From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: Negative Income Tax (Was: Social programs)
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 08:39:37 GMT

In article <1992Dec30.054600.15191@athena.mit.edu> cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok) writes:
>>
>>Markets can not do absolutely everything...for example, markets
>>are not democratic, and do not necessarily protect the fundamental
>>right of an individual to a vote of relatively equal value...
>
>how so?

In a pure absolute market system, there are not only winners but
losers...losers have other fundamental individual rights other than
individual economic rights which limit the individual economic rights
of others, as the right of the security of a person or a person's right to
life bounds freedom of expression when imminent danger exists.

>
>>legitimate government is limited by individual rights, and so
>>are markets.
>
>then the current government is not legitimate. because it violates
>my rights constantly.
>

I agree that current governments routinely step beyond what is the
legitimate function of the state.

>>A social safety net is essential to maintain the
>>fundamental political rights of the individual.
>
>that's what the politicians tell you. but what "rights" are these?
>what do you mean by this?
>

The fundamental political rights are those of popular sovereignty...
the right of a person to exercise a vote "freely" and "without
coercion"...a starving person cannot vote "freely" and "without
coersion", and thus is being denied their fundamental individual
political right to a vote.  A person who lacks the essentials to  
fulfill minimal basic human needs has their political rights denied.
These political rights are essential to a democracy...where they
are violated, democracy does not exist.

>>Democracy
>>does put constraints on absolutely free markets...which is
>>the other oversight Objectivists and pure libertarians tend to
>>make.
>
>well, i said that a *true* free market would maintain high utilization
>of labor. that is an unachievable utopia. so the utilization would not
>be ideal. but it would still be better than the socialist bastardization
>that exists now. which is an oversight that socialists/collectivists
>tend to make.
>

I pretty much agree with you...socialists totally deny a whole host
of individual rights, and deny that individual economic rights exist
all together.  I am not a socialist.  I advocate individual liberty,
democracy, which require relatively free markets and limited government.

But unlike Objectivists, who worship at the grail of individual economic
rights alone, individual liberty requires that the full spectrum of
individual rights be respected, and the full spectrum of individual
rights from free expression and belief, to the right to vote, to the
right to work and to own property all pose limits on each other.

>>
>>Individual have fundamental rights...and those include fundamental
>>political rights, which can really only be exercised freely when
>>at least the minimum of basic human needs is filled.
>
>what rights are these? who has a right to have their basic needs fulfilled?
>that's why you have two hands and a strong back. if you want to argue
>for alms for the disabled, that's a different story, perhaps. but don't
>tell me anyone has a right to have his or her needs fulfilled when you
>are going to steal from me to fulfill them.
>

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.

>so what is a "fundamental political right"?
>
>>A starving
>>human being has been deprived of their right to vote "freely".
>
>that's ridiculous. what does one have to do with the other?
>the level of starvation necessary to cause someone to be "too weak
>to mark an X on his ballot" would not happen in any society where people
>cared about each other, even if they cared about each other without
>governmental Robin Hoods running the show. food and ballots have nothing
>to do with each other.
>

But they do when a person is dying of starvation...just as fighting
words in front of a mob on the edge of a riot has something to do
with the right to life and freedom of expression.

>besides, we're talking about an *enormous* safety net here -- the current
>one does far more than just give its recipients bread. and *still* there are
>those who are hungry.
>

I agree that much of what government does is not legitimate, but the
notion of a limited social-safety net follows from basic notions of
individual liberty...there are severe restrictions however on the
type of social-safety nets which are compatible with individual
liberty...many are not.

>>>
>>>you assume that they are not inextricably linked due to the nature
>>>of the "safety net". it has to do with incentives and motivation.
>>>are there any safety nets out there that *haven't* turned into what you
>>>describe? if so, how come none of ours haven't?
>>>
>>
>>Ours were designed by socialists...not by people committed to the
>>protection of individual rights.
>
>the idea of a "negative income tax" was also. so why should it be
>any different. what kind of safety net can exist that does not violate
>individual rights?
>

Courts and police forces require some minimal level of taxation also.
Some minimal level of taxation is also required to insure the political
rights of the individual.  Individual political rights do put some
constraints on individual economic rights.

>who are these "people committed to the protection of individual rights"?

I hope they are most of my "neighbors", but I know most of my neighbors
don't consider the crucial issues of individual liberty and democracy
on a regular basis. 

