>I think the ideal is somewhere in the middle between individual self-interest and collective betterment.

And I realized in retrospect that I'd suggested that societal interest always come before individual interest. I agree that a balance is called for. Kevin's message that I responded to suggested that the individual always comes first and I find that idea abhorrent.

>It's a noble ideal you have about an individual suffering for the collective good but I ask you: Isn't that a matter of personal principles? For example, say I find that with some sacrifice I can donate $200 a month to a local battered women shelter. Does that make it right for me to strive for legislation that forces everyone to do the same? That's like making women fitting a certain actuarial table to either have an abortion while others must carry to full term.
>
>But.back to my main point. Let me make a further analogy: Suppose the Feds take up the crusade for abused women. They advocate a new abused women tax of $200 a month. A new Fed agency will be setup - the Abused Women Adminstration. It will be funded from general revenues as most programs must be but it'll only cost $190 of the tax. The actual victims will receive about $10 a month of care. But, the Blue Party, who is sponsoring this, refuses to acknowledge the expense and claims that the women will get $200. Since the Blue Party is in the majority they ram it through and now I cannot give $200 to a cause I believe in because the government is taking that mney and screwing it up.
>
>Make sense?

I think your analogy is way too forced to be worth replying to. Instead, I'll talk about how I think things should be. We've formed a society on the principle that we're better off together than separate. As a society, we need to decide which things every member is entitled to simply because they exist. We pretty much all agree that clean air and clean water qualify. We've also decided that every child is entitled to an education because it serves our purposes. Many of us believe that everyone (or at least every child) is entitled to be fed. And our current discussion is over whether everyone is entitled to health care.


>You used the word "suffer". Shouldn't sacrifices be voluntary? If not,isn't it tyranny?

I look at it from the other side. I think it's morally wrong for people to act in ways that are good for themselves while harming society as a whole.

Kevin's comment to which I replied was

>>>At the core, I hold the sanctity of the individual as an end in himself, not a means to the ends of others. This means that men deal with each by free, voluntary exchange for mutual benefit. The greatest and most important thing individuals can (and ought to) do is pursue their own rational self-interest and their own happiness. Each individual's life is an absolute.

I think he's morally wrong.

Tamar