Don Brayton wrote:

>When force is always used in defense of property and never used in
>confiscation of property is there a stable social order.  It matters not
>whether the property is a wallet, a house, a garden, an apartment house,
>a bank account, a pile of Krugerands,  intellectual property such as a
>manuscript or a manufacturing process or even a huge, multi-billion
>dollar per year corporation.  All of these must be equally protected by
>law from any attack: by predators from without or by parasite from
>within.
That radical Teddy Roosevelt once said, "Every man holds his property
subject to what the interests of society requires." Your analysis seems
to presume that a majority of citizens are "parasites," who, if allowed
to exercise their political power on an equal footing, would turn the
"producers" into slaves. If that assumption is correct, then we might as
well embrace fascism and get it over with.

But let's get down to cases. Perhaps you can tell us what theory of
justice explains a system in which the people who actually *make* Nike
shoes get $1.60 a day, while a single person who hawks them on TV gets
millions per year? Are the former "parasites" if they seek a larger share
of the profits from their labor? Is the TV pitchman a "producer", to
challenge whose share of the pie is tantamount to theft?
_________
Tresy Kilbourne, Seattle WA
"Nothing is more surprising to those who consider human affairs with a
philosophical eye than to see the easiness with which the many are
governed by the few; and to observe the implicit submission with which
men resign their own sentiments and passions to those of their  rulers.
When we enquire by what means this wonder is brought about,  we shall
find,  that as Force is always on the side of the governed,  the
governors have nothing to support them but opinion. 'Tis  therefore, on
opinion only that  government is founded; and this maxim extends to the
most despotic and  most military governments, as well as to the most free
and most popular." -- David Hume