norm@ariel.UUCP (N.ANDREWS) (01/04/85)
>> In the following article, Tim Sevener's lines are preceded with a single ">". >> >> > >> > Should these people be forced to be educated? Should I be forced to >> > provide their education (thru taxes, etc.)? The idea that the >> > initial use of force should be utilized to solve problems is exactly >> > what libertarians are arguing against. Force should only be used to >> > respond to attempts to infringe on an individuals rights to life, >> > liberty, and property. >> > What if the people in a community jointly decide that they would rather >all contribute towards the education of the children in their community? >Don't they have the right to do this? Or don't people in groups have >any rights at all? What if the people working in a plant all decide that >they would be benefitted by contributing money every month to a union to >defend their group interests? Most union representation votes >are approved by over 80% of the membership. > >Libertarianism really accepts no concept of community or even group rights >or responsibilities. Yet the fact is that people often accomplish more >by working as a group than as a bunch of isolated individuals. In fact, >many tasks MUST be accomplished by a group with its division of labor >and the pooling of group resources. This means that some people HAVE >to compromise and sacrifice some of their freedom to accomplish such >goals. I happen to think that education of a new generation is important >and worth paying taxes for, even if currently I have no children of my own. >A vast majority of people agree and vote for bond issues for public >education on a regular basis. I think they have the right to agree >collectively and democratically to do so. > >tim sevener whuxl!orb > Tim Sevener totally ignores the point of the original questions, which was that some people don't want to be forced to do things, such as send their children to a statist school or pay for the education of others' children. This is a common ploy in which a debater draws attention to some facts or questions that he's unhappy with, makes remarks about something else entirely, and then acts as if he's resolved some issues. In answer to Seveners remarks, if *all* of the people in a community want to contribute toward the education of their children, libertarians have no quarrel with that. Such contributions are voluntarily made by each member of the community, AND ARE NOT TAXES! Taxation is the theft of resources from those members of a community who do not voluntarily contribute to pay for some value. This is one of the important distinctions that Sevener chooses to ignore. OF COURSE people in groups have rights, and it is only in the context of groups that the protection of individual rights becomes an issue. If people working in a plant want to contribute to a union, that's their right, so long as such activity doesn't violate some contractual arrangements they may have already made with their employer, and so long as they don't try to force others to contributre to the union who have no wish to support it. The fact is that there are no group rights or responsibilities. There are only individual rights and responsibilities. Yes, people often accomplish more by working as a group than by acting in isolation. This does not imply that anyone should ever "compromise and sacrifice" their freedom in order to reap the benefits of working in a group. When the value of working in a group exceeds the cost of devoting his time or resources to group action, an individual might reasonably choose to make an INVESTMENT of his own time or resources in the group activity. If it is his free choice to do so, based on the higher value to him of group activity versus individual action, then it is not a sacrifice, but an investment. Such choices have to be made, even in Robinson Crusoe contexts, in which an isolated individual has to decide how to invest his resources. Sacrifice is to be avoided like the plague, since sacrifice, as opposed to investment, entails the giving up of a value for a lower or a non-value. (Thank you, Miss Rand..) If a "vast number of people" wish to back a bond issue or contribute their own or borrowed money for some worthy project, that vast number of people wouldn't be hindered from doing so by libertarians. Many libertarians might join them in their group activity, so long as dissenters weren't also FORCED to partici- pate. FORCE is the issue that is the point of the questions Sevener pretended to address in his article... -Norm Andrews, speaking for himself. vax135!ariel!norm
biep@klipper.UUCP (J. A. "Biep" Durieux) (01/08/85)
[]
The main thing which bothers me in Libertarianism is that they
want me to fight. I have to forsee everything, and take my
measures. I want to work and live *for* a society, not to
fight *against* it. My first question (what if my neighbo[u]r
buys all the land around me, or in another way controls all
the resources I need) was answered in that way (you should
have forseen that, and acted accordingly). My second question
(do parents have the right to abandon their dependent children
so that they will die "because they didn't take the appropriate
measures") wasn't answered at all, I guess because it was
"hidden "in a satirical article. Now I would like a third
question, taken from reality. I will not say whom it concerns,
however, since that might have bad effects.
