From: runyan@cup.hp.com (Mark Runyan)
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics
Subject: Re: School vouchers
Date: 7 Oct 92 20:27:35 GMT
Organization: HP, Cupertino, CA, USA
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1.4 PL6]

Phil Ronzone (phil@netcom.com) wrote:
>I state that no one has a claim on my existence. Period. I may trade
>my efforts, intellect, property, etc. for other such things from other
>people, but that no one has any "claim" to my property.

This does lead me to wonder about a few things.  When you `trade [your]
efforts, intellect, property, etc" for things, you are doing so through
some sort of agreement.  During the transaction process, is there ever
a time in which both parties to the transaction have a `claim' on the
items being transferred?  To clarify with an example, if you agree to
work for company in exchange for money, does not the company have a claim
on your time (especially if they pre-pay)?  If you were to work for
a major firm, does not that firm have a `claim' on your intellect (by
this I mean that you are not allowed to work for firm A during the day
and firm B during the evening, especially if firm A and firm B are
competitors)?  In essence, when you enter into a transaction, don't you
end up allowing another to have a `claim' on your property.

Worse yet, if you own a house, is the property really yours while you
are paying off the mortgage? (Few people are able to purchase a house
without the loan; if you are one who can/did then try considering it as
one who can't/hasn't).  The point there being that long term transactions
do occur and you are usually bound to the other `person' in some way.

For instance, if you have children, do they have a claim on your
existance (time, money, etc)?  Or parents?  Or spouse?

>So to be consistent, shouldn't Michael be arguing that I must pay
>for food, shelter, clothing, medical care as these are even MORE
>important that education?

Michael might argue that via education, the others can be easier obtained.
An old Peace Corps concept was "Give a man a fish and he eats for a 
day; teach a man to fish and he eats for life."   Still, one might point
out that should Michael continue to limit himself to America rather than
Somalia, the existance of welfare to provide food, shelter, clothing,
and medical care exists for those in need (at least, that's what the
government claims).

>How large is this community? City? County? State? Nation? World?

Since Michael did not see Somalia entering into the discussion, I think
we can safely eliminate World as part of the community under discussion.
Since people in the US tend to think of the US public schools when 
discussing the `school system', I might venture that many in this
discussion are limiting themselves to `Nation'.  You may have a wider
point of view.  You may not be alone.  The clarification that people
are talking to different points might improve the discussion.

>How can I justify buying say, expensive computers for the local
>school when kids in other counties/state/nations go without
>some basic educational materials such as textbooks or even food
>(can't learn on an empty stomach)?

An interesting question.  Given the above statements regarding that
no one has a claim on your property, could we carry that out to mean
that you have justified the buying of food, clothing, perhaps an
expensive piece of equipment or two for youself `when kids in other
countries/state/nations go without'?  Could a similar line of 
justification be used regarding communities (cities, states, nations)?
Am I right in saying that you have drawn a line?  If so, why don't
others have a similar right to draw an outer boundary line?

>I state that the limit is 0 -- that no one has a claim on your
>existence.

This limit is a good theory, but does it work in practice?

>So, where does YOUR logic lead you?

In a different direction, perhaps.

Mark Runyan