Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83 v7 ucbtopaz-1.8; site ucbtopaz.CC.Berkeley.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!bellcore!decvax!ucbvax!ucbtopaz!mwm
From: mwm@ucbtopaz.CC.Berkeley.ARPA
Newsgroups: net.politics,net.philosophy
Subject: Re:Democracy and Libertarianism
Message-ID: <614@ucbtopaz.CC.Berkeley.ARPA>
Date: Fri, 4-Jan-85 12:29:47 EST
Article-I.D.: ucbtopaz.614
Posted: Fri Jan  4 12:29:47 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 5-Jan-85 23:57:27 EST
References: <395@ptsfa.UUCP> <12@ucbcad.UUCP> <2585@sdcc3.UUCP> <32@ucbcad.UUCP>, <408@whuxl.UUCP>
Organization: Univ. of Calif., Berkeley CA USA
Lines: 38
Xref: watmath net.politics:6598 net.philosophy:1338

> From orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) Wed Dec 31 16:00:00 196
> What if the people in a community jointly decide that they would rather
> all contribute towards the education of the children in their community?
> Don't they have the right to do this? Or don't people in groups have
> any rights at all?  What if the people working in a plant all decide that
> they would be benefitted by contributing money every month to a union to
> defend their group interests?

Fine. All of these groups are free to do as they please, until they start
stepping on other groups of people.

> Most union representation votes are approved by over 80% of the membership.

Great. What about the other 20%? Do they have to join the Union if they want
to keep their job? What if they would rather be in a different union?

> Libertarianism really accepts no concept of community or even group rights
> or responsibilities.

Bull. Communities and groups can decide to take on responsibilities if they
so wish. What they *cannot* do is coerce others into taking on those
responsibilities.

> Yet the fact is that people often accomplish more
> by working as a group than as a bunch of isolated individuals. In fact,
> many tasks MUST be accomplished by a group with its division of labor
> and the pooling of group resources.  This means that some people HAVE
> to compromise and sacrifice some of their freedom to accomplish such
> goals.

All very true, but it's also true of individuals. The important question
is whether or not the group can *force* others sacrifice some of their
freedom for the goals - especially when the person in question disagrees
with the goals.