Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site mmintl.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!linus!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!robg From: robg@mmintl.UUCP (Robert Goldman) Newsgroups: net.politics.theory Subject: Re: Explorations of "social-interest": Back to Basics Message-ID: <458@mmintl.UUCP> Date: Mon, 24-Jun-85 11:29:21 EDT Article-I.D.: mmintl.458 Posted: Mon Jun 24 11:29:21 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 29-Jun-85 02:36:12 EDT References: <657@whuxl.UUCP>, <2380043@acf4.UUCP> Organization: Multimate International, E. Hartford, CT Lines: 24 Mike Sykora writes:(in response to tim sevener) >>By continuing endless debate about *self* interest, nonLibertarians >>are failing to address the fundamental questions of politics of >>*social* interests. >How do you suppose that a group can have interests which are not derived >from the interests of individuals within the group? Even if we assume that a group only has interests derived from the interests of individuals within the group, that does not mean that the interests of the group are necessarily THE SAME AS the interests of the individuals which make it up, nor can we assume that the interests of the group are some SIMPLE function of the interests of its components. It is quite possible that the interests of a group are some non-obvious, non-intuitive function of the interests of its members. Furthermore, Mr. Sevener's auto example makes it clear that by becoming a member of a group, my interests are changed. Even this is a big concession to the libertarians, for it is clear that human beings as individuals, rather than as members of society, only exist in works of fiction like _Robinson_Crusoe_ and _Anthem_. Robert Goldman these opinions are mine, and mine alone (yawn)