Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ariel.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!ihnp4!houxm!vax135!ariel!norm From: norm@ariel.UUCP (N.ANDREWS) Newsgroups: net.politics,net.philosophy Subject: Re:FORCE, Democracy and Libertarianism Message-ID: <811@ariel.UUCP> Date: Thu, 3-Jan-85 18:19:16 EST Article-I.D.: ariel.811 Posted: Thu Jan 3 18:19:16 1985 Date-Received: Fri, 4-Jan-85 05:08:57 EST References: <408@whuxl.UUCP> Organization: AT&T-ISL, Holmdel, NJ Lines: 78 Xref: watmath net.politics:6570 net.philosophy:1336 >> In the following article, Tim Sevener's lines are preceded with a single ">". >> >> > >> > Should these people be forced to be educated? Should I be forced to >> > provide their education (thru taxes, etc.)? The idea that the >> > initial use of force should be utilized to solve problems is exactly >> > what libertarians are arguing against. Force should only be used to >> > respond to attempts to infringe on an individuals rights to life, >> > liberty, and property. >> > 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. > >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. This means that some people HAVE >to compromise and sacrifice some of their freedom to accomplish such >goals. 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. >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. > >tim sevener whuxl!orb > Tim Sevener totally ignores the point of the original questions, which was that some people don't want to be forced to do things, such as send their children to a statist school or pay for the education of others' children. This is a common ploy in which a debater draws attention to some facts or questions that he's unhappy with, makes remarks about something else entirely, and then acts as if he's resolved some issues. In answer to Seveners remarks, if *all* of the people in a community want to contribute toward the education of their children, libertarians have no quarrel with that. Such contributions are voluntarily made by each member of the community, AND ARE NOT TAXES! Taxation is the theft of resources from those members of a community who do not voluntarily contribute to pay for some value. This is one of the important distinctions that Sevener chooses to ignore. OF COURSE people in groups have rights, and it is only in the context of groups that the protection of individual rights becomes an issue. If people working in a plant want to contribute to a union, that's their right, so long as such activity doesn't violate some contractual arrangements they may have already made with their employer, and so long as they don't try to force others to contributre to the union who have no wish to support it. The fact is that there are no group rights or responsibilities. There are only individual rights and responsibilities. Yes, people often accomplish more by working as a group than by acting in isolation. This does not imply that anyone should ever "compromise and sacrifice" their freedom in order to reap the benefits of working in a group. When the value of working in a group exceeds the cost of devoting his time or resources to group action, an individual might reasonably choose to make an INVESTMENT of his own time or resources in the group activity. If it is his free choice to do so, based on the higher value to him of group activity versus individual action, then it is not a sacrifice, but an investment. Such choices have to be made, even in Robinson Crusoe contexts, in which an isolated individual has to decide how to invest his resources. Sacrifice is to be avoided like the plague, since sacrifice, as opposed to investment, entails the giving up of a value for a lower or a non-value. (Thank you, Miss Rand..) If a "vast number of people" wish to back a bond issue or contribute their own or borrowed money for some worthy project, that vast number of people wouldn't be hindered from doing so by libertarians. Many libertarians might join them in their group activity, so long as dissenters weren't also FORCED to partici- pate. FORCE is the issue that is the point of the questions Sevener pretended to address in his article... -Norm Andrews, speaking for himself. vax135!ariel!norm