[MD] freedom is for the rich

[David M]

Hi Platt

>From each according to their ability, to each according to their need?

Think how dynamic this really is. And is it not just saying let's
try to live as a big family rather than as competing strangers?

Do we not support children's needs until they can support
themselves?

If we invest in those who's needs are not being met maybe
we can sustain and improve their productive abilities.

Having more than you need, is that not where excess starts?

Does some excess have benefits, in terms of motivation,
in increasing overall production? Sure.

But is there excess excess?

What disctribution maximises sustainable production and
the greatest individual flourishing?

Regards
David M




----- Original Message ----- 
From: <pholden at davtv.com>
To: <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2006 1:08 AM
Subject: Re: [MD] freedom is for the rich


> Quoting ARLO J BENSINGER JR <ajb102 at psu.edu>:
>
>> [Platt previously]
>> Nice that you think a little slavery is a good thing.
>>
>> [Arlo had asked]
>> Is taxation to support the military ("taking a man's property in order to 
>> serve
>> another's purposes") also slavery?
>>
>> [Platt]
>> To accept a minor enslavement (social level tax) to prevent a major 
>> enslavement
>> (loss of intellectual value protections) is moral.
>>
>> [Arlo]
>> So, nice that you think a little slavery is a good thing too.
>
> Depends on the moral justification. To prevent slavery, yes. To impose 
> slavery by
> forced redistribution of income "from each according to his ability, to 
> each
> according to his needs," no.
>
> -------------------------------------------------
> This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/
> moq_discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>