May I isolate a few points for response?

On Sat, 5 Jul 1997 15:06:52 +1100 Bill Bartlett
<[log in to unmask]> writes:

<clip>

>I don't see how you can justify the argument that
>taking something first is more virtuous than taking
>it second.

I am on your side of the issue if the operative word is 'taking' and
connotes 'by force from an  owner who considers the exchange to be
inadequate.'  Between individuals,  such events are usually, clearly seen
as criminal, however, that leaves many takings by groups that may be
equally criminal, but this fact is obfuscated by means of: invoking
cultural myth, publishing clever PR or using blatant deceit.  I am sure
you can anticipate my next thought.  The best way to illuminate the
criminal act is to stand against the use of force to achieve any end
except in self defense.  In your behavior, your conversations, your
writing,  even your thoughts to your self, do nothing which validates the
aggressive use of force.  Then, property, once found or created by a
first owner, is never taken, but voluntarily exchanged.  The toughest nut
to crack is taxation which is deep into our cultural myth, heavily PR'd
and loaded with deceit.  Never the less, to the degree that it is
involuntary and is forced, it is a criminal act.

<clip>

>This is too easy! Are you REALLY suggesting that
>the only possible incentive to work is the threat of
>hunger? Surely you can conceive of other
>incentives - much more effective ones. I can think
>of so many, so obvious incentives that I won't insult
>the intelligence of other list users by
>trying to list them.

Both wives and tyrants use satiation of hunger to keep men pacified and
motivated.  It is involuntary, visceral and way more effective than
whatever is in second place.

<clip>

> when you do any job simply because it is remunerated,
>rather than because it is worth doing you are no different
>than a prostitute.
>
>Wage slavery forces the entire working class to prostitute
>itself to survive, so you can't judge the character of
>the working class by the depraved state in which that
>forces us.

Why would anyone expend any effort without anticipation of a subjective
reward  of some kind.  Even raising a house for a neighbor has the reward
of having a good neighbor or passing on a favor done for you or knowing
you have contributed to the survival of your community, etc.  If there
were truly no reward of any kind, you would not do it.  In a slave
society,  the reward may be fewer lashes of the whip.  Fund raisers for
charities work very diligently for dollars to be used to feed starving
children.  Are they prostitutes? The money incentive is not the issue.
If all employment agreements were straightforward exchanges of labor for
money, there would be no problem. It becomes quasi-slavery to the degree
that force and deceit are used to reduce remuneration and/or increase
work output.

"Now that we have established what we all are, we just need to settle on
price."

Don Brayton