Tresy,

Is it foolish and futile of me to push so hard on the idea that any
(hopefully somewhat measured) force used in self defense is right and any
force (under any guise) used to take property from another human is
wrong?  The ruling class by definition always makes the rules and the
criminally inclined among them will always try to be immune from the laws
they write.  Only a consensus of ideals among their ranks can temper
their greed.  This is one such ideal.

>From any viewpoint it is undeniable that predators who kill off their
prey eventually perish, too.  The human capacity for reason anticipates
this outcome and if enough thoughtful people band together against the
criminal this outcome can be averted. What is needed is the willingness,
from top to bottom,  to condemn the initiation of force against another
human.  The difficulty arises because there is an equal human capacity to
believe the astonishingly transparent bullcraft spun by the predators and
parasites.

I would like to avoid the outcome mentioned above by illuminating the
bullcraft for what it is.  The conceptual light I am focusing on it is
the clear distinction between the right and wrong use of force;
simplistic, limited but hopefully an effective pressure point.  I will
judge it effective if enough thinkers abandon positions which validate
the wrong use of force,  for example,  using the law to bar individuals
from a harmless behavior or to force an undesired behavior on individulas
who are not criminals.  It is tempting to group all workers into
categories and create "model" unions into which they shall be fit whether
they like it or not; to be herded like so many cattle. To the degree that
the use of force is used (even "legal" force) to control membership and
restrict access across picket lines, it is wrong and will only accelerate
social meltdown ... my opinion.

One last comment more to your point, with which I believe I agree; "fair"
coercion is used in the defense of intellectual property where such laws
exist.  It is the expression of the community in favor of genius and
initiative and makes sense in promoting stability within the community.
If individual ownership of property of any nature (found, purchased or
created) is not recognized, there is only chaos, i.e. ownership by
strength.

Don

On Tue, 27 May 1997 14:13:52 -0700 Tresy Kilbourne <[log in to unmask]>
writes:

>Proving my point, which is that the "coercive power of the state" is
>not
>equally distributed, which is where the unfairness arises, not in the
>"coercion" itself. How many people/businesses would invest time and
>money
>in creating something if anyone could come along later and rip it off?
>I
>don't see anything coercive about intellectual property laws per se.
>