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. >