From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: Negative Income Tax (Was: Social programs)
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 07:25:45 GMT

In article <1992Dec31.024729.25383@athena.mit.edu> cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok) writes:
>In article <1992Dec30.215954.8733@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca> golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
>
>>A person does not lose their right to life just because they are
>>stupid...
>
>no, a person loses their right to freedom because they are *not* stupid, right?
>and the stupider they are, the more i have to be enslaved to provide them
>with goods or jobs for them to squander, right? sounds a lot like
>"from each according to his ability to each according to his need".
>

I have expressly not enunciated a right to basic needs...but only
what is required for individual political rights to be satisfied,
just as courts and police are legitimately required to insure and
protect other individual rights.  Objectivists are just not democrats.
But from an Objectivist point-of-view, democracy is not necessary,
because like any fundamentalist ideology, which is what Objectivism
is, freedom is necessity.

Pure, unadulterated capitalism is not compatible with democracy,
although it is orders of magnitude closer to compatibility with
democracy than socialism.

>>neither should they lose their right to a free vote, because
>>they fail so badly in the market system that they are unable to meet
>>their most basic needs and thus be able to exercise free independent
>>will.
>
>this is total bull. with freedom (democracy) comes responsibility. now
>you *are* talking like a socialist. you are still a person, you still
>have to feed, shelter and clothe yourself, as have all humans from the
>dawn of time. this "right to basic needs" crap is a recent invention
>that has never been justified other than a mob screaming "i want someone
>else to figure out how to take care of me".
>

Objectivists have no problem with courts and police as legitimate
activities of the state, because they believe absolutely in economic
rights, and courts and police are necessary to protect the integrity
of these rights.  Objectivists, however, are not democrats, because
they do not believe that the state may act in a limited way to
protect the integrity of the democratic political rights of every
citizen.  Courts and police require the state to raise some form
of taxation to finance these activities, and Objectivists do not
consider this theft...however, when it comes to protecting the
integrity the the political rights of the individual, i.e. 
the integrity of democracy, Objectivists consider any taxation
by the state to serve this function as theft.

Objectivists are NOT democrats.

>>>ok, you are not an objectivist :^)
>>>seriously though, you are wrong about at what grail objectivists worship.
>>>objectivists hold all individual rights paramount. you only hear
>>>so much about economic rights because those are the ones the government
>>>keeps coming after. objectivists don't look at economic rights as 
>>>an end unto themselves, but rather as the fruit of productive capacity,
>>>and as such an extension of all individual rights.
>>>
>>
>>That is what they claim...but their claim is false, because they make
>>false assumptions about the nature of the human animal.  Objectivists
>>have such a limited conception of the nature of a human being, that
>>what they claim and believe about their incomplete set of axioms,
>>become just another false fundamentalist ideology, where the overlap
>>between what they believe and reality is very small.
>
>oh, this is just *too* much.
>socialists invented the doctrine of subjugation of the strong to the weak
>(such concepts as "the right to 'basic needs'"). tell me how consistent
>*that* is with nature. tell me how consistent it is with a capitalist
>system. tell me about the axioms that lead to theft from the industrious
>and payment to the lazy, incompetent or foolish.
>

I think socialism is evil.  I do not advocate socialism.  I advocate
democracy, and the foundation of democracy are the political rights
of the individual, which are as important as any other rights of
the individual such as freedom of expression, and the right to property.

>>
>>As always there is an exception, which proves the rule.  Human beings
>>are not just logical intellects, but biological animals, and as a
>>result, if one believes in individual political rights, namely popular
>>sovereignty and the right to vote, the belief in democracy and in these
>>individual political rights constrain individual economic rights,
>>because the logical intellect cannot function freely if minimal
>>biological needs are not met.
>
>as i said, with rights come responsibility. if you require food, it
>is your responsibility to earn it. you can have a right that protects
>what you have earned from being stolen, but you cannot have a right
>that gives you something you have not earned. *that* is a law consistent
>with man as a rational biological animal. your theory is consistent
>with man as a parasite.
>

Political rights are of a different character than economic rights.
Democracy does impose a minimal obligation upon the individual...
and does put some constraints on individual economic rights.
As I have said, Objectivism is not a democratic philosophy.

