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.