From: ald@clipper.ingr.com (Al Date)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,ba.politics,alt.individualism
Subject: Re: Freedom of Association,  and Voting???
Date: 2 Oct 92 01:10:20 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Intergraph Advanced Processor Division - Palo Alto, CA

In article <g79n7xp.phil@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:

[regarding freedom of association]
>
>Specifically, it means that 10 homosexuals can get together in a bathhouse
>and have all the fun they want, that a black landlord can refuse to rent
>to a Jewish tenant, that you can "marry" anyone you want (in any amount),
>that you have the right to commit suicide, and that all coercive taxation
>is immoral, as well as what is known as "voting". And so on.


While I support the right to freedom of association, I dont see that it
is a basis for being morally opposed to taxation, coercion and voting,
of all things.

What is the connection between how we decide who to live with and/or go into
business with, and taxation?  It would seem that the most relevant moral
argument against taxation is that it constitutes govt theft; that it
deprives people of the right to the fruits of their labors.  
[Personally, I think the taxes paid to support a truly minimal govt can be 
morally justified, but that is another matter.]

Coercion comes in too many forms to be argued as a simple matter of freedom of
association.  My boss coerces me, I coerce my kids, my wife coerces me,
we all coerce each other to some degree, on the freeway, in social settings.  
But perhaps we have a semantic problem here.  
The definition of "coerce" which seems most universal is:
"to compel to an act or choice."   Coercion is not necessarily the use
of force, in other words, so it cannot automatically be classified as immoral,
and again, the connection to the FOA seems remote.

Which brings us to the final straw: voting.  
There are at least two distinct kinds of voting:
  
   1. to elect representatives /other officials
   2. to enact law by proposition.

Now, is it immoral to vote to enact a limitation on govt?  (assuming 
that limited govt is "better" than unlimited govt)  How about if
we vote to enact legislation which would better secure the right to
Freedom of Association?  It seems inescapable that by Ronzone's own
ethical premises that voting for such things would be moral acts.  

Well, what if we voted for a representative who was committed to such
actions?  Hi, June!

The only way (it seems to me) that Ronzone can make a blanket statement
about the immorality of voting is if *all* representatives and propositions
are unanimously dedicated to immoral purposes. 
Now, certainly I would agree that a large number of representatives and
propositions are immoral (by whatever set of ethics you might choose), but 
a large number is by no means unanimity, and it seems that the
citizens of a nation do have an obligation to strive to keep their
govt from enacting immoral legislation, voting being one, 
albeit imperfect method.  To *not vote* is to abdicate moral responsibility,
as I see it.

Another argument that Ronzone might use to justify his position
on voting is that it implies that the majority has unlimited power over 
the minority.  But this is not the case in a Constitutional Republic,
where the rights of the minorities are protected, again imperfectly,
but we are talking theory here.

The only other way I can imagine being inalterably opposed to voting is
believing that anarchy is the only moral system, and that any vote within
a system of govt constitutes moral consent for evil.  But hasnt this
same Ronzone argued for resolving all disputes in courts of law?  
Isnt Ronzone merely attempting to substitute a judicial form of govt
for a statutory form of govt?  Gee, I hate to say this, but govt is
govt, isnt it?

Who will appoint the judges, and carry out their decrees?  
If one of the purposes of voting is to select judges and to otherwise
enable a justice system, how can this be immoral?

I hope I have not put too many words in Mr. Ronzone's mouth, and
if I have, I apologize in advance.  This does seem like a good
time to raise the issue of the morality of voting, and I couldnt
resist (as you can plainly see).


--Al Date