In a message dated April 21, 1998, SlackerInc writes:

Here is an example of an atheist (by SlackerInc's own admission) asserting the unknowable in a classic, cheesy, party style sense. This is the kind of tactic one uses at a cocktail gathering: "Why you couldn't possibly be pro-choice!?? Only a wicked, irresponsible baby-murdering louse could be for abortion rights!" Such a tactic not only aims to shower an individual with a different opinion through emotionally charged disapproval - and alienation, more importantly, such a tactic attempts to put a halt to all rational discussion whatsoever. Thankfully, SlackerInc shows at least a modicum of dignity by continuing his 'explanation', which follows, but which does not excuse the use of such backhanded tactics as above. (Not to mention that by continuing with his explanation, SlackerInc necessarily contradicts his former conclusion that explanation would be impossible.)

Interesting. How so? If AirwaveBoy lives in a free market society, where values are produced by individuals who employ their effort for the purpose of their own gain, whose product so produced belongs to its producer by right, not by permission, and who trades his effort and his product with others by the trader principle - i.e., by voluntary, uncoerced mutual consent, and that every gain he makes in life warrants the expense of no one by himself - all hallmarks of a nation of free individuals, how can one concede that he has "force[d] people to 'submit to [his] will' with [his] money"? Again, a nation of free individuals, whose individual rights are protected by a constitution which recognizes man's right to exist for his own sake, and its corollary - which is the right to one's own property, Nick would have no legal basis to force anyone to do anything one did not himself choose to do.

The purpose of a moral government is to bring the use of force under objective control. This means that no individual can initiate the use of force over anyone, whether he be a businessman, a college student, or a village priest. The injustice which you accuse Nick's selfishness and 'greed' of can only take place under a regime of tyrants and thugs who are not bound to any law which constrains them from the initiation of the use of force. Such a society is not the kind that AirwaveBoy presumes when he rightly asks, "What is wrong if I want to grab as much money as I can in life?"

To AirwaveBoy, I say: Go earn as much money as you like any way you like, so long as you produce your wealth at your own expense, not at the expense of others, and enjoy it any way you like, so long as it does not violate the rights of others. From the character AirwaveBoy has demonstrated through his use of principled reasoning in his mailers, I'm certain he intends to do nothing less, and I'll gladly fight to protect his right to do so.

Remember that all wealth is produced, by men of reason. When the first Europeans came to Manhattan Island in the 17^th century, there were no skyscrapers, no banks, no corporations employing individuals seeking to produce their own wealth to finance their own dreams, no stock exchange, no Wall Street. All this success, splendor and wealth - from which everyone reading this e-mail has benefited incalculably - had to be produced by men. One thing was their guide: the profit motive. In the hands of a rational man, wealth can be multiplied to reaches that even the imagination cannot fathom. I'm sure the Dutch settlers who bought Manhattan Island in 1624 had no idea of the wealth that would one day be produced on the very spot where before there were only weeds and humble hovels.

Where would you rather live: then, without hamburger meat, without lettuce trucked in from Iowa to dress your hamburger meat, without wheat flour produced in Indiana to be baked into a bun to make a sandwich with your hamburger meat, without a paper napkin from some mill in Wisconsin to wipe your smirking face, without the toilet paper from another mill in South Carolina to wipe your foul-smelling ass once you defecate that hamburger, which gave your body sustenance, without the roof over your head that includes indoor plumbing, central heating, electric power, appliances to clean your dishes or your skidmarked underwear, etc., etc., etc., all of which is made possible by rational men producing wealth, which is so resented by some those plagued by envy. Would you really rather live then, in that hovel on prehistoric Manhattan Island, infested with flies in the summer time, flooding in the fall, freezing in the winter and mildewing in the spring, and forever reeking of the foul stench of your filthy body and the accumulated food bits that have been left behind by your vacuum cleaner? Oh, that's right, you couldn't afford one!

It is the man who dispenses with reason who refuses to produce his own wealth, but seeks to attach himself like a bloodsucker to those who produce the wealth. The world is full of parasites, both moral and material. The invention of money allows man to free himself of society's parasites by enabling him to become independent. It is this capacity to establish independence that the altruist/collectivist seeks to destroy in man.

Keep in mind that Capitalism did not create poverty, it inherited it, and that form the social systems of the centuries prior to the 18^th and 19^th centuries. Furthermore, if AirwaveBoy's right to his own produced wealth - wealth that he earns at his own expense, by his effort, by his ability, his reason, his purpose and his assessment of himself that he is worthy of the wealth he earns - were consistently recognized and vigilantly protected by his government, he could protect himself all the more from the 'bad luck' - not to mention from the parasites who wish to seize his wealth through taxation (legalized coercion - the tool of the bureaucrat) and/or tears (unearned guilt - the tool of the moocher and the priest). Obviously, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to determine that AirwaveBoy would be better off.

Really? At whose expense?? Any time one posits grandiose schemes of 'universal employment' and 'universal health care', it is usually taken for granted that someone will have to provide for it, as these things do not grow on trees. Look at some of these old folx who stand in line at age 70 waiting for a welfare check: they've had all their lives to produce for their old age, yet they live off a system that seizes the very opportunity they themselves have squandered from individuals like me, who will never meet these people - and thus bar me from assessing whether or not I consider these people worthy of the money that I've produced and which has been seized from me by the threat of force in the name of some 'common good'.

There is no such thing as a "right to a job." Man has the right to work, but a job requires an employer, and an employer has the right to hire you - if you demonstrate some value to him - or not to hire you if you don't, or to fire you if you fail to produce the value expected of you. Employment in a nation of free individuals can only take place by mutual consent; one cannot force you to work for him, just as you cannot force him to hire you as his employee. The only rational way is to earn your wealth, employment and the 'health benefits' you seek; it is never morally justified to force others to finance these things for you. Get a job, and go earn it yourself, and stop feeling sorry for yourself and those who posture as 'less fortunate', or 'underprivileged'. In a nation of free individuals, such notions have no legitimate meaning.

I live and work in San Francisco, a mecca for the so-called 'homeless' - parasitical vagrants of every race, background and upbringing. Each has his own story to tell for the reasons why he has 'no home'. Everywhere I turn in this city there's another beggar with his hand out, looking to extort from me either by 'sympathy' for his 'predicament' - or in some cases by actual force - money that I have earned at my own expense, by my own effort. I recognize no one's right to my earned wealth but my own. Besides, my wages have already been unjustly raped dozens of times in the name of subsidizing 'social program' after 'social program' allegedly designed to 'cure poverty and homelessness', all of which fail time and time again.

To the homeless vagrant with his hand out in my face as I go happily to the job I love, to the place where I produce my values at my expense, by my own effort, and according to my own purpose, I say one thing:

GET THE HELL OUT OF MY WAY!!

Tindrbox

One man's need is not a mortgage on another man's ability to produce wealth.

_________________________________