>>Democracy puts some constraints on
>>markets; the political rights of the individual put some limits on
>>the economic rights of the individual.  I know Objectivists and
>>libertarians do not believe this, but they are wrong...and they
>>are wrong not because of failed logic but because of false assumptions
>>about human nature.
>
>your theories about need-based societies have already been proven
>wrong in many countries. political rights include the right to vote.
>they do not include any right, such as the "right to basic needs" (which
>is subjective as all hell anyway) which violate more *fundamental*
>rights, such as the right to freedom.
>

For an Objectivist, the right to property is more fundamental than
the right to vote...and this is why Objectivism is ultimately 
undemocratic.  Objectivism is less offensive than socialism,
but it is offensive none-the-less.

>>>however, you cannot have a right which poses a "proactive" restriction
>>>on others. you cannot say that you have a right to food, because that means
>>>someone else has to provide that food. and if i am that person, i work to
>>>make or earn that food. thus, you are de facto enslaving me -- making me
>>>work so you can reap the reward. *all* "rights" of that nature end up
>>>the same way, including such things as "the right to work" (who must
>>>be forced to provide you with a job, and why?)
>>>
>>
>>Democracy and individual political rights are the exception to this.
>
>nothing can violate the central concept that a right
>can only exist if it does not contradict the rights of others.  you
>conveniently except those two because they fit your agenda.
>

And you prove my point that an Objectivist believes that the right to
property is more fundamental than the right to vote.  Neither
Objectivists nor socialists believe that individual political rights
such as the right to vote are fundamental individual rights...of course,
socialists really don't believe that individual rights exist at all.

>>>>Government is allowed to create courts and police forces to protect
>>>>the rule of law, and individual liberty against lawbreakers.  Legitimate
>>>>government also requires that every individual is allowed the right
>>>>to vote freely...which requires a minimal social safety net to guarentee
>>>>these political rights, just as courts and police are required to 
>>>>guarentee other individual rights.  Taxes raised for these limited
>>>>purposes are not theft.
>>>
>>>then get rid of 99% of the safety net. because 1% is all that is required
>>>to ensure that everyone who is hungry has enough food to make it to the
>>>polling booth. even that i don't think is the government's (read: the
>>>taxpayers') responsibility; but certainly more is not. certainly $15,000
>>>a year is not.
>>>
>>
>>But then you accept my argument, because the 1% is all I need to
>>demonstrate that Objectivists and libertarians are wrong.  I fully
>>agree that our governments do many things that they have no right to
>>do that all, but belief in democracy and individual liberty does
>>justifies some types of social safety nets, carefully constructed
>>so as to minimize the imposition on the economic rights of individuals.
>
>i may have been unclear. i would be willing to accept 1% as a practical
>compromise. i certainly would never accept the right of anyone to enslave
>me, even for 1 cent a year. my point was more that your kind of arguments
>are particularly dangerous because they start out with asking for
>"basic needs", which can be defined as just about anything, and can be
>expanded upon a whim. this is mainly a philosophical discussion, not
>a practical one.
>

No, I start out by asking the question what are the necessary conditions
for democracy, what are the necessary conditions that the rights of
individuals, and in particular, the political rights of the individual
are protected.  That, of course, is not a question a socialist or
an Objectivist asks.

>>There is no coercion involved...you offer the person a choice...workfare
>>via a guranteed annual income...if they believe that they can fend for
>>themselves, you allow them that choice...if they fail to be able to
>>take care of themselves, then they obviously have to be
>>institutionalized and brought to the point where they are capable
>>of being offered the choice again.
>
>oh no, there is no coercion. i repeat: what happens to the person
>who says "no"? you're going to put him in a mental institution?
>and who gets to make these decisions about who can fend for themselves?
>sounds like a wonderful police state. send me a postcard.
>

Society should offer a choice of a combined
workfare/guarenteed-annual-income...people are entitled to refuse that
choice and fend for themselves.   It is always a complex
medical/judicial decision when a person is incapacitated, and
when society is allowed to intervene, but there are always 
complex decisions...which are the reason we have legislatures and
courts to decide where lines are drawn in seas of grey.

>what about employers who don't want to hire these people? going to put
>them in an institution too? why not just have the government take over
>all business and allocate jobs? that would be *much* more "efficient",
>wouldn't it?
>can't you see where these kinds of ideas *lead*?
>

I have said nothing about forcing anyone to do anything...neither
employers or potential employees.  Employers should be free to hire
whom they want to hire...I have only said that if employment is
available, people should be required to work as a condition of
receiving a GAI.

