From: runyan@cup.hp.com (Mark Runyan)
Subject: Re: School vouchers
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 04:23:10 GMT
Organization: HP, Cupertino, CA, USA
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1.4 PL6]

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?

>>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 so, then can you imagine the existence of the
>>opinion wherein a person might feel it is right for his
>>society to hold its "property" despite the need of other
>>societies? The `line' is drawn in a different place.
>Society, as you have just used the term, is a nonsensical concept.

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.  

>Who is this society? Me? Do I have 1/n'th ownership of all the
>"property" of Santa Clara County? I don't think so. If I own
>property, I can do something with it. 

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.

>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.

>Doesn't NEED transcend political boundaries?
>After all, NEED (it is argued falsely) transcend the rights of
>individuals.

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.

>>[I'm not sure of your term "fascist" in this statement. Am I
>>correct in interpreting that any government that uses
>>coercive tax laws falls under your definition of "fascist"?
>>And are you using "fascist" as an equivalent to immoral or as
>>an example of an immoral government?]
>Yes. No. 

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.

>>Am I correct in interpreting your apparent opinion that if a
>>group of people require that each member of the group
>>contribute to the success and survival of the group in order
>>to be a member, then that group is acting immorally?
>If the contribution is coerced, yes. 

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

>>I was attempting to request examples of societies, civilizations, and/or
>>governments based on your moral concept.  ...
>Could you explain 1900 America to an Englishman in 1750?

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".

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.

>...[Preamble to the Declaration of Independence]...
>They knew EXACTLY what they were doing.

Yes, they did.  But it seems that you and I interpret what "they were
doing" differently.  Fortunately, that's allowed for.

>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.

Mark Runyan