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:Democracy and Libertarianism
Message-ID: <633@whuxlm.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 3-Jan-85 17:40:45 EST
Article-I.D.: whuxlm.633
Posted: Thu Jan  3 17:40:45 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 4-Jan-85 04:47:50 EST
References: <395@ptsfa.UUCP> <12@ucbcad.UUCP> <2585@sdcc3.UUCP> <32@ucbcad.UUCP> <408@whuxl.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Whippany
Lines: 87
Xref: watmath net.politics:6565 net.philosophy:1335

> = Tim Sevener

>  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?  Most union representation votes
> are approved by over 80% of the membership.
>  
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 use of words above is a little confusing. One sentence says, "What if
the people in a plant ALL decide. . ." and the following sentence says
"approved by over 80% . . ."  Well, 80% is not equal to all.  They are
two different cases.  As a practical matter, if 80% of a workforce voted
for union representation, then why can't that 80% just join the union without
coercing the other 20% into joining?  I'm sure that management would
listen very seriously to the wishes of such a majority.

People in groups should have identical rights to people not in groups.
If you see a value in contributing to the education of children, go ahead
and do so.  I don't think anyone will want to stop you. I personally
woud applaud you, since I think an educated populace is extremely
valuable.  It's not worth initiating the use of force, though.  I donate
to my college, and I solicit others to do so as well, but I only want
voluntary contributions.

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

The above paragraph is a blatant distortion of any libertarian position
I have ever read.  Somehow, the author seems to be trying to relate the
second and third sentences to the first, with the "Yet the fact is. ."
statement.  The implication seems to be that being a libertarian means
that one believes that no group action is possible, and that building
a skyscraper or a car should be done by one person or not at all.
Every libertarian writer I have read is strongly in favor of VOLUNTARY
cooperation among groups of individuals.  The above paragraph is *really*
misleading.  I have some problems with pieces of libertarianism, but
the accusations and implications above are totally unsupportable.
The only grain of truth I can detect is the assertion about "group rights."
Groups shouldn't have any rights that individuals don't have.  They
may have power or influence (as in the Alabama bus boycotts), but
those are not rights.  Groups can easily have responsibilities.
If a corporation(one type of group) commits a tort, then the
corporation is responsible.  If it commits fraud, it is responsible.
etc. etc. etc.

> This means that some people HAVE
> to compromise and sacrifice some of their freedom to accomplish such
> goals.

What is the meaning of the "HAVE" here?  Does it mean some people have
to be forced to pay for it?  Or does it mean that if you want something
that costs money, you have to pay the money?  There is no sacrifice
necessary if the money is given voluntarily.  If I have kids, I'll
want them educated.  I'll be prepared to pay the cost of their education,
although I might accept charity to help.  What I will not accept
is money obtained by coercing others.  This means any children I have
will be privately educated.

> I happen to think that education of a new generation is important
> and worth paying taxes for, even if currently I have no children of my own.

I agree if the word "taxes" is deleted.

> A vast majority of people agree and vote for bond issues for public
> education on a regular basis.  I think they have the right to agree
> collectively and democratically to do so.

Sure they have the right to do so, as long as the bonds are not
repaid by tax money.  I support their right to set up
whatever schools they want.  What I object to is their coercing others
to participate.  Why does their interest in free education give them
a "right" to force others to share that interest?

>  
> tim sevener     whuxl!orb

Mike Gray, BTL, WH	 whuxlm!mag