From: yee@mipg.upenn.edu (Conway Yee)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.misc
Subject: Re: Re: SF fans show libertarian inclination
Date: 6 Jan 93 18:27:07 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

In article <19000002@pollux.svale.hp.com>, dlow@pollux.svale.hp.com (Danny Low) writes:
|> >(Jack Choquette) 
|> In either situation the Libertarian is providing no aid to the starving
|> people. 

Not exactly.  The point is the Libertarian is not forced to help others
nor is he forcing others to help.  The decision it help is a personal
CHOICE not the result of coercion (sp).

|> In the second quote the Libertarian is not stopping anyone
|> else from helping the starving people but is still not helping them
|> himself.

No, he may choose to help or he may choose not to.

|> A rather meaningless difference. All Libertarian responses
|> I have ever seen to such a situation has always omitted any mention of
|> what the Libertarian is doing about the situation. It's always
|> don't make me do it. 

Quite true.  The key point is that the FREEDOM to CHOOSE is maintained.

Eventually, I will complete medical school and will be a practicing physician.
If all goes well, it is my intent to volunteer my services offering primary
care one afternoon a week.  I will probably do so in a church in the Chinatown
nearest to my place of residence.  I CHOOSE to do this but will not be 
forced to do it.

The benefits of my services is dependent upon an AGREEMENT between myself and
those who receive them.  I refuse to be coerced to do anything.  If I set
the price for my services way too high, then I will have fewer patients who
agree to pay the price.  I must decide whether I must lower my price or
accept the fact that I will have fewer patients but it remains my choice.

Could the choice of Chinatown to volunteer primary care be considered racist?
Perhaps.

Could my refusal to be forced be considered selfish?  Perhaps.
 
Are my choices wrong?  No.  

|> This implies the Libertarian is doing nothing
|> and relying on others to feed the starving so they will not loot
|> his house looking for food. 

Not necessarily.  The Libertarian may choose to help or may not.  The choice
is his- not imposed upon him by others.

Also, the onus to getting fed belongs to the starving themselves not on
others.  The Declaration of Independence says, "Life, Liberty, and the 
pursuit of Happiness" not happiness itself.

I personally do not see the logic of being forced to benefit others.  If I
work, I should see the benefit of the labor.  To have anything else is
slave labor.

If I were a farmer and sweated for months to grow a bushel of wheat, the
bushel of wheat is mine to do with.  I may eat it, I may sell, I may give it
away or I may burn it.  I may make any choice that suits my fancy.  I will 
not be forced to give it away.  What has the poor starving done to merit
my wheat?  No one is automatically entitled to it; they must earn it.

|> This makes the Libertarian a parasite
|> relying on the good work of others to keep the peace.

No.  This makes the Libertarian a free man able to choose who he works for.

|> 			   Danny Low
|>     "Question Authority and the Authorities will question You"
|> 	   Valley of Hearts Deligh
-- 
411 Blockley Hall      |                    Conway Yee, N2JWQ
418 Service Drive      | yee@ming.mipg.upenn.edu    (preferred)
Philadelphia, PA 19104 | cy5@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (forwarded to above)
(215) 662-6780         |
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies