From: asylvain@felix.filenet.com (The Chipmunk)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: NOT Re: School vouchers
Date: 12 Oct 92 17:35:36 GMT
Reply-To: asylvain@fritz.filenet.com (The Chipmunk)
Organization: Foundation for the Increased Wealth of Chipmunks

Written in article <BvxB8A.Lqs@cup.hp.com>
 by runyan@cup.hp.com (Mark Runyan):

: I had not realized that the string was also being discussed in
: ca.politics.  My apologies for the oversight.

No problem!  I'm happy the reason everyone was ignoring me is NOT because
I'm KILL files the world over!

-------- Message from Mark Runyan <runyan@hposl00.cup.hp.com> 

: Thank you for your interest in the on going discussion.  I welcome your
: insight on the points Phil is making.

I can only do my best.  But, I do believe I understand Phil's pov better
than you.  Perhaps with some further discussion, you'll appreciate it
more yourself, and perhaps even come to agree with much of it.

Forgive me in advance if I seem harsh at any point, or that I'm
ridiculing your position.  I'm not.  At the very worst of any rant of
mine, remember I'm attacking your statements, not your person.

:> From: Alvin <asylvain@felix.filenet.com>
:>> by runyan@cup.hp.com (Mark Runyan):
:>: Phil Ronzone (phil@netcom.com) wrote:
:>:> I state that no one has a claim on my existence. Period. I may trade
:>:> my efforts, intellect, property, etc. for other such things from other
:>:> people, but that no one has any "claim" to my property.

:>: This does lead me to wonder about a few things.  When you `trade [your]
:>: efforts, intellect, property, etc" for things, you are doing so through
:>: some sort of agreement.

:> At this point you can stop.  You just said the operative word, "agreement."

: Hmmm.  Stopping at agreement seems a bit premature.

Why?

:> Have you agreed to support schools?
:> Have you agreed to feed the kids in Somalia (wherever the hell THAT is)?

: How many types of agreement are there?

Only one.  Some set of individuals agree to something.

: If I understand the above
: sentence about "operative word", and these questions, I'm infer you
: believe that all agreements must be explicit (oral, written, or
: recorded).  Is this correct?

The way an agreement is set forth doesn't matter, only that it is
agreement.  The problems inherent with oral agreements is that people
forget.  The problems inherent with implicit agreements is that too
often it is NOT agreement.  One or more of the individuals in the set of
"agreement" may not even be aware of the "agreement."  One or more
individuals in the set may decide to change the terms of the agreement.

Ie, you are about to argue about our mutually implicit agreement to pay
taxes in exchange for receiving certain govt "services."  What about the
cases where the govt chooses to change the terms of that "implicit
agreement" without asking your permission?

"Implicit agreement" is an oxymoron, like "military intelligence," or
better, "civil service."  Implicit agreements do not exist.

: If so, then (to answer your questions) I don't remember any explicit
: agreement to support schools, kids in Somalia, or my child, for that
: matter.

If not EXplicit, then literally ANYthing may be construed as "agreement."

How can you help but wonder about G.Bush's "New World Order" when,
*surprise!* you'll get to pay for that kid in Somalia after all.
Indeed, you probably ARE paying to feed that kid, regardless of whether
the kid's actually being fed.  I'm sure Somalia is getting some kind of
foreign-aid, and I'm equally sure that the leaders are squandering the
money.

When they decide to invade yet another country because they don't like
the looks of their elected leader's policy, you will doubtlessly feel
that you again agree implicitly.  When they tear down your house because
it makes a convenient short-cut for an unneeded freeway by-pass, again,
*surprise!* you agreed implicitly.

Let's see, which Latin American country have we NOT meddled in yet ...
you agreed to this, of course.  I hope you appreciate how many people died
for your implicit agreement.

:>:> How large is this community? City? County? State? Nation? World?
:>: Since Michael did not see Somalia entering into the discussion, I think
:>: we can safely eliminate World as part of the community under discussion.
:> May I please eliminate the City from the community under discussion?  I
:> support my family, by agreement, and I think that's quite enough, thank
:> you very much.

: This appears to mean that you have reduced your `community' to your
: family (by this do you mean immediate/nuclear family or extended
: family?).

Does it matter?  Phil reduced it to 0.  Considering the divorse and
abandonment rate, I'd say he has lots of company.

The point is agreement.  Voluntary agreement.  If I wish to extend my
"community" to only my Home-Owner's Association, and we sign a contract,
why not?

