Well, excuse this ... person .. for defining my own terms! I love Thomas Paine (in the long-dead platonic sense), but I wasn't thinking of him or his interpretations (not really definitions) of "society" and "government" when I wrote what I wrote. Unless he has become the acknowledged universal definer of those terms, what he thought is immaterial to this discussion.
Evasive? I stated the meaning and context of my very short sentence that you seem to be roiling in rage over. I supplied a suitable definition for those terms you disagreed with. You think I made it up? Here's the link where I cut and pasted it from:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society
Most of the rest of your reply was based on your faulty premise, so I'll ignore it.
See how civil I am?
Nah. You're no more "civil" than you are honest or trustworthy. You're simply trying ineptly to pass yourself off as such.
When I made reference to Thomas Paine's
Common Sense as providing a definitive differentiation between "society" and "government" and you,
Aardvark, strove to sidestep that citation by cutting-and-pasting (from "Wiki-bloody-pedia," of all sources) a definition which specifically contravenes Paine's expressed purpose in writing what we find in the first two paragraphs of his monograph, your intention was to evade rather than to sustain principled address of the subject at hand, and that's what you're still trying to do.
When I asked - contemptuously - if you,
Aardvark, are completely bereft of any understanding of the "Free Lunch" concept, you responded:
Not at all. I loved R.A. Heinlein, especially Glory Road and Starship Troopers, and yes, I read The Moon is a Harsh Mistress some time ago. TANSTAAFL See what a nice, understanding ideologue I am?
...thereby demonstrating that you really don't know diddly about where Heinlein derived the "TANSTAAFL" element in
The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, obviously not realizing that at the time Heinlein was writing that novel, the concept had become current and widespread by way of the popular writings of economist Milton Friedman, and even Friedman was only retailing a notion that had long since been accepted and acknowledged in his field.
What Heinlein didn't mention in
The Moon is a Harsh Mistress (insofar as I recall) is that the "Free Lunch" elements commonly made available in saloons and other drinking estabishments back in the '40s and '50s were not only intrinsically low-cost but also salty and otherwise thirst-inducing, increasing the patrons' incentive to increase their purchases of beer and other profitably vended beverages.
Even if the cost of the "Free Lunch"
weren't included in the price of the drinks, there would therefore nonetheless be ample incentive for the proprietors of these establishments to serve it up. Something very like that is seen in casinos, where buffet offerings and even alcoholic beverages are provided at low (or
no) direct out-of-pocket expense in order to better ensure that gamblers have little incentive to leave the establishment.
I'm not an anarchist. I'm a non-religious conservative with a Libertarian bent. I couldn't care less if someone waves his anarchist bona fides in my face. I have my own mind and can think for myself, thanks. I do some writing and have done some world creation, meaning I've thought about how societies might work. I'm interested in the story and especially in the world Sandy has made. I like Ceres society for the most part, but I have a few mostly minor issues with it.
So, why do I believe that there should be some sort of basic educational system set up for the masses in any modern society? it's a twofor. Firstly, history has shown that societies are bound with common standards, values, and customs. It would behoove any society that was planning on being around for a while to create a bond between its citizens and the society they live in. Secondly, uneducated people with little common bonds (and appreciation of ZAP) running around are liable to create problems. Like the merchants who created a fund to find the mugger, I think it actually makes economic sense to provide a common basic education to the young FREE OF CHARGE.
How do you like them apples?
To be a political conservative, one must necessarily be a hypocrite. Stupidity is a big part of the mental make-up, too, as well as self-deceit. Not that this isn't also true of the self-declared "progressive" authoritarian, but what the heck.
This continued insistence upon treating "society" as if it were some kind of entity is characteristic of both conservatives and "Liberals," and marks both factions as hostile to human rights.
Aardvark, I do wish that you'd just quit using the term "society" when what you really mean is "government." Society - the process of voluntary peaceable interaction among human beings who have no wish to rape, rob, or enslave anybody - really shouldn't be used by people like you to mask your meddling viciousness.
You really think you're going to get away with this crap in a venue being run by people who understand the difference between factual reality and your peculiar fantasies?