From: runyan@cup.hp.com (Mark Runyan)
Subject: Re: NOT Re: School vouchers
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 21:39:49 GMT
Organization: HP, Cupertino, CA, USA
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1.4 PL6]

The Chipmunk (asylvain@felix.filenet.com) wrote:
>Written in article <BvxB8A.Lqs@cup.hp.com>
>:by runyan@cup.hp.com (Mark Runyan):
>:> From: Alvin <asylvain@felix.filenet.com>
>:>> by runyan@cup.hp.com (Mark Runyan):
>:>:|Phil Ronzone (phil@netcom.com) wrote:
>:>:| I state that no one has a claim on my existence. ...
>:>: 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.
>:> At this point you can stop.  You just said the operative word, "agreement."
>: Hmmm.  Stopping at agreement seems a bit premature.
>Why?

Because I'm not sure I understand his position.  You may see this as a
stopping point, but there were a few other points I wanted to cover.

>:> Have you agreed to support schools?
>:> Have you agreed to feed the kids in Somalia (wherever the hell THAT is)?
>: How many types of agreement are there?
>Only one.  Some set of individuals agree to something.

I'll try to avoid the cheap shot here and assume you mean that what they
agree on applies to themselves. :-)

>: If I understand the above
>: sentence about "operative word", and these questions, I'm infer you
>: believe that all agreements must be explicit (oral, written, or
>: recorded).  Is this correct?
>The way an agreement is set forth doesn't matter...

OK, I guess I can see that.

>The problems inherent with implicit agreements is that too
>often it is NOT agreement.  
>...
>"Implicit agreement" is an oxymoron, like "military intelligence," or
>better, "civil service."  Implicit agreements do not exist.

But if it is an agreement (unspoken, unrecorded, whatever), does that
mean that there is an implicit agreement?  You indicate that there
are no agreements except those discussed by all individuals concerned.
Or am I misunderstanding?

>Ie, you are about to argue about our mutually implicit agreement to pay
>taxes in exchange for receiving certain govt "services."  

Well, I wasn't going to argue that, but let's say, for the moment, that
I take off in that direction.  Actually, it looks like I'll go into it
later, so perhaps I was about to argue that... :-)

>What about the cases where the govt chooses to change the terms of that
>"implicit agreement" without asking your permission?

That would be bad.  But, if there were an explicit agreement that we
allow the government to change the rules... (Sorry, the connotations
are wrong here, so let me generalize it a bit):  If a set of people
agree to form a group with certain rules and they agree that three
people may change the rules (within certain limits - eg., no rule
may ever force a person to remain a member of the group), is that
group still acting immorally?

>: If so, then (to answer your questions) I don't remember any explicit
>: agreement to support schools, kids in Somalia, or my child, for that
>: matter.
>If not EXplicit, then literally ANYthing may be construed as "agreement."
> ...[context mangled slightly]...
>..., you probably ARE paying to feed that kid, regardless of whether
>the kid's actually being fed.  

Yes, I am paying to feed my child.  ...

OK, so I mangled the context a bit, but since there is no explicit
agreement in either case, the two points are nearly equivalent.  I
may be beginning to understand your point.

>The point is agreement.  Voluntary agreement.  If I wish to extend my
>"community" to only my Home-Owner's Association, and we sign a contract,
>why not?

And, if the contract (agreement) does not have a way for one to opt out,
then the group may use force to enforce the agreement?  (this would not
happen in most cases, I suppose, so this is merely hypothetical).

>: This seems much too small to accomplish all the goals you
>: have for yourself.  Perhaps it isn't, though.  I do know that my family
>: (both immediate and extended) is not sufficient to my life style.
>That must be one wallapallooza lifestyle!!  What do you do, fly in Air
>Force One to get to work?  I can well understand requiring taxes to
>cover that!

It appears there is a radical misunderstanding here.  My lifestyle is
such that I drive cars on roads to my work place, use services such
as water, sewage, electricity, and television.  Shop in grocery,
department, and discount stores.  I know my family can't provide
these services.  I thought yours couldn't either.

>: Therefore I have some doubt you would be capable of providing those
>: services that a city provides you to live comfortably.
>I suppose you also believe that the city should feed my family.  

I know it is possible to feed your family without grocery stores.  But
the existence of the city and the fact that people work to provide
these service probably makes it easier.

>: It is possible,
>: of course, but it isn't very common.  So, you may not have `agreed' to
>: such things as schools, police force, garbage, water, roads,
>: restaurants, fire protection, and other such major and minor services
>: that a city provides.

But, you use them.  Nothing says you must remain in the city.  There
are numerous places you could go where you wouldn't have to pay that
city.  But if you stay, are you agreeing to use the services or are
they being forced upon you?

>: But, if you make use of them (assuming you don't
>: live in an isolated location, which I can not tell about you since I do
>: not know you), then there must be some sort of `agreement' there.  What
>: is that kind of `agreement' called?
>It's called Force.  Pay your taxes or go to jail.  Nevermind whether you
>need, want, or even receive these services.

Force?  You may leave the hypothetical city, can't you?  

>Nevermind if you bike to work, thus using no freeways.  

But you use the freeway by going to stores that bring in food and
equipment via roads.  To claim that biking to work means you use no
freeways seems to be a case of tunnelvision.  Or do you really mean
that it is possible to live and work within a city without ever
directly or indirectly using the freeways?

>It gets back to the basic question: what "right" does "society" have to
>force itself on any individual?

To force itself on an individual?  Probably none.  But, I'm use
to `right' only having meaning in the context of agreements.

>: I'd like
>: to compare them to this one (which by implication is *not* one of
>: these societies).
>If you truly want some historical examples of such societies, and have
>the time to read about them, let me know and I'll put you in touch some
>who know better than I.

Actually, I would.  I've read simple things about how such societies
might be, but most were written by people that have not thought out the
solutions to the problems that arise (they were using the descriptions
as strawmen, anyway).  I know there are better writeups, I just don't
know where.

Mark Runyan
Newsgroups: ca.politics