From: cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok)
Subject: Re: Negative Income Tax (Was: Social programs)
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 22:58:19 GMT

i have tried to cut down the length of the articles in this discussion... :^)

In article <1993Jan2.095125.14827@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca> golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
>In article <1993Jan1.184557.16928@athena.mit.edu> cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok) writes:
>>In article <1993Jan1.015700.9317@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca> golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
>>wrong. you still don't understand what a *right* is. saying that because
>>you have the right to vote i have to "act so that you have the capability
>>to vote" is like saying that because you have the right to drive, i have to
>>"act so that you have the capability to drive", i.e. buy you a car. there
>>is no difference. the extrapolation from the *right* to something to the
>>*obligation* to be provided with it is a logical fallacy you continue
>>to demand without justification.
>>
>
>The right to vote requires some minimal state action to protect the
>capability of every individual to exercise that right, just as the
>right to property requires state action (i.e. courts and police) so
>every individual is capable to exercise their right to property.
>
>Why do you consider taxation by the state (via courts and police)
>legitimate and not theft when it is for the purpose of protecting
>every individual's right to property, but you consider it theft when
>the state taxes minimally for the purpose of protecting every
>individual's right to vote?

i have already explained *many* times the difference between protecting
the right to something and forcing others to provide you with it.
you may not like it, but there is a difference. i'm not going to
keep repeating my arguments over and over.

>But you are forcing me to pay taxes to pay for the courts and police
>to protect your property...

duh. they protect *your* property as well.
and protection of property is more fundamental because it is akin
to protection of freedom, i.e. protection of your right to your body.

>you say that is not theft...yet you consider
>a minimal level of taxation to insure that every individual can exercise
>their right to vote theft.  Why is your property more important than
>a fair election, since it is okay for the state to tax to protect your
>property, but not to protect the integrity of the election?

you cannot justify violation of the right to freedom on the basis
of protecting the right to vote when the right to vote is not in
jeopardy. again, i explained the difference already.
i simply don't have the energy to keep repeating it.

>>objectivists believe in individual rights, not just individual *economic*
>>rights. your silly "right to food" violates more than just individual
>>*economic* rights: it violates individual *freedom* rights. and *economic*
>>rights are based upon *freedom* rights. if you can't comprehend this,
>>it is no wonder you claim to understand objectivists but instead spew
>>incorrect, cliche, anti-objectivist propaganda.
>
>I have never asserted that there is a "right to food"...I have only
>asserted that there is a "right to vote".  

no, you merely allow it as an inconsistent means to your end. that is
intellectually dishonest. if you need a "right to food" to satisfy
your warped definition of "right to vote", then you are asserting
that the right to food exists.

>You have never answered this question simply...
>is the "right to vote" just as important as the "right to free speech"
>and the "right to property"...yes or no?

i *have* answered clearly: the *legitimate* concept of the right
to vote is just as important, and is consistent. the bastardization you are
promoting is not consistent and not as important. i have explained the
difference numerous times and i know that at least some other people know what i
mean, even if they may not agree. i don't know what more i can do
to communicate this. clearly having your way is more important to you
than being self-consistent.

>>you're just repeating yourself *yet again* without explanation for
>>your mutually inconsistent set of "rights" (really *wants*). you can
>>assert whatever you want -- but if your assertions are contradictory,
>>your system is nonsensical. this is becoming futile.
>>
>
>Which right don't you agree with...the right to free expression,
>the right to life, the right to property, the right to vote...I have
>not asserted or discussed any other rights except these four in
>our discussion.  Which one troubles you?

the "right" of the government to violate my right to freedom
by taking the proceeds of my work to give to someone else. the right
to vote does mean that you are guaranteed that under no circumstances
will you not be able to vote. to exercise the right, you must do your
share.

>Socialists don't believe in individual rights...I am asserting that 
>a whole bunch of individual rights exist...the right to free expression,
>the right to life, the right to property (not any socialist I know
>advocates the right to property), and the right to vote.  I would
>argue that socialist disavow these individual rights totally.
>
>Which one of these individual rights which I advocate troubles you?

the "right" of one individual to force another to work for him,
under the guise of the "right to vote", and while violating the right
to freedom.

remember, i never claimed you were a socialist. i only claimed that
your "rights" were inconsistent, and your tolerance of a socialist
policy as a means to your end was unacceptable. if you continue
to advocate socialist policies after it has been made *clear* that
they are socialist, then you are one, your protests notwithstanding.

