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