>
>that must be the "mother of all non sequiturs"...
>i ask you to tell me why either social net is good and you conclude
>that i am not in favor of democracy? why? what definition of
>democracy are *you* using? and what are these mysterious political rights?
>

Political rights are not mysterious...an individual has a right to
exercise a meaningful vote "freely", and that vote must be 
relatively equal in weight to the vote of any other individual
...a very simple idea.

>
>then why exacerbate the situation? you are in effect admitting that
>these safety nets encourage people not to work. how can they be
>justified if they produce this result? as i said, why choose between
>poisons?
>

Welfare encourages people not to work when they are made a more
attractive alternative to work...this need not be so at all.

>>>do you think a company is going to pay people $20,000 to
>>>unskilled labor to lure them away from the "competition", i.e.
>>>the government paying them to stay home?
>>
>>With a guarenteed annual income, there is no need for minimum wage
>>laws...companies need only pay labour what is required to make a
>>profit.
>
>ah, but you miss the point. before, business had to compete for
>labor -- with too low wages (benefits or whatever), it would have 
>trouble attracting personnel. it was a trade-off of compensation against
>job difficulty. with this "negative income tax" monstrosity, they have
>to compete against another "company" -- the government. and the government's
>job description is: "do nothing. pays $15,000 a year". so the companies
>trying to hire have to create a high enough differential between their
>salaries and the government's that they can attract labor. in essence,
>they have to say "the government will pay you $15K to watch TV. we want
>40 hours a week of hard work. so we have to pay you a lot more than $15K
>to get you to give up your cosy 'job'". this creates a de facto
>minimum wage which would probably be at least $20,000, and probably more
>(would you take a job flipping burgers at 11 pm for $20,000 over a 'job'
>consistent of free time for $15,000? most people wouldn't).
>

You can require people to work if work is available.  If the job, pays
$5000 per year, then the person will receive only $10000 from the
government...but then we could add incentives...if the job paid
$5000, we could reduce the guarenteed supplement by only half
of the salary, which would mean the supplement would be $12500...
and the total income would be $17500.

With trial and error, we can design proper incentives which provide
a trampoline up the economic ladder for the losers in the market system.

>
>yeah right. then why isn't this being done now?
>i heard Metro Toronto chairman Alan Tonks on a radio show in TO one
>day this year. someone asked him exactly why welfare recipients
>weren't doing construction, providing day-care, or even crafting.
>his reply (paraphrased): "what? we can't *force* people to work
>against their will!" sure, but you can force those who do work
>to give the recipients welfare against the workers' will...
>there's protection of individual rights for you.
>

Even Bill Clinton talks about requiring welfare recipients to
work or to take jobs.

Well, we can provide the persons welfare cheque or guarenteed 
income supplement through their employer.  My notion of a
guarenteed annual income is a notion of workfare...not welfare.

The concept of welfare as we have come to know it is on its way
out...slowly but surely...the global economy will hasten its demise.
The notion of welfare will soon be an artifact of the Western
World in the post-war economic boom.  It is a failed idea.

>also, think about how efficient the government would be at organizing
>and enforcing this "forced labor". i can just imagine.
>they have such a wonderful track record.
>

The fight against bureaucratic inefficiency and waste is neverending...
I don't disagree with you on this point...workfare is not force labor.

>>The socialists who designed the programs, and people of your ilk, i.e.
>>Objectivists and libertarians, aren't motivated by the principles of
>>individual rights and democracy.
>
>since you know it all, what *are* we motivated by?

Objectivists basically believe in a hierarchy of individual rights,
where individual economic rights are supreme and absolute and unbounded,
even by other individual rights.  For an objectivist, the right to
property, for example, prevails over any other individual right where
they conflict.  An Objectivist sees no conflict in this, since their
concept of a human being is that a human being is a logical material
automaton who sole function is to manipulate their property.  Freedom
and liberty is logical necessity.  

There are hardly any individual rights which socialists believe in and
they deny individual economic rights such as the right to work and
the right to property exist at all.

>and if you are neither a objectivist/libertarian nor a socialist,
>what exactly are you? and again, how are the same socialists who designed
>the other programs which you practically admit are failures going
>to make anything better with *more* programs?
>

I am an advocate for individual liberty and democracy, in the full
spectrum of human activity, materialistic, political, economic,
artistic, logical, intellectual, emotional, and spiritual.  A human
being is more than a mere logical intellect, as Objectivists would
have us believe, or a mere materialistic animal as socialists would have
us believe.  

Gerald