OCR Text |
Show a i s ASUU's interest and student representation is encouraging lobbying groups never fully materialized. A lack of student attendance at SAC meetings has plagued student of the the organization as well as problems with political activities the While toughest. representatives on campus are often stereotyped as disagreements among the cabinet. Another possible ineffective and generally ASUU has made criticism might be that the distinction between each a genuine effort this year to emphasize the interests of board is not clear, leading to an overlapping of students. responsibilities. There have been some satisfying results. too, is part of ASUU. Amendments Thanks to an active ASUU cabinet, the student voice coming before the ASUU assembly this week attempt to has been heard on tuition as well as other programs restructure the government to allow maximum student that affect students. When questions came up participation. Because of a current bill, the same concerning the new computerized records system, student may not be able to serve on both the ASUU ASUU representatives gave the administration a cabinet and assembly. Also, the Academic Affairs Board has worked for the closer involvement of assembly students' view. On campus, ASUU has worked for everything from members with SAC. In these ways ASUU is not simply redesigning seating areas to investing in improved trying not to run its own selective clique, but message boards. The commonly abused message branching out to reach the less active student. cublicles around campus will soon be cleaned up and Influencing decision-makin- g processes in the Board redone by ASUU. Rice Stadium will receive a message of Regents and the Utah legislature toward the student board publicizing activities partly funded and created concerns has been a high priority of the cabinet. So has by ASUU. Environmentally designed benches near getting students involved in the forces that control trees and lawns will soon appear at the University, much of their educational lifestyle. While we as students retain the right to be or not to be involved in with the support of ASUU. Although generally successful, ASUU has also student government, it is good those in ASUU this year experiences failures this year. Their efforts to organize are taking responsible steps in our behalf. Tuition isn't the only battle that ASUU has been fighting for students, although it's been one of the self-servin- phone-cal- l g, Self-criticis- I LETTERS LETTER- S- lost my ski boots Editor: There is someone out there who can help me with my problem. On Jan. 2, 1978, I left my ski boots (Christmas present) in your car. I received a ride from the mouth of Big Cottonwood Canyon (by the up to the stop light at the corner of 13th East and Foothill Drive. You identified youself as a transfer student from Iowa, possibly going into a speech program, and eventually working with the deaf. I also lost a green backpack and two pairs of prescription glasses. I would be grateful for the return of all or part of the contents. I will reward the person returning them or furnishing information that will lead to their return. Robert Kelly Letters guidelines The Daily Utah Chronicle accepts and encourages letters to the editors from its readers. All letters must be typewritten, signed and must include writer's name and social security number. Preference will be given to those letters typed on a line. Address all letters to: "Letters to the Editor," Utah Chronicle, Union Building 240. Typewriters are Daily available for use in the Chronicle office, north wing of the 74-spa- Union. Is Singer for real? Editor: 1 m w mm mw topav ?oiu uo iws of wmw&v Vo-l- rumors 1 i I UNCONflRtie- ttmn 1W PEOPLE P- 1; $50 ARE UANIH&- -. NOW W Go to ROGER ANPWAtffc- - IV 1 HA6 GROWN OVfR WHICH WAV HOWARD t AFRICANS M 5MALt GROUPS, Wf U PAI4, COrtKN T MILLION ITT8 1BAUKS HOWAR- D- WELL ROGER , H(WP03 HlOOKio II r-- -- tflK 1b M RifiHC f IkHWAWW yoU.WAWER? mmtvi minion ill .WW ! ion U RIGHT, If ROOCR-TriKT- 1- 5- S THf As a former expatriate, somewhat agnostic individualist, and part time cynic, I find myself in an ironic position but must take exception to the arguments in the editorials by Sidney Singer (January 4 and 10) regarding government, religion and rationality. My impression of these editorials is that they are narrow in view but too broad in scope, illogical in several places, containing unsupported arguments. I found his attack on religion rather presumptuous and misleading. For example, Singer writes, "religion states that life should not be man's highest value but it is death for which man must strive." That is just not true. For its followers, religious belief brings stability to life, a moral code, inner spiritual strengths and acceptable values. Each of us has a "different reality" and, like it or not, a religion. Religion is what we believe in; be it an organized faith, music, the almighty dollar, art, corporate profit, love, even ego. I personally believe in tolerance and religious