Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84 exptools; site whuxl.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!harvard!talcott!panda!genrad!decvax!harpo!whuxlm!whuxl!orb
From: orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER)
Newsgroups: net.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Explorations of "social-interest": Back to Basics
Message-ID: <657@whuxl.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 18-Jun-85 17:46:50 EDT
Article-I.D.: whuxl.657
Posted: Tue Jun 18 17:46:50 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 23-Jun-85 11:47:40 EDT
References: <298@spar.UUCP> <2380037@acf4.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Whippany
Lines: 43

As I noted before, I really don't care about what may or may not be
in any given individual's self-interest, nor do I consider such a
topic an issue of politics.  If somebody chooses to commit protracted
suicide by smoking that is their choice, and while I may try to 
discourage friends from making that choice because they are friends,
otherwise it is really none of my business. *Until* that smoking
starts to affect my own health by polluting the air that I breathe.

What *difference* does it make to political decisions *what* a
particular person decides is in their self-interest?
*Unless* it *does* have social and political implications?
 
And then we can no longer argue about what is best for a given
individual in one given situation and go back to the fundamental
issue of politics- how do we improve the interests of *all*?
 
*That* is the fundamental question of politics!
 
For non-Libertarians such as Baba and Tony to waste their words
arguing about one individuals self-interest is foolish.
 
Let us return to Basics.
 
For example, to return again to the mundane example I have cited before
which we usually encounter almost every day: consider traffic.
It would obviously be in *my* self-interest if everybody just got the
hell out of my way  as I speed down the road at 100 miles per hour.
So what?
Unless I am either a tinhorn dictator or some sort of privileged
aristocrat or a high-ranking party member that isn't going to happen.
And even if  it *does* happen does that make it right?
Unless some higher purpose is served (eg fire engines and ambulances)
it is *unjust* and *unfair* for one driver to have more privileges than
another.  The rule of law requires laws to be applied fairly to *all*.
The decision to adopt such rules of law is a political decision.
Moreover it is hardly one which has been adopted in all times and places
including our own.
 
By continuing endless debate about *self* interest, nonLibertarians
are failing to address the fundamental questions of politics of
*social* interests.
                  tim sevener   whuxl!orb