jefferson saying "slavery is a great evil," but
meanwhile refusing to free his own slaves because they give such great
service.  You'll no doubt claim that you're only being paid a market value
for services rendered.  I have no problem with that argument, but then I'm a
socialist.   The problem with that argument from your own perspective being
that the folks paying you are not customers paying "voluntarily," but the
very taxed you worry so much about who are subsidizing an institution that
could not exist without the subsidy.

Chris


Christopher Stuart
UC Foundation Associate Professor
English Department
University of Tennessee at Chattanooga

* UTCSTAFF home page:  http://raven.utc.edu/archives/utcstaff.html *
* unsubscribe:  mailto:[log in to unmask]  *
*   subscribe:  mailto:[log in to unmask]    *

* UTCSTAFF home page:  http://raven.utc.edu/archives/utcstaff.html *
* unsubscribe:  mailto:[log in to unmask]  *
*   subscribe:  mailto:[log in to unmask]    *