: This seems much too small to accomplish all the goals you
: have for yourself.  Perhaps it isn't, though.  I do know that my family
: (both immediate and extended) is not sufficient to my life style.

That must be one wallapallooza lifestyle!!  What do you do, fly in Air
Force One to get to work?  I can well understand requiring taxes to
cover that!

: Therefore I have some doubt you would be capable of providing those
: services that a city provides you to live comfortably.

I suppose you also believe that the city should feed my family.  Why
bother having private grocery stores?  Let the city do it.  Surely
that must be more important than mere street-cleaning.

: It is possible,
: of course, but it isn't very common.  So, you may not have `agreed' to
: such things as schools, police force, garbage, water, roads,
: restaurants, fire protection, and other such major and minor services
: that a city provides.

Let me tell you a quick story about my Dad's girlfriend.  Where she
lives in LA, parking on the street during certain times of the week 
will get you a ticket.  Guaranteed.  Street-cleaning day.

The street cleaners haven't been down that street in a decade.

Do you suppose for 15 seconds that she can get a refund on her taxes?
And stay out of jail?

Now, I live in Walnut.  We pay for garbage collection, separately, by
voluntary agreement.  If we don't pay, we risk nothing, except a pile of
smelly garbage on the curb-side.

If my Dad's girlfriend doesn't pay, her house will be forcibly taken 
from her.  She will be evicted.  Guaranteed.

And we pay MORE taxes than she does.  Our house is more expensive.  How
does that make garbage collection more costly?  Which sewer line costs
more to construct, the one to Watts or the one to Beverly Hills?

: But, if you make use of them (assuming you don't
: live in an isolated location, which I can not tell about you since I do
: not know you), then there must be some sort of `agreement' there.  What
: is that kind of `agreement' called?

It's called Force.  Pay your taxes or go to jail.  Nevermind whether you
need, want, or even receive these services.

Nevermind if you bike to work, thus using no freeways.  Nevermind if you
pay someone to haul your trash.  Nevermind if your street is never
cleaned.  Nevermind if you've contracted your own police service,
because you'd kinda like for someone show up BEFORE the burglar kills
you.  Nevermind if your kid graduates high school with a 2nd grade
reading level.

Etc.

Don't like the quality of your service?  Demand your money back.
Go on, I dare you!

Step one: Eliminate the taxes, and the services the city supposedly
provides.

Step two: Allow private citizens to contract whatever services they
believe they want or need, and to not pay if they feel they aren't
getting that service.  Allow competition for everything, no govt-
mandated monopolies.

Assume this is not practical (political reasons of course).  At least 
drastically cut back on city services, and allow citizens to buy what
they want or need.  Most will have plenty of cash left over from not
paying the taxes.

:>:> I state that the limit is 0 -- that no one has a claim on your
:>:> existence.
:>: This limit is a good theory, but does it work in practice?
:> Yes.  

: I apologized to Phil for using slang like this.  I should realize that
: it doesn't work as well in writing as in person.  My question should
: probably be rephrased as "What societies allow this limit?"

Why should society mandate any larger a number?

It gets back to the basic question: what "right" does "society" have to
force itself on any individual?

Suppose I sort out the aluminum from your trash for you, swell guy that
I am.  Suppose I do it whether you like it or not, or even whether you
know about it or not.  Ie, there is no AGREEMENT that I do this highly
valuable service (without which, you'd surely not be able to have a
"lifestyle").  Suppose I bill you for the service.  Suppose I lock you
in my basement if you don't pay.

Don't worry, I won't, because if _I_ do it, it's called extortion.

Why is all this OK just because I'm wearing a Marshall's badge?

Why is all this OK just because I supposedly have a "majority vote" to
back me up?  (Might makes right?)

: I'd like
: to compare them to this one (which by implication is *not* one of
: these societies).

If you truly want some historical examples of such societies, and have
the time to read about them, let me know and I'll put you in touch some
who know better than I.

:> Altho, I wonder if you actually understand where Phil is coming
:> from.  Most of your article indicates, to me at least, that you don't.

: Perhaps I don't know where Phil is coming from.  If you consider it
: worth your time, I will read any hints you are willing to provide.  

Well, here y'go!

: Mark Runyan

-- 
The Chipmunk.
Opinions are mine, void where prohibited, taxed, licensed or regulated.
Democracy is the recurrent suspicion that more than half of the people
are right more than half of the time.  -- E. B. White
Newsgroups: ca.politics