Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/

[John Berninger <john AT ncphotography.com>]

Phillip Rhodes wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Scott Chilcote wrote:
>
>   
> > I'd argue that it takes an organized, cooperative society to recognize 
> > and respect individual property rights.
> >     
>
> And I'd agree, as long as that organized, cooperative society isn't
> based on use of force to coerce people into participating. Voluntary
> organization is absolutely fine, of course.  I'm certainly not
> proposing radical individualism, where nobody works with anybody else
> in society for the "greater good."  I'm just saying that "society" has
> not authority to coerce individuals into doing things against their wills.
>   
But that is exactly what you're proposing - without a means to enforce 
cooperation on members who disagree with the "common good" (the 
correctness of that definition to remain debatable for now), there *is* 
no society, and you're reduced to radical individualism.  There will 
always be differences of opinion, and while these differences must be 
respected, they cannot be allowed to interfere with the compromises that 
are, IMHO, a ritical part of forming a "civilized society".

> > So why should the notion of individual property, which is granted by a 
> > civilized society, have more value and meaning than requiring that each 
> > individual who benefits from their society should make a contribution to 
> > its continued success?  
> >     
>
> I don't accept your assertion there, that private property is "granted"
> by "civilized society."  Having a civilized society certainly makes it
> easier to maintain what is yours, and I've already said I'm in favor
> of that.  But ultimate responsibility for defending ones home and
> possessions does, in my mind,  fall to the individual.
>   
The entire notion of private property requires a civilized society to 
create necessary preconditions for that concept to be honored.  Which in 
turn requires acknowledgement that an individual's desires / opinions 
may at some point irrevocably conflict with the generally accepted 
notion of the "greater good", which in turn requires the establishment 
of some form of authority to 'discipline' the 'errant individual' - else 
we revert to a case of "What's mine is mine, and what's your is mine as 
soon as I get around to killing you and taking it."

> And look at the so-called "civilized society" we have in place now.
> This construct goes out and spends billions of "our" dollars fighting
> an unjust war in Iraq, which has killed ~70,000 Iraqi civilians, and
> does it in "our" name.  I'm sorry, but if I want to disassociate myself
> from that system, I think I should be able too.  It doesn't represent me
> or my beliefs.  But that's the problem with a system based on coercion;
> we can't choose to not be part of the system when it turns to evil (or
> just goes against our beliefs in general).
>   
I can't disagree with the opposition to the Iraq war here, but I do 
argue that you have the ability to disassociate yourself from the 
'system' anytime you want - apply for citizenship in another country, or 
just move there as an ex-pat.  Saying the system is based on coercion is 
also saying that you are being prevented from taking any of these steps 
at gunpoint, which is simply not true.  By choosing not to take these 
steps to disassociate yourself from this system, you are acknowledging 
the limitations the system puts on you as a precondition of accepting 
the benefits the system grants you, and implicitly agreeing to these 
limitations.

Disclaimer:  All the above is purely my personal opinion, and may not 
have anything more than a passing resemblance to reality as perceived by 
the reader.

--
John