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