>Ya, N/A, I've been through this, Bill feels quite strongly that it is worse than murder for any society, no matter how classless or egalitarian, to imposer any requirements that its members are expected to contribute to the welfare of others by labor. This is slavery, he says, no matter whether the requirements are democratically imposed or not and
Chattel slavery in the US wasn't any less chattel slavery just because the government that sanctioned it was democratically elected. Wage slavery is wage slavery no matter whether it is democratically imposed. Perhaps you feel that democracy makes it OK, there may be something in that, but no matter how democratically the decision was arrived at, surely it doesn't make slavery something else?
>regardless of the possible consequences of not having such requirements (e.g., widespread paratism),
Its a possible consequence. So what?
> Bill becomes extremely abusive on this issue -- he tends to get on his high horse easily anyway, but he'll call you a stupid slavedriver and insult you mercilessly. He seems to think this will get others, at least, to see things his way. I don't think it's worth attempting debate him on the point (or indeed much of anything else). jks
Addressing your remarks to someone else and referring to me in the third person doesn't change the fact that you are addressing my arguments mate. You are debating me.
Take your own advice, if you can't stand the heat stay out of the kitchen.
Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas