From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: School vouchers
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 18:48:44 GMT

In article <Bvw1IM.JI6@cup.hp.com> runyan@cup.hp.com (Mark Runyan) writes:
    >Phil Ronzone (phil@netcom.com) wrote:
    >>>runyan@cup.hp.com (Mark Runyan) writes:
    >>>>Phil Ronzone (phil@netcom.com) wrote:
    >>>If you come into the world with no property, what are you
    >>>trading for that which you have now?
    >>You do come into this world with property ... Your own mind
    >>and body. Trading off a future potential for income now is a
    >>very common procedure ...
    >>
    >OK. And the newborn implicitly agrees to this trade off? Or
    >do I misunderstand your meaning?

I'm not sure what you are asking. Rephrase the question please.


    >>>A child has no claim on your existence, property, money, etc?
    >>>... Since a child has no right to claim property, does this
    >>>imply that all the property a child gathers is given to
    >>>him/her until some point when the child may begin to earn
    >>>property?
    >>Eactly right. ... No child, no matter HOW young, has a claim
    >>on the parents.
    >>
    >Consistent. Let's see if I understand. Given this stance, it
    >follows that you consider laws that enforce child support to
    >be immoral?

If the child support was not contractually consented to as part of
the child producing arrangement (marriage, pre-nuptial agreement,
surrogate agreement, whatever), then yes, it is immoral.

    >My apologies. Perhaps I did not make myself clear. I was
    >asking if you can imagine that a man might hold the opinion
    >that the society (or group of people) that he lives within
    >has the right to protect the property held by individuals
    >within the society, and that, like you, they may believe
    >their group should not be forced to support other groups.

I don't think we use some of the terms in the same way, but, yes,
an individual can certainly mutually and voluntarily, as an adult,
get together and form a group.

I myself do this. It's called a homeowners association.

    >If you own the property out-right, then you can do something
    >with it, as long as you don't interfere with the rights of
    >others. However, if you have partial ownership of something,
    >you may be limited in what you are allowed to do. Perhaps the
    >agreement you entered into limits you. Perhaps threats limit
    >you. Perhaps "traditions" limit you. Yes, you own 1/n'th of
    >Santa Clara County (the county you live in, I assume). Even
    >by your definition of ownership (you get to do something with
    >the property) you own 1/n'th, in that you (and n other) vote
    >as to what happens with the given property. You may not do
    >whatever you want with 1/nth of your "property", but you
    >could be said to own it.

Oh? I own property, but I can not sell it, ot tell others to stay
off of it. Strange idea of ownership there.


    >>Society is NOT a volitional ... entity and can NOT decide
    >>anything.
    >>
    >I believe we either disagree on a point here or don't
    >understand each other. Of course a society can decide what to
    >do. The process may be dictatorial (one person deciding),
    >republican (groups electing individuals to represent them to
    >make the decisions), democratic (everyone helping to make the
    >decision), or other styles. But the society can be thought of
    >as acting as an entity and coming to a decision.

Nope. We aren't ants. 17,000,000 people may get together and decide
to steal property from 12,000,000 other people, but, it's a case
of 17M to 12M.

Did German society decide to kill millions of Jews? Or did some
much smaller, finite, and determinable number of German individuals
decide to do it?


    >Are you claiming that NEED may not transcend the rights of
    >individuals? If so, can't a person claiming need may not
    >transcend political boundaries (or societal boundaries) use
    >similar arguments to the ones you are, but applied to the
    >group rather than the individual? You can still claim the
    >argument is wrong in that societies are not beings, but the
    >point is still consistency is maintained.

Yes, need is NEVER EVER a morally legitimate claim. Ever.
We are individuals. Not groups, not labels, not anonymous masses.



    >Sorry, Phil, I got a bit confused here. Your yes applies to
    >my first question(?), but my second question wasn't meant to
    >be a yes/no question. My apologies for phrasing it in a
    >confusing manner. Let me try just the first part: `are you
    >using "fascist" as an equivalent to immoral'? The response of
    >`yes' implies that you are saying that any government that
    >uses coercive tax laws is fascist. If I understand your
    >position from other postings, taking anything from you is
    >immoral (and I'll infer you also mean `fascist'). The reason
    >for my question is that the term `fascism' carries several
    >connotations and I would not wish to be lead astray by
    >misunderstanding your declarations.

Fascism is that political system which steals from people while
claiming to support property rights.

Socialism [is] stealing while claiming property rights for the
(non-existent) collective.

Communism steals and denies property rights.

Other than that, they are all the same. It's kind of a differnce
in that the thief wears different colored ski masks.



    >But the use of force to enforce an agreement is acceptable?

Suppose we are standing on the street and you sell me your car for
$5,000. I give you the $5,000. You then start to drive off in what is now
MY car. Yes, I can stop you from stealing what is now my car.



    >Republics were not unheard of in 1750. The Magna Carta was
    >granted in 1215, so the concept of civil liberties wouldn't
    >be too foreign. I'll have to review my history a little more
    >before I could offer a better answer to your question (e.g.
    >bicarmeral houses, term limits, etc). Of course, I wouldn't
    >be able to point to 1900 America and claim that such was a
    >perfect example, for such wouldn't have happened yet in 1750.
    >But, if I had proclaimed the government style of 1900 America
    >as being the ideal, I would have been termed a "utopian".

No. Until the American Revolution, no government was ever
conceived in which the principle of the State existing ONLY to
serve the needs of the individual in the pursuit of happiness.

The idea was utterly foreign.


    >But your question implies that a society based on your moral
    >principal (if I may refer to your belief as such) has yet to
    >have been tried. Then you haven't a theory, but a hypothesis
    >that needs experimental verification, right? I fear I must
    >burden you with the knowledge that I do not know of any
    >experiments supporting your hypothesis. Perhaps you posted
    >these references in the past when I was not able to read the
    >network as often. Maybe reposting them would benefit others
    >besides myself, if you feel that providing such information
    >would be worthwhile.

We have a very imperfect and massively flawed such system today.
The United States of America.

And a lot of little experiments as subsets.

For example, Singapore and Hong Kong could not be more
different in most ways. But, in common, they both had what is called
rampant Property Capitalism -- and economic growth that the USA has
not seen for 150 years.


    >>Do YOU think that there is a large amount of "consent of the
    >>governed" in America today?
    >>
    >No. On the other hand, the governed are not trying too hard
    >to exercise that consent these days.

Why aren't they trying to hard? Given a choice between Stalin and
the Godfather, would YOU try very hard.

And the system is corrupt.

In California, on election day, if every single person who voted
wrote in my name to be Governor, I still could not be legally elected
Governor.

Do you see something wrong with this?





-- 
phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)

If all the contributions of Dead White Males, a.k.a. Dead White Loathsome
Oppressors, were to vanish, you'd have the Politically Correct(tm) Loathsome
Oppressors using dull rocks to hunt and the Politically Correct Women of
Vision and Strength(tm) using leaves for tampons.

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em!  (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)