The situation:
A labo[u]r union almost controls an industry. Many years ago
a man looking for work (which was scarce) came at that industry.
Three and two years ago two of his sons did the same. All three
had more or less the same experience.
They weren't communists and didn't want to be. However, the union
was. So they didn't want to share the union. I will leave away the
physical threats, since I assume the Libertarians will agree with
me on that point. I want to jump to the next step. The board of
directors of the industry was told: "There are non-unionists in
this industry. Choose: either tell them to either go away or become
a union member, or we'll go on strike." Now all three are union
member, and pay to the communist party.
I guess that, according to Libertarian standards, the "unionists"
didn't initiate force (I'm not talking about the threats), so
it was their right to do so: They had the right of strike, and
anyone may decide not to want to work with anyone he doesn't
want to work with. After all, for each of the unionists, the
board of directors could have fired him. They only could not
fire *all* of them.
At the moment, the go[u]vernment tries to break the labo[u]r
union force, but it's difficult.
P.S.: This history is situated in France.
--
Biep.
{seismo|decvax|philabs}!mcvax!vu44!botter!klipper!biep
I utterly disagree with everything you are saying, but I
am prepared to fight to the death for your right to say it.
--Voltairebwm@ccice2.UUCP (Brad Miller) (01/10/85)
In article <406@klipper.UUCP> biep@klipper.UUCP writes: > A labo[u]r union almost controls an industry. Many years ago > a man looking for work (which was scarce) came at that industry. > Three and two years ago two of his sons did the same. All three > had more or less the same experience. > They weren't communists and didn't want to be. However, the union > was. So they didn't want to share the union. I will leave away the > physical threats, since I assume the Libertarians will agree with > me on that point. I want to jump to the next step. The board of > directors of the industry was told: "There are non-unionists in > this industry. Choose: either tell them to either go away or become > a union member, or we'll go on strike." Now all three are union > member, and pay to the communist party. Not likely scenario. Actually, the company (given it were non-communist) would just say. "Fine. Go on strike and you will all be blacklisted and NEVER WORK AGAIN." You forget that the unions outlawed trusts, but in a real free-market economy both unions and trusts would be fair game. Brad Miller -- ...[rochester, cbrma, rlgvax, ritcv]!ccice5!ccice2!bwm
biep@klipper.UUCP (J. A. "Biep" Durieux) (01/11/85)
In article <549@ccice2.UUCP> bwm@ccice2.UUCP (Bradford W. Miller) writes: >In article <406@klipper.UUCP> biep@klipper.UUCP writes: >> A labo[u]r union almost controls an industry. Many years ago >> a man looking for work (which was scarce) came at that industry. >> Three and two years ago two of his sons did the same. All three >> had more or less the same experience. >> They weren't communists and didn't want to be. However, the union >> was. So they didn't want to share the union. I will leave away the >> physical threats, since I assume the Libertarians will agree with >> me on that point. I want to jump to the next step. The board of >> directors of the industry was told: "There are non-unionists in >> this industry. Choose: either tell them to either go away or become >> a union member, or we'll go on strike." Now all three are union >> member, and pay to the communist party. > >Not likely scenario. Actually, the company (given it were non-communist) would >just say. "Fine. Go on strike and you will all be blacklisted and NEVER WORK >AGAIN." You forget that the unions outlawed trusts, but in a real free-market >economy both unions and trusts would be fair game. > >Brad Miller > >-- >...[rochester, cbrma, rlgvax, ritcv]!ccice5!ccice2!bwm It is no invented scenario, it is reality. I know these people, and as they trusted me, they have complained to me. You largely underestimate the power of the communist labo[u]r union in France, if you think it is the company that could put the people on the black list. It's more that if the union puts the company on the black list, that company ceases to exist. (Well, not this one, since it is a utility, and they don't want to get rid of it, but...) -- Biep. {seismo|decvax|philabs}!mcvax!vu44!botter!klipper!biep I utterly disagree with everything you are saying, but I am prepared to fight to the death for your right to say it. --Voltaire