From: XA.U20@forsythe.stanford.edu (June Genis)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: But it is OK to coerce certain groups...
Date: 27 Jan 1993 23:14:15 -0800
Organization: Stanford University
Distribution: ba
NNTP-Posting-Host: morrow.stanford.edu

In article <1k6ftsINN1mv@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>,
stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU (coram populo) writes:
>In article <1k4ueaINNooa@morrow.stanford.edu> XA.U20@forsythe.stanford.edu (June Genis) writes:
>>In article <1k3ubqINN1ri@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>,
>>stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU (coram populo) writes:
>>>There is no moral basis for anything if you wish, to play moral relativity.
>>>My position is such that, an individual and a group weigh what is best
>>>for all concerned.  What is best can be very fundamental- best wages to
>>>live on, health coverage, treating all customers with respect, etc.
>>
>>But what allows you to compell me to be a member of your "group".
>
>Number one, you live and function ( I assume ) within the social and
>political structure of the US.  That for one, makes it someone compelling
>to become and belong to the social/political contracts that we based the
>operation of our society on.  You of course, are quite free to make change
>via democratic processes.

Say you live in a section of South Central L.A. where the majority
of the population belongs to the Crips.  They (Crips members - you
are free to become one) have democratically decided that all people
living in their territory should pay them protection money so they
can keep out the Bloods.  You belong to neither the Crips or the
Bloods.  You don't care if they want to kill each other off.  You
want both of them to leave you alone.  If you do not have to submit
to the extortion of the Crips just because you happen to live in
South Central, why should you have to submit to the extortion of a
group that calls itself the LA City Council or the U.S. Federal
Government just because you happen to live in LA or anywhere in the
U.S.?

>>If I voluntarily join an association which requires that I abide by
>>the majority rule of the membership and that groups passes some rule
>>to which I object I can at any time relinquish my membership and
>>stop receiving member benefits.  If that organization happens to be
>
>That is quite true.  But in the larger sense of the organisation, ie.
>government etc. you are bound somewhat more tightly.  And within this
>organisation, there are processes in place that protect minorities from
>the tyranny of majorities.

Ah, but that has nothing to do with democracy.  It has to do with
the idea that a government, or any organization, should not be able
to do anything which violates people's basic rights.  If one
believes that the right to be left alone as long as you are peaceful
is the most basic of human rights it places some very severe
restraints on what any government can do.

>>But you can not scratch my back and then demand that I scratch yours
>>unless I agreed to do so before you started scratching.  If you as
>>an individual have no right to compel me to scratch your back
>>without my consent you can not cede this non-existent right to a
>>government which you elect to represent you.
>
>I am at somewhat of a loss to what it is your are trying to convey. In
>no way do I propose that you must do something without getting benefit
>or giving up some purported right.  But you have to agree that we always
>compromise in some form.  We agree to give up certain things for the
>good of whole.

But what if I haven't agreed to give anything up?  I maintain that
the fact that I do not choose to move out of the territory
controlled by any group, be it a gang or a government, does not
imply that I have agreed to any such compromise.  In particular, it
does not meran that I have abdigated any rights with regard to who I
choose to be either my friends or my employees.

/June
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics,talk.politics.misc