[MD] The End of Faith - Spirituality

[Arlo Bensinger]

[Craig]
However, In general whenever anything is redistributed, the recipient 
is better off & the provider less so.  Obviously, this doesn't make it right.

[Arlo]
Does that mean it is not right to force someone to pay for a war they 
don't believe is moral or right? And, would you say the public 
funding of land, parks, lakes, etc is immoral?

I also think in very narrow terms, yes, the provider is "less so". 
But let me take an extreme to prove a middle. Let's say the 
government requires everyone to contribute $1 a year of their 
earnings to fund public libraries. In the narrowest sense, yes, the 
"provider" is one dollar less well off than before. But in a much 
larger sense, having an educated citizenry creates an environment and 
community where everyone benefits, in terms of labor and citizenship. 
The educated person is less likely to require assistance, more likely 
to be self-sufficient, and so in the long run that one dollar net 
"loss" is vastly overshadowed by everyone being "better off".

Of course, as I said in another post, there is an extreme on the 
other side. Taking $10000 from each person per year to fund libraries 
may hit a point where the benefits are drastically overshadowed by 
the detrimental impact on people. Between no-funding at all and full 
taxation there is a balance point where a "best case" lays (lies?). 
You can argue, and I'd agree, that we have problems in both degree of 
taxation and return on taxation, and these must be dealt with.

[Craig]
Now we have reached a fundamental question.  Force opposes 
free action. Free action is of fundamental importance according to 
Ham's metaphysics (Essentialism), Platt's interpretation of the MoQ 
(when he's not being reactionary), Micah's Objectivism.  That's why 
we all are often on the same side of an issue.

[Arlo]
I'm still not quite sure what this suggests? That the only legitimate 
collectivist programs are those that involve "force"? What would be 
problem, in your opinion, of moving to a privatized police force? Is 
it simply "armed competition", that you'd see competitors shooting at 
each other? Would you say that the potential for unequal 
representation? Special treatment for some citizens? (Why would that 
be a problem for law but not for health?) Is this also an indication 
that you find programs like public land management, public libraries 
and public roadways immoral? What about the establishment and 
regulation of currency? Is that a legitimate roll of government? Does 
that involve "force"?