Re: Definition of "rich"?

Just Cocky <just@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Fri, 21 Apr 2006 00:07:13 +0200, peter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Peter
Bjørn Perlsø) wrote:

First come first serve is perfectly adequate justification for me.


The problem with "first come, first serve" is that it is arbitrary as
"second come, second serve" given that there is no moral justification
for either.

I agree that there is no moral justification for taking something others
own and have initially appropriated. But that is, after all, what
government does best.



Besides, the alternatives (collectivisation or government intervention)
are repugnant.


In a libertarian world, it's only "Government intervention" *IF* the
people delegate to Government that job.

What makes you think that government wont damn well do what it pleases?
Do you really think government answers to anybody?

The people could simply choose
to continue with a bigger guns win on an individual basis. However,
I'd say that the potential for destruction of this society would
probably be bigger than in the case of these power delegated to
Government.



--
regards, Peter Bjørn Perlsø
http://haxor.dk
http://liberterran.org
http://haxor.dk/fanaticism/
.