From: cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok)
Subject: Re: Negative Income Tax (Was: Social programs)
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 02:47:29 GMT

In article <1992Dec30.215954.8733@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca> golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
>In article <1992Dec30.164025.7278@athena.mit.edu> cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec30.083937.23926@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca> golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
>>>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"
>>
>>you have made it clear that you feel that way, but you still haven't
>>told me *why*.
>>
>
>A person whose most basic human needs are not being met cannot exercise
>free will.

no-one has the right to exact their needs from me. and if we are
talking about "free will" -- that is something you earn as a responsible
person. if you are talking just about a vote, that can be done by anyone
with enough power to propel themselves into voting booth. spare me.

>>>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 is the right to have your voice heard. you are still responsible
>>for taking care of yourself. if you are unable to work enough to enable
>>yourself to get enough food to enable yourself to walk into a polling station
>>and mark an X on a ballot, you are shirking *your* responsibility in the
>>democratic process. with every right comes a responsibility.
>>
>
>In a free market system, some people are losers through no fault of
>their own...that is just the nature of the market system.  They try hard
>and just fail.

yeah right. what percentage are they, and what percentage are the entrenched
abusers of the system? they are inextricably linked in a system of dependency.
and why is it my responsibility to take care of them?
because you said so? if you want to take care of them, go ahead. it just
so happens that i personally do as well. but i have no right to tell someone
else who doesn't, that they must. 

>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".

>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".

>I think I understand very well what Objectivists and libertarians
>stand for.

not.

>>>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.
>>
>>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.

>>your argument is not consistent. because some of the "rights" you
>>would give others are not rights at all. a right can only be granted
>>if it imposes only a "negative" restriction on others. this means
>>you can give someone a right which requires that others *not* do something,
>>i.e. you have the right to live, so i cannot kill you. you have the right
>>to free speech, so i cannot shut you up.
>>
>
>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.

>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.

>>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.

>>>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.

>>>The fight against bureaucratic inefficiency and waste is neverending...
>>>I don't disagree with you on this point...workfare is not force labor.
>>
>>explain why it isn't. you are telling people who currently do nothing
>>and get money for it that they must work. what if they say no? will
>>you cut off their payments? will you come to their house with a gun?
>>what employer will hire such a person? will you come to his business
>>with a gun? you'd need one to get *me* to hire someone with so little
>>desire to work.
>>
>
>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.

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*?

>>>>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.  
>>
>>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.

>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.

>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".

>>you need to sit down and decide which of those things really are rights,
>>and which are simply "wants" or "needs". and you don't know as much
>>about objectivists as you thought. because aside from not being too
>>clear about what a "right" is, you are not far from one. certainly
>>closer than 90% of canadians i've talked to.
>>
>
>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"?

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?

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?

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.

--
charles
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,can.politics