kfl%mx.lcs.mit.edu@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU (07/29/86)
Return-Path: <@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU:KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 86 00:52:35 EDT
From: "Keith F. Lynch" <KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Communities
To: steven@LL-XN.ARPA
cc: KIN%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU
From: steven@ll-xn.ARPA (Steven Lee)
>There is no such thing as community. There are only individuals.
One could equally say, "There are no humans, there are only
cells." Communities exist because of the benefits of
cooperation....
Groups of people don't make decisions, individuals do. A group may
reach a consensus. Does this compel any dissenters to follow the will
of the majority in every case?
What if you were part of a group, a community if you prefer, and it
is decided that henceforth everyone is to divide all their money
equally. Since, lets say, you have more money than everyone else in
the group put together, and since you worked very hard for many years
spending as little as possible to earn that money, you probably
wouldn't be too pleased with the decision. You would probably even be
willing to permanently leave the group rather than give up your hard
earned wealth. But you are informed that that is not a choice. When
talk of the wonderful things they plan to do with your money fails to
sway you, they start threatening to take it from you by force. Since
the leaders of the group have already spent the money they got from
the other members of the group on powerful weapons and training in
their use, and since the group rules say that you must go around
completely unarmed, you realize that resistance would be futile.
Is this the kind of 'community' you feel you are a part of? Do you
really not see any possible alternative to this subjugation?
...Keith
-------tim@ICSD.UCI.EDU (08/05/86)
>Date: Tue, 22 Jul 86 22:30:25 EDT >From: "Keith F. Lynch" <KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU> >Subject: Technology, wealth, and liberty > I assume you mean governments, not communities. There is no such >thing as a community, only individuals, governments, and various >voluntary organizations. Community (ka-mu'-na-ti) n. a locality where people reside; people having common interests; the public, or people in general; common possession or enjoyment (L. communis) (Webster's Dictionary, 1966 edition) Taking the above definition, it is OBVIOUS that communities (in some senses of the word) exist. I don't think you'd dispute the first meaning listed (localities). It is the other meanings I'd like to deal with here: People frequently bind together in groups sharing common interests. I assert that there are two types of such groups: voluntary communities, and involuntary communities. Voluntary communities (using the definition above) are any collection of people sharing common interests. It thus makes sense to speak of the community of people who read POLI-SCI, or the community which supports US space efforts. I assume that this is parallel to the "voluntary organizations" in your message. The point where I disagree with you is the existence of involuntary communities. An involuntary community is one in which the alternative to participation is the loss of highly valued personal attributes, such as life, personal liberty (lost through imprisonment), etc. Such communities exist. One example is the community of citizens. One can move between parts of this community (by changing allegiance from one government to another) but one cannot choose to abstain from participating in this community (be the citizen of no country, to the point of refusing to obey any country's laws at will) without suffering substantial penalties. Involuntary communities exist because it is deemed desirable to absolutely forbid certain types of behavior. Whether or not they SHOULD exist is open to debate. The fact that they DO exist is not an issue. As always, I await your thoughtful reply. Tim -------
campbell@maynard.UUCP (08/05/86)
>From: "Keith F. Lynch" <KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU> > What if you were part of a group, a community if you prefer, and it >is decided that henceforth everyone is to divide all their money >equally. Since, lets say, you have more money than everyone else in >the group put together, and since you worked very hard for many years >spending as little as possible to earn that money, you probably >wouldn't be too pleased with the decision. You would probably even >be willing to permanently leave the group rather than give up your >hard earned wealth. But you are informed that that is not a >choice... > ...Keith Ahh, but that *is* a choice. You are perfectly free to empty your bank accounts, convert all your dollars to lumps of gold, and go live alone in a cave for the rest of your life. In fact, many of us would be quite pleased if you did. -- "There are two kinds of science: physics, and stamp collecting." Larry Campbell The Boston Software Works, Inc. ARPA: campbell%maynard.uucp@harvard.ARPA 120 Fulton Street, Boston MA UUCP: {alliant,wjh12}!maynard!campbell (617) 367-6846 -------
kfl%mx.lcs.mit.edu@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU (08/06/86)
---------------
Return-Path: <@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU:KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 86 00:29:19 EDT
From: "Keith F. Lynch" <KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Communities
To: tim@ICSD.UCI.EDU
From: Tim Shimeall <tim@ICSD.UCI.EDU>
An involuntary community is one in which the alternative to
participation is the loss of highly valued personal attributes,
such as life, personal liberty (lost through imprisonment), etc.
Such communities exist. ...
Yes. The Mafia is one. Nobody gets out alive.
The question is not whether such involuntary organizations exist.
They do. The question is whether they should exist.
My objection was to the use of the word 'community' when
'government' was meant. The word 'community' is so overused, and used
in so many different meanings, that I prefer to not to use the word.
And I object when others use the term without defining it.
Involuntary communities exist because it is deemed desirable to
absolutely forbid certain types of behavior.
Here is the problem. A non-member of an organization is exempt from
organization rules. But you are assuming that all rules are
organization rules. This is not true. Robbery, rape, and murder, for
instance, are objectionable not because there happen to be rules
against them, but because they are simply wrong. They are wrong in
that they violate individual's fundamental liberties, not in that they
violate an organizational rule.
This reasoning is understandable given the enormous number of
superfluous state, federal, and local laws that we have. Most of laws
encode no great moral truth, but are completely arbitrary. They
change from place to place and from time to time for no obvious
reason. These laws serve only to reduce respect for the law.
The Nuremberg trials are a good example. Many Nazis were given
severe sentences for actions that were not actually against the law
when and where they were performed. The Nuremberg judges correctly
asserted that these actions (mass murder, torture, etc) were
objectively wrong, and no law or lack of a law can ever make them ok.
...Keith
-------