Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!husc6!panda!genrad!decvax!bellcore!ulysses!cbosgd!ucbvax!MC.LCS.MIT.EDU!KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU From: KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU Newsgroups: mod.politics Subject: Rights Message-ID: <12237852771.41.MCGREW@RED.RUTGERS.EDU> Date: Wed, 10-Sep-86 12:53:03 EDT Article-I.D.: RED.12237852771.41.MCGREW Posted: Wed Sep 10 12:53:03 1986 Date-Received: Thu, 11-Sep-86 07:30:20 EDT Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Reply-To: KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU Organization: The ARPA Internet Lines: 170 Approved: poli-sci@red.rutgers.edu From: power.Wbst@Xerox.COM ... I take for granted ... that there are no such things as rights, and individuals can't cede to groups what never existed in the first place. What is a right? Freedom of speech? It doesn't exist. People are murdered every day for saying the wrong thing. If demonstrating that a right has been violated somehow proves that that right never existed, then I agree, it is meaningless to speak of rights. It is also meaningless to speak of crime, since any criminal can point out that he violated nobodies rights since he was able to do what he did. Thus all criminals are allowed to go scott free. Unless the judge (or bystanders) decide to kill the criminal. Which is also ok, of course. As shooting an innocent bystander would be. This is anarchy, or social darwinism. This is what libertarians are often ironically accused of advocating. Actually, we advocate the exact opposite. When we talk about the way to make a society better (having defined better), And having defined society. we have to start from the way humans act and interact, not the way they 'should'. Agreed. And because of the type of animal that a human being is, his life is dominated by the groups around him. I am not sure what you mean by "dominated". I agree that man is a social creature. That most people enjoy interacting with others. Some people on this list have somehow gotten the idea that libertarians think otherwise. This is not the case. There is a big difference between freely interacting with others and being "dominated" by others. People behave very differently when they are in groups. ... If people are always in groups, how can you say they act differently in groups? Differently from what? From if they lived in a cave? So? People are still individuals in a group, but they perform different functions - leader, conscience, facilitator, worker. Different functions than what? Than they would in a cave? There is nothing un-libertarian about joining a group with (or as) a leader, etc. But nobody is COMPELLED to be a leader or to follow a leader. Everyone is free to leave the group if they don't like the leader, and to join another group, or to form one of their own, or even to live alone in a cave. Individuals only rarely, extremely rarely, remove themselves completely from society (small s: a group of people larger than the immediate family). Do you think you are arguing against me? You are arguing with a straw man of your own devising. Society does force individuals to do things, it always has and it probable always will. Society consists only of individuals. You think that some individuals should be allowed to force others to do things? Why? Or do you think it would be good if they didn't, but you don't think this is possible because it has "always" been done this way? You see, I can't figure out whether you are happily advocating a coercive system as optimal, or whether you are saying "give up, it's hopeless, there is no escape from our prison". If the latter, please realize there IS a way out. Read Ayn Rand for more details. Arguing against it is like argruing that people shouldn't fall in love, or shouldn't be sad if someone they do love dies. I am not sure if you are saying "these are also good" or "these are also inevitable". Please clarify. The system of a powerful central governing body (Government, church, employer) is a central part of most peoples lives. You are lumping employers and churches together with governments. This is completely wrong. Churches and employers are VOLUNTARY organizations. Government is NOT. The system of a strong central Government, with the heads democratically elected, has evolved because people, even the workers, want to be hassled as little as possible, pure and simple. I agree that people want to be hassled as little as possible. Why do you say "even" the workers? Do you expect that they might want to be hassled more? I am not sure what you mean by a "strong" government. If you mean one that is competent at protecting people's rights from criminals and foreign invaders, I agree that a strong government is good. If by "strong" you mean a government that controls every aspect of everyone's life, I think that a strong government is very bad. But they also don't want to concern themselves day in and day out with the running of the society (because they're not leader or conscience or facilitator). Sigh. You are obviously using the word "society" to mean "government". Do you think Reagan runs everything? Are people helpless puppets? If Reagan and Bush both went on a long vacation, do you think everything would grind to a halt? Would food not grow? Would factories not manufacture goods? Would trucks and trains not deliver goods? Would TV and radio stations stop broadcasting? Would air conditioning and heating systems stop running? If society is the interaction of all the individuals, then we ALL run society, and do so every day. You run society when you work. You run society when you play. I am running society by reading your message and replying to it. The removal of power from the immediate (employer, parish priest) to the far away (Washington) does a lot to realize this ideal. Wrong, wrong, WRONG! Government power is the power to coerce. Priests and employers have no coercive power. You are free to tell them both to go jump in the lake. If you weaken the government enough, this system falls apart. What system? The only system you have described is a mass of contradictions and fuzzy thinking. The libertarians think they can weaken the government to an amazing degree, but still have it be able to control the corporations, the Mafia bosses. I think the government can prevent the mafia, corporations, etc, from violating other people's rights - at least to the extent they are able to prevent this now - by voluntary contributions. The more concerned people are with crime the more they will be willing to contribute. And private security will grow in importance in places where it is more practical than government security. People should learn self defense. Why do you put "corporations" with the mafia? What about plain old street thugs? Do you believe that corporations violate people's rights more than burglars and muggers do? Why? I guess if I had to sum it all up, I'ld say that libertarians are reductionists, and see only the individuals. No, but we DO see the individual as being the most important thing in the world. If there is to be a government its only purpose is to protect the rights of individuals. No organization should exist except to benefit individuals. The idea that organizations have rights and privileges in and of themselves, independently from the rights and privileges of their individual members, makes no sense at all to me. It is a small step from saying that some organizations exist to benefit other organizations to saying that individuals exist to benefit some organizations, specifically government. This is the central tenet of fascist and communist systems. We all know what sort of tyranny such systems invariably quickly lead to. I say that people behave differently in groups, and society actually forms a meta-being. This may be true in some metaphorical sense, but trying to apply it literally, in particular, trying to say that the meta-being has the same rights as individuals in and of itself, leads to very strange conclusions. Is peacefully replacing our current government "murder" of some meta-being? ...Keith -------