>Most fundamentalists, including Objectivists, are hostile to democracy...
>this is nothing new.

i hate it to come to this, but you are a hypocrite. to say this after
reading my last few posts, where i have taken great pains to show that
all philosophies are based on fundamentals, and after you have admitted
that so is yours, shows you are totally brainwashed against objectivism
and have *no* interest in understanding it. so wallow in your ignorance --
i have bigger fish to fry.

you keep repeating, practically word-for-word, wholly unsubstantiated
and inaccurate propaganda about objectivism.  well, that's your right.
but don't expect me to believe it. and don't expect anyone who's still
following this to believe it either. because it's my reason against
your conjecture.

>They are unable to accept that every individual must have the right
>to vote, and to express freely by that vote, a political opinion.

(yawn)
this is a bold-faced lie.

>>you also haven't told me *why* you believe in democracy, when you
>>are unwilling to claim that it is based on any axioms. you also
>>haven't told me why you are entitled to a "spectrum of rights"
>>which are conflictory and nonsensical. it is just an unrealistic,
>>unjustifiable, unreconciliable wishlist. but of course it's much
>>easier to demand it than it is to accept you can't have everything.
>>when objectivists prioritize rights, they are doing exactly that.
>>you don't want to -- you want to have your cake and eat it too, so you
>>just insist on that and ignore the implications. as such, your concept
>>is not based upon reason and is not worthy of respect from any who
>>consider man to be a rational being deserving of a rational system.
>>
>
>Read above what I put in a previous post...I asserted that the organizing 
>principle for democracy is popular sovereignty and describe what
>this means.  (It is only a couple of paragraphs back.)

you're full of crap. you *still* refuse to deal with the contradictions
in your "rights". you agree that choices must be made between rights,
but you *still* want your "spectrum". you *still* can't understand that a
"principle" is the same as a fundamental. do you own a bloody dictionary?
look up the two words!

>I have backed up my rhetoric sufficiently by drawing sufficient
>distinctions to convince a non-fundamentalist
>who is capable of independent thought...there is no way to convince
>a fundamentalist, which is what an Objectivist is, that they are wrong.

pure rhetoric. ignorance beyond description, Mr. "i have a principle,
but you are a fundamentalist".

>The right to property is a meaningless concept if an individual is
>not capable of enjoying their property.

who gives you the right to a *guarantee* to enjoy something?
more non-socialist philosophy here?

>The right to vote is a
>meaningless concept if an individual is not capable of exercising
>that right...in both instances, it is perfectly justifiable for
>the state to act so the rights of the individual are protected and
>are able to be exercised.  There is no difference between taxing and
>spending for a few courts or for a little food to protect both of
>these fundamental rights.

your bluster is the only justification you have provided for your
claim. i have provided many explanations and counter-examples
to prove my point in the matter.

>The right does not exist unless one is able to exercise that right.
>The right to property is meaningless if there are not courts and police
>funded by the state through taxation to guarentee that every individual
>is able to enjoy their property.  The right to vote is meaningless,
>unless every individual is assured the capability to vote...to exercise
>the right positively.

you *must* be intentionally pretending that you don't understand the
difference between a right to something, and forcing others to hand
you anything you wish on a silver platter. otherwise you would not be
afraid to explain to me why there is no difference. you explain nothing --
you merely repeat your rhetoric.

>The right to vote means that every individual must be able to exercise
>that right if they so choose, just as the right to property means that
>an individual must be able to enjoy their property, or else there would
>be no need for courts or police.

no, based on your definition, since i have the right to drive, you must
provide me with a car. i have the right to free speech, so you must
pay for my education, pay for translation services from my original
language, and pay for a medium for me to speak in. i have the right
to own a house, so you must buy me one. after all, if i don't have
a house, i "can't exercise my right", correct?
so are you now arguing that because we have the right to own
property, the government must provide us with property?
this is utter nonsense.

