From: J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM
Subject: Re: [misc.activism.progressive] Clinton Office Requests Comments
Organization: Lockheed Missiles & Space Company, Inc.
Date: Fri, 08 Jan 93 12:27:22 PST

In <1ikjvuINN7b0@armory.centerline.com>, Mike Huben writes:

>In article <1993Jan7.170402.17174@zip.eecs.umich.edu> positron@quip.eecs.umich.
>>mrh@centerline.com (Huben the Authoritarian) saith:
>>Nobody is compelling Joe Richguy to do anything: he has chosen to live in the
>>>USA and abide by our government.  Nobody is pointing a gun at him and
>>>commanding him to stay here where by mutual agreement we are taxed.
>>
>>What "mutual agreement?" I was born here, now I'm told "be taxed or leave".
>>Where's the mutuality in that?

>If you were born here, then your parents freely made the choice for you.
>At any time, you can select another nation to live in.  There is no secret
>about the fact that if you choose to live here you must abide by the laws:
>every immigrant explicitly agrees to that.  Those laws are created by the
>process of mutual agreement called representative democracy.

In other words, *I* still haven't chosen *anything*, so it's not mutual.

I'm part Indian--my ancestors were here before the Europeans.  Should I be
forced to abide by the laws too?  It seems to me that a lot of my ancestors
"agreed" to our government's terms by being at the wrong end of a loaded
Colt .45.  In other words, part of my heritage is *not* that of immigrants.
You only mentioned *immigrants*.  May I now please be excused from obeying
your coercive laws?

My parents made a choice for themselves--and I was just along for the ride.
You are saying that I somehow deserve to suffer if I continue to live here
because my being here was my parents' decision.  What if parents really abused
their daughter which made her paralyzed, as well as deaf and mute?  Then
men come along and rape her repeatedly?  If she isn't fighting back, it must be
okay since her parents *freely chose* to beat her.  Never mind that it may be
against her will.  Her parents chose for her, so she deserves it...that's one
of the most ridiculous arguments I've ever heard.

We live in what is best described as a "representative *republic*."  Our found-
ers knew about the ways in which pure democracy can deny rights to a minority;
such thoughts are sprinkled throughout the Federalist Papers, for example.

It was well known that it's quite possible for 51% to deny *basic human rights*
to the other 49%.  That's why laws were not passed by the people directly.
Much of the theory was that we would elect people who *upheld* the Constitu-
tion (and therefore not pass unconstitutional laws like voters might).  In that
sense, democracy is two wolves and sheep voting on what to have for lunch.

Democracy may be better than a dictatorship, in that we at least have something
resembling a consensus governing us rather than one person oppressing everyone.
At least in democracy, 51% of the people (rather than just one) are getting
what they want--but it's no comfort to the 49%, is it?

>>>Joe Richguy has now benefitted, since I have by now already repaid (through
>>>taxes on my greater earnings) those subsidies, and can now better share
>>>supporting the costs of society with him.
>>
>>Sorry. An appealing theory that is not backed up by the facts. In the first
>>place, many, many people receiving government subsidies don't even come close
>>to repaying their loan from society. In the second place, though, forcing
>>someone to make a loan, even with complete confidence that it will be repaid,
>>is wrong. Suppose I hold the ol' gun to your head and take your money from
>>you. I then invest it in the soybean market, and a year from now, I give
>>you back double your money. Have I acted rightly?

>Gee, and some people never pay as much in insurance premiums as they receive
>in benefits.  Sorry, but you haven't shown why either case is wrong.

It's not wrong if I freely agree to the terms of the insurance policy and the
terms of it have not been violated.

>A contractual requirement of residing in the USA is paying taxes.  You've
>entered into the contract freely (as I pointed out above.)  Non payment of
>taxes is fraud which you have initiated, plain and simple.

Whoa.  My paternal grandfather was born in 1908, and he was 5 when the income
tax amendment became law.  Don't tell me that he consented to it.  Don't tell
me that he has "initiated" the fraud.  He couldn't refuse the "implied con-
tract."  Oh, I forgot.  He could have left the country without his parents
(who chose to support the income tax, of course) when he was 5.  Get real.

You have been saying in effect that if I don't like a law being passed, then
I should just pack up and leave.  Tell that to blacks in South Africa.  By
your logic, failure to obey the law is "wrong" regardless of the law.  I
guess we shouldn't free any political prisoners anywhere, should we?  Those
uppity South African blacks--who the hell do they think they are demanding
that their rights be respected?  They deserve to be in jail.  That's the
consistent application of *yet another* of your assertions.

Aren't the Muslims in Bosnia a minority?  If they don't like seeing their
families becoming victims of genocide and if they don't like their women being
raped, they should get the hell out of Bosnia.  Don't you get it?

What if I created an initiative whereby Mike Huben would be taxed a rate of
90%.  Is that fair--even if 51% of the people like it?  Even if it was voted
in by a bunch of representatives who got 51% of the vote?

I have certainly *not* freely entered into a contract.  Maybe I don't have the
funds or connections to succeed in another nation.  The government's job is
to protect our rights and *leave us alone* other than that--not pass laws which
violate the rights of a minority.

>The social contract with our government shows characteristics of many kinds of
>common agreements.  Like condominium ownership, you agree to pay fees assessed
>to you by the condominium association, where you have representation.  Like
>insurance, rates can vary from individual to individual, and services received
>may be more or less than premiums paid.  Like eating in a restaurant, the
>contract is understood, not signed: in a restaurant if you order, in our
>nation if you reside here or have citizenship.

Wow!  That means that just before I'm born, I can say "Hey, I don't like the
laws of this nation I'm going to be born in.  I think I'll choose not to be
born in the United States of America."  Another stellar analogy.

Bullschmidt.  When you buy a condo, you know *before purchasing it* that you
will enter a contract like the one you mention.  If I don't like the terms,
I'm free to not buy the property--at no cost, hassle or loss of liberty to
myself.  I'm not born in a condo and bound to the rules for life unless I
leave it.

And regarding the restaurant analogy:  Bzzzzzt!  Sorry, but thanks for playing
our game...   I *choose* to enter a restaurant.  I didn't *choose* to be born
in the USA.  And "packing up and moving" isn't a viable option for most people.
There is no reason, from a human rights standpoint, that I should either accept
coercive laws or leave.  Leaving a restaurant is simple, uncomplicated and not
an undue burden on the people.  Being forced to leave the country is.

Tell all this to the Indians who were here before our nation's founders were.
They were here first and already on the land--should they have to conform too?
What if 51% of the nation hates Indians?  Still fair?  Should the Indians
still be forced to get the hell out if they don't like it?

One last point:  Sixteen- and 17-year-olds must pay taxes and live by all of
our laws, but they are *not* free to pack up and leave (without their parents).
They also can't vote.  Did I--at 16--consent to the income tax even if I
can't "leave if I don't like it?"  Even if I can't vote?  I await your reply
on this one...

>(I'm going to be so glad not to have to explain this over and over once my
>FAQ is completed.)

I'm sure it will be an objective and insightful FAQ.  Really.  No, *really*.


Tim Irvin
*****************************************************************************
"In a free government the security for civil rights must be the same as that
for religious rights." -- James Madison, Federalist #51