From: runyan@cup.hp.com (Mark Runyan)
Newsgroups: ca.politics,ba.politics
Subject: Re: NOT (Re: School vouchers)
Date: 14 Oct 92 20:15:23 GMT
Organization: HP, Cupertino, CA, USA
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1.4 PL6]

The Chipmunk (asylvain@felix.filenet.com) wrote:
>:by runyan@cup.hp.com (Mark Runyan):
>If you believe it is morally acceptable for an individual or a society
>(merely a collection of individuals) to demand property or services from
>another individual or society, what would you call it?

I'll assume (because of other postings) you mean if the demand is done
without agreement of the societies or individuals.  In that case, it
would be theft, I agree.

>: 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?
>Oh, no, we aren't going to paint more irrelevant life-boat scenarios?

I'm not striving for a life-boat scenario.  Excuse me for using the
word "survival".  Perhaps, "continuance" would have better fit.  It seems
that you are jumping ahead along a track of discussion that I've not
yet traveled.

>OK, let us assume, for the moment, that societal survival DEPENDS on 
>COERCED contribution to society.
>Prove it.  Ie, prove that society can NOT function without coercion.

<cheap shot warning>But if a assume it, I need not prove it. :-)

We could pick and choose societies that both do and don't depend on
coerced contribution.  But I'm not sure where you are headed.  So, I'll
admit for the moment that I can not prove that societal survival (for
all societies) depends on coerced contribution to that society (by 
its members).  However, this does tend to happen more often than not,
which is interesting.

>:Phil:
>:> Most people really are uncomfortable with freedom -- because freedom
>:> always requires that you are responsibly for your actions. ...
>: 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.
>Societies form because Man is a social animal.  

We may have a point of disagreement here, but it may be that I
misunderstand you.  I have trouble believing that
societies form because Man is a social animal.  It seems to me that 
groups of people form because the survival probability of members of
the society usually increases.  I also tend to believe that the life
of a member of the society/group is improved in most instances (though
there are numerous counter-examples).

>This does not imply a right for individual A to force association or 
>property exchange or work exchange from individual B, without mutual 
>consent.

A well constructed sentence.  For our discussion, let me grant this one
and see where we go (you seem to have a destination in mind for this
discussion, and I'm curious).  But that leads us back to "agreement"
and what is meant by that term.  Let me extend this a little in case
I'm confused.  Given a group ({G}), which individuals A and B are 
members of, if {G} forces A and B to remain members of the group,
then (in your opinion?) {G} is acting immorally.  Now I'm curious
about your opinion on some points.

  Given that there are several members of {G} (g_x where 2<x<Y, where Y
is a large number), and given that A and B may leave group {G} at any
time, if all of {G} except B agrees that B should take some action and
will force B to take the action as long as B remains a member of group
{G}, are all the members of group {G} acting immorally?

Also, the term "right" used above indicates that I may not be following
what you are saying.  To say one has a "right" carries a number of
connotations and I may have misunderstood you.  Are you saying that
if individual A forces association or property exchange from individual
B without mutual consent that individual A is acting immorally?  I can't
say illegally (as the government may allow it), nor am I sure what is
meant by "rights" outside of the context of an agreement.

Mark Runyan
Xref: sparky ca.politics:8742 talk.politics.misc:52622