>>the right to property is a subset of the right to freedom, which is a
>>right preventing others from doing something *to* you. this includes
>>preventing others from removing your access to a voting booth, or from
>>not counting your vote. that is paramount to objectivism.
>
>Strange that you define "freedom" or "liberty" negatively, in the
>actions of others...

if you find this strange, you don't understand THING ONE about
objectivism, mr. propaganda!

>>you can't have your cake and eat it too, no matter how much you want it!
>>and if after reading all that i have written, including this post,
>>you still don't understand the difference between the right to property
>>and the super-set right to freedom, or the difference between the right
>>to not have something done *to* you and the "right" to have something
>>done *for* you, or the difference between a consistent, coherent set
>>of rights and a hodge-podge "spectrum" selected for convenience,
>>you not only don't know anything about objectivism,
>>you don't *want* to know anything about it.
>>
>
>You limite liberty by a negative definition of liberty...liberty 
>is what you are able to do...not what others are not able to do to you.
>Are you a rock, that you don't want the liberty to do things?
>The right to vote demands a positive definition of liberty...it
>is something that an individual does, not something that someone
>else may or may not do to the individual.

you claim to understand Rand's philosophy, but you have proven by your
statements that you do not. if you want an answer to that question,
read "Man's Rights" by Rand. it can be found in the paperback
entitled "The Virtue of Selfishness". until then, spare me the
prosyletizing about the evils of objectivism, about which you understand
*very* little.

>>i have repeated and repeated my *arguments* and *explanations*. you ignore
>>them and repeat and repeat *unjustified claims* and *rhetoric*. using
>>the word "faith" when referring to objectivism flies in the face of
>>the obvious reason-based nature of objectivism. in the meantime, you
>>have never justified *anything* that you believe in as other than faith.
>>
>
>I assert the principle of popular sovereignty, and the methodology
>of democracy which flows from this single principle.  There is no ideology
>to justify, because I am not advocating one, other than the principle of
>popular sovereignty. 

ok, since you obviously don't own a dictionary, or refuse to use one,
i'll waste yet more of my time and use mine for you.

   principle. n. 1. A basic truth, law, or assumption

evidently you feel that you have the right to have principles but
objectivists do not. i don't like people who have a double
standard.

>You can hold whatever belief system or ideology
>you want, as long as the principle of popular sovereignty and the
>resulting democracy is respected.

why do you believe in it? where does this principle come from?
and don't just quote me a lot of names. why do they believe in it?
and how is this any different than we "fundamentalist" objectivists
having principles, or axioms, that we believe in?

>>and by the way, the occasional clash of rights in very special 
>>circumstances, which is the example you provide, is not the same thing
>>as rights which are inherently and completely inconsistent, such as
>>the right to freedom and "the right to basic needs".
>>
>
>I haven't asserted "a right to basic needs"...I have asserted only
>the "right to vote".

yes you have. follow my logic:
because you have said that the "right to vote" is
paramount, and that fulfilling basic needs is required to guarantee
this paramount right. this means you are in support of a de facto
"right to basic needs". how you got there, or why you got there,
is irrelevant. care to tell me how i am wrong? use logic
please; i've seen enough rhetoric.

>Objectivists have no problem with courts and police which force
>taxeson all citizens so individuals can enjoy their property.
>Why don't Objectivists express similar concern about the ability of
>all individuals to exercise their right to vote?

already explained above.
since you refused to answer it, i repeat from my earlier post:
  is *forcing* all of society, through their taxes,
  to work for the benefit of one who will not, a socialist position?
  the *best* you can do is argue that you are willing to accept this because
  it is necessary to support your warped concept of the right to vote.

>>you have also conveniently deleted the question of the employers.
>>them you *will* have to force. but then socialists have no problem doing
>>that to *employers*, whom they view as inherently evil.
>>(note that regardless of whether your position on "the right to
>>vote" is socialist, "workfare" *definitely* is. why you, a self-
>>proclaimed "non-socialist", are defending it, is absolutely beyond me.
>>maybe just more of the cake-existing-and-eating you demostrate
>>elsewhere.)
>>
>
>Socialists don't believe in the right to vote because they don't
>believe in popular sovereignty.  For socialists, voting is a privilege
>which may be granted by the state and not a right of the individual.

you totally avoided my question. i asked you to address an issue,
called workfare, which is inherently socialist in nature and which
you support. you ignored this and spouted more rhetoric which sounds
like it is right out of a book. if you refuse to use your brain,
and instead bombard me with platitudes, this discussion is over.

