From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics
Subject: Re: School vouchers
Date: 8 Oct 92 16:14:01 GMT
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.

In article <Bvrq60.JxM@cup.hp.com> runyan@cup.hp.com (Mark Runyan) writes:
    >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.

Would it make you feel better if I were to state "unilateral" claim?
The typical context of a claim is unilateral (I claim this blah blah
for ...).

However, note that I said "claim on my existence". No ONE can claim
anything from me by virtue of my existence. I.e., you exist, therefore
fork over the grain harvest, Kulak ...

I can trade any or all aspects of my property to other people, and if you
wish to use the word "claim" in the process of this *moral* property
transfer, that is an acceptable use of the word -- for that context.

    >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.

So? What's the point? If you bought the house voluntarily, then you've agreed
to whatever the mortgage terms are.

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

No, no, and no.

    >>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).

Certainly education helps. But Michael was arguing that NEED justifies
the coercive taking of property (taxes). I say that is morally wrong.
Other than "just because he said so", if you are going to argue for
your actions (coercion & taxes) on the basis of need, do not the
Somalians need food a lot more than many of our kids need education?

    >>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.

Wishy-washy. I wasn't schools per se, I was attacking the fascist
concept that the need of the "peeple", as of course determined by
the fascists running the State, who are more equal than others
anyway, justifies coercion.

It doesn't.


    >>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?

All we have are theories. Gravity is a theory. Theories are (simplified)
those ideas and concepts which work and have yet to be disproved. It
is a good theory. Violate it (in attempt), and you end of with a
fascist nightmare, such as that under which 90% of the world lives.

    >>So, where does YOUR logic lead you?
    >>
    >In a different direction, perhaps.

Exactly. And why do you stop? Are you afraid to see where your logic
leads you? I think so.

Mine leads to freedom.

It does cost unfold opportunities for the hordes of little power
seekers to get their jollies, but, I'll pay that cost! :-)

Most people really are uncomfortable with freedom -- because freedom
always requires that you are responsibly for your actions. And that is
very scary to most people.




-- 
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 ...)
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics