From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: School vouchers
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 16:12:25 GMT

In article <BvtLDL.73L@cup.hp.com> runyan@cup.hp.com (Mark Runyan) writes:
    >Phil Ronzone (phil@netcom.com) wrote:
    >Question regarding this for the moment. It is probably well
    >off the subject, so we need not dwell on it: 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 -- the most valuable property.
Your own mind and body. Trading off a future potential for income now is
a very common procedure -- look at any rookie athlete on a professional
sports team.

    >A child has no claim on your existance, property, money, etc?
    >If you and a spouse had a child, you feel the child has no
    >right to claim support from you (this does *not* mean that
    >you wouldn't provide it, BTW)? Just a philosophical point is
    >all. A child you bore has no claim to right to support from
    >you?
    >
    >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. How do you think I justify my pro-choice stand on
abortion? No child, no matter HOW young, has a claim on the parents.

Look at the flip side -- if a "child" at age 1 second (two cells) has
a "claim" on the mother as some pro-lifers claim, then why does not
a "child" of 50 years hold a claim on his/her parents?

    >I'll step out of trying to interpret what Michael believes
    >and try to answer your points from my own point of view. Am I
    >correct in understanding that you believe that it is morally
    >acceptable for you to hold your own property despite need of
    >others? 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.
Like Santa Claus.

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 I could figure out
a way to do something with 1/n'th of the buses of the county,
do you think they'd let me.

So if I, and all the other people in the county don't own the property,
who does? If I can't decide what to do with my share (and note that
in private companies when I have a 1/n'th share I CAN do something
with it -- sell it, trade it, destroy it), then who can?

Society is NOT a volitional and entity and can NOT decide anything.

    >I don't understand the reference point that "wishy-washy"
    >applies to. I'll assume you mean my statement that people in
    >the US tend to limit the discussion to the US.

What does this limit have to do with anything? To adopt the argument
line I'm against, we're talking NEED here man, not some arbitrary
lines on the map! Doesn't NEED transcend political boundaries?
After all, NEED (it is argued falsely) transcend the rights of
individuals.

    >[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. Fascist is NOT about jackboots and funny salutes. Its the
process where the State destroys property and property rights
while striving to maintain the facade of property rights. Never let
the slaughterhouse animals KNOW what's really about to happen.

Communism differs only in that it is forthright about destroying
property and property rights, where socialism pretends that only
the collective can own property.

Communism == socialism == fascism for the most part.

Fascism is in some ways the most viscious as it is the most dishonest.



    >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. I belong to a homeowners
association, which does require me to do things, like pay homewoners
dues, which I'd rather not, BUT, I did agree to them and they are required
for me to have a habitable home.


    >Well, I've always considered theories to be ideas and
    >concepts which explain why things work and have yet to be
    >disproved. My apologies for using a slang phrase (`...good
    >theory, but...'). I was attempting to request examples of
    >societies, civilizations, and/or governments based on your
    >moral concept. One of my shortcomings is that I understand
    >things better if I see examples.

Could you explain 1900 America to an Englishman in 1750?

    >It also implies that you be able to maintain your freedom
    >despite the efforts of others. Perhaps that is why societies
    >form in the first place.

I AM in favor of a government. I am against the State.


   We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created
   equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
   rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
   That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men,
   deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That
   whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is
   the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new
   government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its
   powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their
   safety and happiness.

They knew EXACTLY what they were doing.

Do YOU think that there is a large amount of "consent of the governed" in
America today?




-- 
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