Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84 exptools; site whuxlm.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!whuxlm!mag From: mag@whuxlm.UUCP (Gray Michael A) Newsgroups: net.politics,net.philosophy Subject: Re: Re:Democracy and Libertarianism Message-ID: <642@whuxlm.UUCP> Date: Mon, 14-Jan-85 19:16:47 EST Article-I.D.: whuxlm.642 Posted: Mon Jan 14 19:16:47 1985 Date-Received: Tue, 15-Jan-85 02:29:21 EST References: <395@ptsfa.UUCP> <12@ucbcad.UUCP> <2585@sdcc3.UUCP> <32@ucbcad.UUCP> <408@whuxl.UUCP> <633@whuxlm.UUCP> <415@whuxl.UUCP> Distribution: net Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Whippany Lines: 61 Xref: watmath net.politics:6850 net.philosophy:1361 > > = Me, Mike Gray > = Tim Sevener = Me again > > The key word to a libertarian here is "all." If a community of people > > ALL wish to contribute, I doubt if any libertarian would object -- they > > don't oppose voluntary actions. > > The reason that democracy and a certain amount of compromise is necessary > is because ALL (100%) of the people in a group will never agree to > ANYTHING! Have you ever been in a group of people in which everyone > totally agreed? Such an event may occur but it is comparatively rare > and limited to small groups. Therefore when disagreements over which > actions the group should take arise and decisions must be made, then > a democratic vote seems one of the best ways of making such decisions. > > Such situations constantly occur. In our own field for example: > a Computer Center often has to choose to get one mainframe out of > the vast range of mainframe computers offered on the market. [ There follows a narrative where a compromise is reached that pleases some and not others. Since Tim and I work for the same company, I can verify the accuracy of the example. ] First of all, you are talking about a community that you and I voluntarily joined. I know that at Bell Labs, we sometimes have limited resources and have to make compromises. But here, if you or I think the compromises or decisions are bad enough, we can walk away! I look at the integrated sum of good and bad things the company does, and right now, the good far outweighs the bad, so I stay. NOBODY is using force in your example! This is fine! The company owns the money and should be able to spend it as they see fit. In your example, NO ONE is forced to participate. You are quite correct in pointing out that in a community of people and their interests, unanimous agreement is nearly impossible. My answer is, so what? If 80% of the people think that a community swimming pool should be built, let them build it, pay for it and use it. Just don't try to force me to pay for it. I realize that I then have no right to use it. Fine. In fact, if only 2% think that a swimming pool is a good idea, let them build a small one and keep the rest of us anti-social misfits out of it! Now, substitute some other phrase for "swimming pool", such as "public education system" and repeat the above paragraph. Incidentally, if the people building the "swimming pool" feel that it is in their interest that everyone should have a chance to "swim" free of charge, then I have no objection to them letting in anyone they want. After all, they paid for it. I just want the freedom to act on my own value judgments, not to be forced into accepting those of others. By the way, I personally place a very high value on providing top-quality education to students of high ability. To this end, I have rechanneled all of my charitable contributions to the private school that I attended for four years. My contributions are restricted to providing tuition assistance to those who cannot financially afford the school otherwise. I encourage others to support this institution also, but I don't feel that they are in any way obligated to. If it's worth supporting, and people want it to exist bad enough, they will support it. Mike Gray, AT&T Bell Labs, WH