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)