| Dear Letters Editor: The following events occurred at Waikato University. The setting is a coffee shop, I was expounding the principle of education, as why it is immoral to fund it via taxation, or have ANY government involvement in it. I do not know the name of the interjector (I shall simply call him 'Red'), but one of the comments he made was that he is a 'peace-loving Marxist'. Obviously, I am unable to give this verbatim, but it does demonstrate the way in which these people react when confronted by logic, especially when one utilizes the Socratic line of questioning to expose fallacies. The audience was the group of around 35 people to whom I had been speaking originally. The gist of the dialogue is as follows: RED: Rights are those things which the state gives us for the common good. SCOTT: Tell me do you believe in the use of force against human beings? (Socratic question). RED: No, of course I don't. SCOTT: You also believe that education should be funded by taxation. RED: Yes, that is fair. Free education is a right. SCOTT: From where to you derive that right? RED: The state gives it. SCOTT: So rights are therefore analogous with the law - in that laws confer or remove rights? RED (looking unhappy about this): Um, well, er. SCOTT: You are however convinced that the initiation of force against men is wrong? RED: Yes, but I object to your sexist language. SCOTT: Put that aside as another issue for a moment. In your definition, does the initiation of force involve the threat of force, perhaps we could call it extortion? RED: Yes. SCOTT: How is the taxation collected that funds your so-called free education? RED: Shut up, you are twisting my words. SCOTT: What makes taxation any different from a mugging where the mugger threatens to initiate force if you don't hand over your wallet? RED (shouting):The state does it, and the state exists for the good of the people. SCOTT: Please elucidate. The assumption that you seem to be making is that the state is some kind of metaphysical entity in the same way that an individual is. This however runs contrary to reality and thence truth. RED: Truth is in the eye of the beholder. I should know. I've lived all over the world. (note; the relevance of this comment escaped me but I didn't see the point in following it up at that time). SCOTT: O.K. Just to clarify this. The state should use force to fund education. This is because people have a right to an education funded by somebody else. This right exists because the state says that it does and no further argument on this point is valid. Because truth is a subjective concept, these rights are arbitrary, to be granted or removed by the state at any time without reference to the metaphysical nature of man. Also as a result of this, it is alight to use force against people in order to achieve the goal of a free education, which even you admit is not free anyway. RED: Yes, no. Shut up, or I'll come over there and smash your face in, in the interests of a peaceful society. NOTE: This then further degenerated, with more threats and comments about the nature of truth - it would seem to be subjective - but only when one accepts his version of it is that subjectivity true! Just try to make sense out of that. Scott Alsweiler, bondage@wave.co.nz |
Home Volunteer Events Officers In the Media Newsletter Libertarian Links Candidates World's Smallest Political Quiz |