Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/3/84; site mhuxt.UUCP
Path: utzoo!decvax!bellcore!allegra!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!js2j
From: js2j@mhuxt.UUCP (sonntag)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Libertarianism: Anarchism, Schools, Defense, Society
Message-ID: <442@mhuxt.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 28-Dec-84 14:47:16 EST
Article-I.D.: mhuxt.442
Posted: Fri Dec 28 14:47:16 1984
Date-Received: Fri, 28-Dec-84 23:00:20 EST
References: <399@ptsfa.UUCP> <2207@randvax.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill
Lines: 50

>>     Even if you could come up with some expression for "the good of society"
> > in quantitative terms, it might not be right to maximize it. Suppose you
> > have incontrovertible proof that sacrificing unwilling virgins to the great
> > lizard-god is the only way to preserve the lives of others. Do you have a 
> >right to perform the sacrifice? Moral philosophies differ here, but I think 
> > not. 
> > 				J. Bashinsk>i<
> This is a straw-man argument.  As a libertarian, I suspect you believe
> in a rational world in which an ungoverned order is inherently fair to
> individuals.  I doubt that the existance of a lizard-god fits into your
> view of the world--or in the view of the people here you are arguing
> with.  Use more real-world examples if you want your argument to hold
> water.  Generally accepted examples of the good of the many overiding
> the good of the few are incarceration of criminals, military defense
> against an invader, and other cases in which ``the good of society''
> is considered.  
>        Ed Hall

   Notice that both examples that Ed Hall gives of 'the good of the many over- 
riding the good of the few' are examples where 'the few' are NOT innocent,
which is not what J. Bashinski was talking about (apparently).
   Well, if you must have a concrete, real life example, (BTW, why do some
people, when considering what would be moral in a certain situation, demand
an example which really happens?  It seems to me that an individual should
be able to decide what he thinks is a moral action in a given situation WITHOUT
actually being in that situation.) how about graduated income tax.  This is
a real-life example where our current government has decided that the good
of a few (those with large incomes) can be sacrificed in order to help many.
Notice that 'the few' aren't really very happy with this arrangement.  But,
enough of our society thinks that this is o.k. to continue doing it.
   Where do you draw the line?  We are willing to sacrifice the earnings of
a few to the many.  Historically, some societies have decided to sacrifice
the possessions of a few to the many.  Some have decided to sacrifice the lives
of a few to the many (although it is unclear that this actually benefitted
the many.)  
   Someone, (I forget who) once wrote a very short story called "The Ones Who
Walked Away From Omelas".  Omelas was a city whose people were happy and
healthy and prosperous, but that prosperity was all somehow dependant on the
forced poverty and degradation of ONE innocent person.  The story merely
states that once in awhile, in the middle of the night, a person would leave
Omelas, never to return.
   Why is it that it is always 'the many' who decide that it's alright to
sacrifice the good of 'the few' for 'the many'?  It sounds as though 'the
good of society' is usually used as an excuse to justify whatever 'the
many' think they can get away with.

Jeff Sonntag
ihnp4!mhuxt!js2j 

May I never benefit from the use of force on an innocent person.