From: runyan@cup.hp.com (Mark Runyan)
Subject: Re: School vouchers
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 19:28:06 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:
:|}>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?
:I'm not sure what you are asking. Rephrase the question please.

In reesponse to my question, you seemed to imply that a child trades off
future potential for current support, using their "property" (mind and
body) as collateral [I've obviously misinterpreted something there].  My
question was essentially, when was this `agreement' (for the trade of
future potential for income now) made?  Further on, I felt you were
saying that the child is supported by the parent(s) out of desire by
the parent, not out of any claim the child has on the parent.

:>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.
:
:Oh? I own property, but I can not sell it, ot tell others to stay
:off of it. Strange idea of ownership there.

But if your homeowners group were to agree to purchase a lot of land
to be used as a playground by members of the group, you would have
partial ownership in the playground, but wouldn't own any individual
part.  Again, if rules were agreed on (when you bought into the park),
you could not change the rules for any part of the park on your own.
Why is this concept of ownership strange, then?

:>>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.
:Nope. We aren't ants. 

I never claimed we were ants.  When a group of people come to a decision,
the decision is usually associated with the group, not each individual
person.

:>But the use of force to enforce an agreement is acceptable?
:Suppose we are standing on the street and you sell me your car for
:$5,000. I give you the $5,000. You then start to drive off in what is now
:MY car. Yes, I can stop you from stealing what is now my car.

A good solid example.  Thank you.  

Mark Runyan