>>>I will fight for what I believe in through the methodology of democracy.
>>>My particular beliefs, other than that societies should be structured
>>>on the basis of the sovereignty of the individual...i.e. democracy
>>>and individual rights, are irrelevant.  I assert one principle...
>>>that of popular sovereignty.
>>
>>a principle is the same as a rule or an axiom.
>>so your philosophy is no less "fundamentalist" than objectivism.
>>which of course i knew already, because *all* philosophies are based
>>on axioms. 
>
>But what I advocate is a methodology based on a single axiom, where the
>relevance or truth or falsity of the axiom can be debated and
>a concensus arrived.

what hypocrisy. a few pages back you claimed that objectivism was
"fundamentalism" and your philosophy wasn't!

now you admit that your philosophy is based on axioms, as is objectivism.
so by what standard do you attempt to criticize
objectivism for having axioms? even in the same post wherein you wrote
the immediately above?

>As for the axiom that I have chosen, it
>really does not matter whether it is true or false, but whether
>it is useful, since it is the basis of a methodology, not an
>ideology.

it matters to me!
who the hell gets to define what "useful" means? i could argue
that a society based upon the axiom "all persons owe allegiance
to Charles M. Kozierok" is very useful. an exaggeration of course,
but one that demonstrates the importance of axioms which are *right*,
not merely "useful".

>Democracy is advocated not because it is right or wrong,
>although it can be considered on that basis, but primarily on whether
>it is useful...its "correctness" is primarily determined by how
>successful or useful or profitable the system is...the key to
>the methodology of democracy is that it is a self-justifying
>methodology if it is adhered too.

who gets to make all these wonderful decisions? you? why?

>A right is only a right if every individual is able to
>exercise that right, and the role of the state is to act so every
>individual can exercise their rights, including the right to property
>and the right to vote.

OK, then i guess the government should start work on my lakeside
mansion. because i have a right to own it. through no fault
of my own, i am being denied my right to own it, because it hasn't yet
been built.
therefore the state MUST act to ensure that i can exercise my
right to own a lakeside mansion. throw in a car, too -- i want
to exercise my right to drive, which is being denied me through
no fault of my own. i also have a right to religion, so build
me a church. i have a right to speak any language i want, so
i expect free language lessons as well. i expect a grant from the
NEA so i can exercise my right to free expression.
and build me a radio station so i can exercise my right to free speech.

get the point yet? everyone else has.

>>*how* to make these decisions is a valid philosophical topic. but
>>this discussion started out with you claiming that there was something
>>evil about objectivism because it prioritized rights when you wanted
>>a "full spectrum of rights". both i and *you* have shown that decisions
>>about the priority of rights must be made. in so doing, you have
>>shown that your concept of "rights" may not be as valid as you originally
>>thought, and you have refuted one of your main arguments against
>>objectivism. maybe it's time to drop the tired cliches and learn what
>>objectivism is really about.
>
>The decisions between rights to not involve creating a hierarchy,
>but line-drawing in the full spectrum of rights which overlap,

word games!
this is really rich. until i forced you to address this issue,
you didn't even look at the conflict between rights. now you claim
that you have no hierarchy when it is obvious that you do.

so tell me: if you have no hierarchy of rights, why are you willing
to bend over backwards to guarantee the right to vote? seriously!
you are willing to make me work for others against my will,
for the sake of the incredibly rare person who is "so hungry" he can't
walk into a polling station? even though i work hard and he doesn't
deserve to benefit from my work?
and *this* you don't call prioritization?

you have maintained all along that the right to vote was at the
top of your priority list. you won't allow it be limited, even if it
means enslavement to protect it; even if it means setting up a society
that values dependency and need over independence and production; even
if it means that the 99.99% of people who guarantee their right to
vote by taking good enough care of thenselves to make it to the poll
(which isn't too bloody much to ask),
have to have their right to freedom violated for the sake of
the .01%; even if it means instituting socialist policies with which
you claim to disagree!

so don't tell me any more about your
idiotic "spectrum of rights", and about how you don't prioritize them.
you may not have before, but that's only because you were ignoring
the issue by pretending it didn't exist.

--
charles