freedom. You believe what you want; respect others' right to do so. You have no monopoly on the truth, Sidney, for everyone has a different truth. Singer's editorials are littered with incredibly sweeping statements such as, "religion is opposed to rationality" and "religion and freedom are incompatible", and this gem, "War has never been supported by business...". Economists, who seldom agree on anything, will tell you that a war economy is a healthy one. Singer, in advising us on anarchy, reveals, "If anarchy is therefore moral, it must also be prac tical." Here I believe he is playing a bit loose and fast with logic. The one does not follow the other. "Only anarchy is consistent with the doctrine of man's rights," Singer tells us. A picture is then painted of "private armies" defending our rights. Who is to pay these armies? And who will defend the poor, the unemployed, the forests and the sea from exploitation? I dislike paying taxes as much as anyone but I cannot see how anarchy with its paid army, police, etc. will save us any money. I believe the correct quotation from history is, "There is no such thing as a free lunch." Glenn Taylor sydney singer Public stupidity perpetuates Buckley's image Politics is an extremely significant topic. It may, literally, mean the difference between life and death. And, by virtue of its social nature, political ideas are of little value unless they are communicated and persuaded to others. Regardless of their objective worth, the acceptance of these ideas may largely be dependent upon the manner and form with which they are presented by their proponents. And this brings me to the major resentment I have for William F. Buckley, Jr.: he has probably done more harm to the future of freedom than has the most politically ardent staties. A statist does not pretend to support capitalism and freedom; Buckley claims that he is an advocate of capitalism and a staunch warrior for freedom. Consequently, the public does not identify the statist as a capitalist; but with typical gullibility and lack of insight, the public takes Buckley for his word, and regards him as a defender of capitalism and freedom. Actually, Buckley has more in common with a statist than with a capitalist. After his speech, two weeks ago, I took the opportunity to ask Buckley if he believed, "That a free society, i.e., on in which the initiation of force is barred from social contacts, necessitates philosophical consistency, and, therefore, the use of logic; and if so, do you also believe that religion is philosophically inconsistent with political freedom, due to the intimate dependence of religion upon irrationality?" Buckley repeated the question to the audience, and in doind so changed the phrase, "...a free society, i.e., one in which the initiation of force is barred from social contacts," to, "...a democratic society, " I corrected him by saying that I did not use, nor imply, the term, "democratic society," when I referred to a free society. He replied that my description of a free society was analogous with a democracy. At this point, I was convinced that Buckley is not a capitalist. He then insisted that religion is rational. At this point, I was convinced that Buckley is irrational. But then came the ironic part: he admitted that a free society necessitates rationality. And after witnessing this contradiction in Buckley's attitude, the audience still regards Buckley as an avid capitalist and supporter of freedom. Capitalism is a political system in which individuals deal with each other by mutual agreement; the initiation of force is not sanctioned in the society and everyone is free to live however he wishes. As a corollary of the political philosophy of capitalism, the services provided by a government, such as protection and arbitration, would be provided by the free market. In fact, there would have to be an anarchy, since a coercive monopoly like the government could not exist in a free market and, therefore, in capitalism. Put laissez-fair- e differently, capitalism is a contradiction in terms. Keeping this in mind, what relationship can exist between capitalism and democracy? The answer is none. Democracy is nothing more than another form of dictatorship. Instead of there being one dictator, or a small group of dictators, the tyrant in a democracy is the majority. And what all forms of dictatorship have in common is the philosophical endorsement of the initiation of force against individuals. Consequently, democracy and capitalism, or democracy and freedom, are incompatible. With Buckley as the stereotype of the capitalist and freedom lover, its no wonder that the philosophy of political freedom has decayed to a pile of contradictory catch phrases. And as long as people regard Buckley as a capitalist, there will never exist a free society in this country. But, after all, I guess this all makes sense: the public's stupidity has kept this country as a dictatorship; and the same stupidity has the public believing that Buckley is a defender of freedom. |