From: runyan@cup.hp.com (Mark Runyan)
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics
Subject: Re: School vouchers
Date: 8 Oct 92 20:39:21 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:
>However, note that I said "claim on my existence". No ONE can claim
>anything from me by virtue of my existence. I.e., you exist, therefore
>fork over the grain harvest, Kulak ...

Thank you for the clarification on the claim and what you meant.

>I can trade any or all aspects of my property to other people, and if you
>wish to use the word "claim" in the process of this *moral* property
>transfer, that is an acceptable use of the word -- for that context.

Question regarding this for the moment.  It is probably well off the
subject, so we need not dwell on it:  If you come into the world with no
property, what are you trading for that which you have now?

>>Worse yet, if you own a house, is the property really yours
>>while you are paying off the mortgage? ...  The
>>point there being that long term transactions do occur and
>>you are usually bound to the other `person' in some way.
>So? What's the point? If you bought the house voluntarily, then you've agreed
>to whatever the mortgage terms are.

The point was answered by your clarification.  I was merely confused
by the concept of `claim on your existance', so of course this meant
nothing to you.

>>For instance, if you have children, do they have a claim on
>>your existance (time, money, etc)? Or parents? Or spouse?
>
>No, no, and no.

A child has no claim on your existance, property, money, etc?  If you
and a spouse had a child, you feel the child has no right to claim
support from you (this does *not* mean that you wouldn't provide it, BTW)?
Just a philosophical point is all.  A child you bore has no claim to
right to support from you?

Since a child has no right to claim property, does this imply that all
the property a child gathers is given to him/her until some point when
the child may begin to earn property?

>Certainly education helps.  But Michael was arguing that NEED justifies
>the coercive taking of property (taxes).  I say that is morally wrong.
>Other than "just because he said so", if you are going to argue for your
>actions (coercion & taxes) on the basis of need, do not the Somalians
>need food a lot more than many of our kids need education?

I'll step out of trying to interpret what Michael believes and try to
answer your points from my own point of view.  Am I correct in
understanding that you believe that it is morally acceptable for you to
hold your own property despite need of others?  If so, then can you
imagine the existence of the opinion wherein a person might feel it is
right for his society to hold its "property" despite the need of other
societies?  The `line' is drawn in a different place.


>>>How large is this community? City? County? State? Nation? World?
>>..., I think we can safely eliminate World as part of
>>the community under discussion. Since people in the US tend
>>to think of the US public schools when discussing the `school
>>system', I might venture that many in this discussion are
>>limiting themselves to `Nation'. You may have a wider point
>>of view. You may not be alone. The clarification that people
>>are talking to different points might improve the discussion.
>
>Wishy-washy. 

I don't understand the reference point that "wishy-washy" applies to.
I'll assume you mean my statement that people in the US tend to limit
the discussion to the US.

>I wasn't [attacking?]  schools per se, I was attacking the fascist
>concept that the need of the "[people]", as of course determined by the
>fascists running the State, who are more equal than others anyway,
>justifies coercion.
>
>It doesn't.

[I'm not sure of your term "fascist" in this statement.  Am I correct in
interpreting that any government that uses coercive tax laws falls under
your definition of "fascist"? And are you using "fascist" as an equivalent
to immoral or as an example of an immoral government?]

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?

>>>How can I justify buying say, expensive computers for the
>>>local school when kids in other counties/state/nations go
>>>without ...
>>...Given the above statements regarding that no one has a claim on your
>>property, ...  ...you have justified the buying of food, clothing, ...
>>equipment or two for youself `when kids in other countries/state/nations
>>go without'?  Could a similar line of justification be used regarding
>>communities (cities, states, nations)?  ...
>>>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?
>...Theories are (simplified) those ideas and concepts which work and
>have yet to be disproved.

Well, I've always considered theories to be ideas and concepts which
explain why things work and have yet to be disproved.  My apologies
for using a slang phrase (`...good theory, but...').  I was attempting
to request examples of societies, civilizations, and/or governments
based on your moral concept.  One of my shortcomings is that I understand
things better if I see examples.

>>>So, where does YOUR logic lead you?
>>In a different direction, perhaps.
>Exactly. And why do you stop? Are you afraid to see where your logic
>leads you? I think so.

Stop?  I have not stopped.  Indeed, I've often followed my logic to
its conclusion.  I'm also aware that pure `logic' does not explain
all that happens in human interaction.  I merely wish to understand
what it is you are supporting.  As to being afraid of where my logic
leads you, I don't believe that I am.

>Mine leads to freedom.

It is possible that your axiom leads to freedom, though I believe you
must have more than just the axiom that "no one has a claim on your 
existance" to reach "freedom".  Fortunately, there are other paths.

>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.

Mark Runyan
Newsgroups: ba.politics