ON Sanction... was :Max clarifies the FAQ

Tue, 23 Feb 1999 00:11:55 -0600

On Mon, 22 Feb 1999 20:21:43 +1100 Tim Bates <tbates@karri.bhs.mq.edu.au> writes:

>Seriously, tell me if you think I am simply fooling myself or if i am
>in bed with the enemy.

>If it was immoral for me to work in the university, then I should
>resign. However, it would follow that those who did not resign would be
>and subject to sanction.

>Now, I in no way feel that i could/should go around killing
>UnaBomber style. That is wrong. Hence I doubt that what i am doing is
>morally wrong.

Does not follow. There are acts which would be morally reprehensible if you were to engage in them, but which are not sufficient cause to do violence to others engaging in the same action.

I do not smoke, nor do I drink. I consider such activities to be (minor) threats to my life, and thus WRONG. On the other hand, attacking those who do smoke or drink is clearly not acceptable. So, does that make drinking or smoking any better for me. No.

>My position is as follows.

>I publicly advocate against compulsion and state control, I openly
>state my desire for privatised voucher-based education at all
>levels. I am constantly trying to convince people to fund a private
>University in Sydney. I support any student or colleague expressing
>unpopular individualistic views.


>However, as long as the government unfairly competes in this market,
>no private provider can successfully compete. Even Melbourne private (a
>"free" arm of a major Australian state Uni) is heavily leveraging its
>government subsidy.

Very true, and I believe, the core of any successful argument that leaves you at the University. Even more true in America, where the amount of government funding going to most (all but 1) private universities makes the distinction between public and private universities something of a joke.

>If i resign, that achieves nothing except for one less thinking person
>hacking from the inside. Convince me otherwise and I will resign
>Now, if I were teaching such things as "the majority is right" and
>that >"people are units of the greater whole" or espousing
>Freudian theory or whatever, in order to keep my job, then I
>would say you are right and i would be a hypocrite. But I do
>not, so until such time as i this changes,
>staying on seems like the action most compatible with extropy.

>Another example: the fact that you are currently paying taxes (as are
>we all), doesn't mean that you think they are right, simply that we
>cannot do otherwise without punishing people who have committed no

>Maybe I am wrong? What do others think?

I think you have one solid line of argument. However, this line of argument is very strong.

Simply put.
I have a goal.
I am prevented from doing what I think will get me to that goal in the precise manner that I might wish. Do I

a)	Give up my goal.
b)	Move towards the goal in a manner that I might find mildly
	distasteful while trying to bring about better circumstances
c)	Struggle grandly and impotently against immovable forces.

Easy choice, I think.


--Kyle Griffin
objectivist -- libertarian -- extropian -- unschooler -- and general

You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]