>>>
>>>then you are a utopian, which is in same ways worse than either. you
>>>can't have "all of the above". you cannot have individual rights if they
>>>conflict with mine. you cannot have "economic" rights if they conflict
>>>with my "materialistic" rights. you cannot have "emotional" rights which
>>>conflict with my "logical" rights.
>>>
>>
>>I am not a utopian...my whole argument has been based on the position
>>that there are natural constraints on the absoluteness of any particular
>>individual right, because of limitations imposed by the full spectrum
>>of the individual rights of others.  
>
>your arguments are collective in nature. there can be no other description
>for an argument that suggests that some have the "right" to enslave others
>to provide them with their basic needs. if you have a "right" to food, for
>example, you *must* enslave someone to provide you with it. there is
>no other way. you want rights without consistency, without responsibility.
>

My argument is based on the assertion that individual political rights
exist and are as fundamental as any other individual right.

>>The difference between me and an Objectivist,
>>is that an Objectivist does not believe that the full spectrum of
>>individual rights legitimately can constrain individual economic
>>rights.
>
>no, the difference is that objectivists understand that you cannot
>have secondary rights if they violate primary rights. they also understand
>that rights come with responsibilities. they also don't allow "need" to
>cloud their judgment as to "right". heartless bastards, we.
>

The difference is that an Objectivist believes the right to property
is more fundamental than the right to vote.

>>Objectivists are utopian....because they are absolutist
>>when it comes to individual economic rights, compared to other
>>individual rights...they set up a hierarchy of individual rights,
>>and they are mostly not conscious of this hierarchy, because of
>>their limited conception of what a human being is.
>
>socialists use arguments like this to discredit the logical nature
>of objectivism, claiming some mysterious extra understanding of human
>nature that they are never able to properly define, that they trot
>out any time they need to justify the "rights violation du jour".
>

I am not a socialist...socialists basically deny that individual rights
exist at all.  I am a democrat...and assert that political rights are
as fundamental as any other individual rights.  Objectivists are NOT
democrats.

>>
>>Objectivists mostly don't like how I analyze them...they are entitled
>>to their opinion...I think I'm right.  Many Objectivists are essentially
>>fundamentalist in nature, in their rote acceptance of Randian axioms
>>and arguments...Objectivism practised by mainly is not unlike 
>>a fundamentalist religion, where there is a rulebook, and people
>>follow the rulebook...the fundamentalist credo is that freedom is
>>necessity...in the case of Objectivists, logical necessity...and
>>this is the flaw in all fundamentalist ideologies.
>
>ah, comparison to a religion. are you referring to your "How To Try To Fight
>An Objectivist" handbook? religions are based on faith. objectivism
>is based on reason. and rights have to based on fundamentals, otherwise
>they can be redefined by the emperor of the day. if there are no rules,
>what are there? how do you guide your life? if i don't rely on reason,
>what do i rely on? you to steal for me because it's my "right"?
>

Fundamentalist religions repeat by rote text as their "rules"...
Objectivists repeat by rote logical arguments based on flawed
axioms as their "rules".

I don't believe in rules, but advocate a methodology called democracy.
Democracy is a methodology for action which sets up a system for
limited government based on the the principal axiom of popular
sovereignty...that the individual is sovereign, and possesses a
full spectrum of protected rights. 

>btw, there is *no* argument more "fundamentalist religious" in nature than
>"you OWE me food, shelter, clothing, a job, and anything else i desire or
>define as 'basic', because i said so". who says you are entitled to these
>things? why? who provides them? why?
>

I have not made that argument.  The only argument I have made is
that political rights are as fundamental as any other individual rights.

>objectivists argue that man has the right to exploit his mind and
>his talent to his own ends, and to engage in free association with others,
>to the extent that he does not violate the rights of others.
>this is based on concepts of reason and self-preservation. what is your
>perversion based on?
>

To be a democrat, one must hold that the right to vote is as important
as the right to property.

>playing role reversal won't hide the essential nature of your position --
>it is far more "religious" than anything Rand ever wrote. and if
>fundamentalism (meaning adherence to a set of axioms) is wrong, what is
>right? adherence to a set of whims? by what standard do you judge my
>acceptance of Randian axioms as "rote"? simply because i agree with them?
>is it "rote" to believe in something consistent?
>sheesh.

Randian axioms are just another form of religious dogma.  I don't
question the subsequent logic, but one has to demonstrate that the
underlying axioms are true.

Democracy is a methodology...it is neither true nor false, but
a way of doing things whose utility can be judged on results.

Gerald
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,can.politics