Letters to the editor

USAC not only group to register voters

I was happy to read the Daily Bruin’s coverage of UCLA
student efforts to increase youth turnout in the upcoming election
(USAC registers 30,000 voters, Oct. 25). However, I was
disappointed that your article about our drive misleadingly gave
most of the credit to the Undergraduate Student Association Council
and the external vice president’s office, excluding those
efforts made by many other groups who were heavily involved in the
process.

While USAC made an invaluable contribution to these efforts,
many other groups contributed to the cause. I’d like to
clarify some of our coalition’s recent and planned voter
activities on campus.

First off, the final number of voter registrations collected by
groups here at UCLA was 3,169. This represents a compilation of
efforts made by many different groups on campus, including the
Feminist Majority Leadership Alliance and the American Medical
Student Organization. USAC was core to these efforts, but was not
the only group involved, nor the largest contributor to the final
tally.

Secondly, CALPIRG is coordinating phone-banking efforts to let
people know where to vote; USAC is working with us and will be a
prime source of volunteers.

Third, on Election Day, the Bruin Democrats, the Bruin
Republicans and the Political Science Student Organization will
together be providing polling places, other voter information, and
will hold an event to stir up excitement about the election in
Bruin Plaza. USAC will provide volunteers.

Lastly, many groups ““ including the Bruin Democrats, Bruin
Republicans, USAC and the Office of Residential Life ““ are
hosting forums on various topics pertaining to this election.

The topics include, but not limited to, those mentioned in your
article.

I have spoken to the office of External Vice President John Vu,
and USAC has not claimed sole credit for voter registration
activities in the recent weeks. It therefore concerns me that such
credit was implied.

Greg Wannier CALPIRG chapter chair, third-year political
science and ecology, behavior and evolution student

Taco Bell’s ad should not apologize

Taco Bell certainly should be condemned, but not for any of the
popular reasons given.

There is no such thing as a right to any particular job or
wages. The only right that exists is the right to freedom from
physical coercion ““ anything else would impose an affirmative
duty on the actions of others (an irreconcilable
contradiction).

When an employer hires an employee, he takes market conditions
into consideration and arrives at wages that will maximize his own
profit. When an applicant looks for a job, he seeks one that will
give the highest return on his effort. Each is compelled by a
selfish desire to better his own life. In the end, the agreement is
consensual and for their mutual benefit, relative to all available
options.

Adhering to the principle of individual rights requires that the
employer have an absolute right to set the terms of a job, with the
applicant having an equal right to refuse those terms.

“It’s unjust,” you may say, “because
sometimes employees are compelled by a life”“and”“death
situations to work for unfair wages.”

Nonsense ““ the fairness of wages is determined by the
consensual nature of the agreement. Someone’s misfortune does
not impose an obligation on others to give them what, in essence,
amounts to a hand-out. There is no such thing as “social
responsibility,” and even if there were, successful
corporations are at the top of the list of benefactors.

Granted, the removal of Taco Bell was not a violation of their
rights, but the underlying principle ““ that Taco Bell was
guilty of a social injustice ““ was false.

How did Taco Bell respond? In their Oct. 27 advertisement in the
Daily Bruin, they capitulated by allowing employees to dictate
wages to their employers. Instead of taking a moral stand and
defending their capitalistic success (the driving force of a free
society), they apologized for it, serving only to perpetuate the
altruist morality ““ that those who “need” the
capitalistically successful can dictate terms to them.

Now Taco Bell is gone ““ serves them right. And shame on
those who condemned them in the first place.

Arthur Lechtholz-Zey Chairman, UCLA
L.O.G.I.C.