From: cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok)
Subject: Re: Taxation as Theft (was Re: Negative Income Tax)
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 17:17:03 GMT

In article <1993Jan6.082402.2194@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca> golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
>...the least offensive principle is that of popular sovereignty which
>require a guarenteed right of EVERY individual to a vote free of
>physical or mental distress.

well, i place the right to freedom above the right to vote, because
a democratic system which does not guarantee freedom is *nothing*.
you want to live in a world based on inconsistent rights? fine. i give up.
you're free to have your opinion.
how about this: the USSR had regular elections. coerced, of course.
but then you are willing to tolerate coercion of a different form to
guarantee *your* version of "democracy".

>>without such a body, society degenerates into gang warfare. disputes
>>are settled by whoever has the biggest gun. anatagonists who can't
>>think straight take the law into their own hands (have you seen what
>>even people who *love* each other do to each other?) 
>>
>
>Which makes that right of EVERY individual to a vote free of physical
>and mental duress an awfully important right.

nope. they do have that right. as long as they don't shirk their
basic responsibility to care for themselves, a duty *every*
creature on this planet owes to itself, and which only socialists
disagree with.

what would happen if every person in Canada decided tomorrow that they
no longer would work because it was their right, in a "democratic"
society, to force the government to provide them with food and shelter
to guarantee their "right to vote", as you suggest? your idea is a 
perversion of the concept of individualism. and you have *never* been
able to show otherwise.

>>so i feel that there is some role for government in our lives. if you
>>don't, then you are an anarchist. i am not promoting anarchy; if you
>>want to continue the discussion as anarchism vs. objectivism, fine.
>>but objectivists believe in the existence of law, which protects 
>>individual rights based on an objective set of moral, consistent
>>principles, chief among these the principle of non-violation.
>>rights do limit freedoms. and the law is intended to enforce
>>those freedom limitations in a fair way.
>>
>
>But Objectivists never answer the question about how to construct
>a legitimate government...I would argue a reasonable examination
>of Objectivism suggests that the government would be of the propertied
>class, for the propertied class, and by the propertied class.
>I would argue that a reasonable analyis of Objectivism suggests
>that result of Objectivism would be voting weighted by the amount
>of property, and not voting weighted by the equality of individuals.

this is again, totally inconsistent with the concepts of objectivism.
if you want to use the word "argue" - then "argue". you haven't argued
anything -- just made more baseless claims, this time with the clause
"i would argue that" put in front of them.

>>i see your point but i disagree. what i am doing is ensuring
>>a society based upon the principle of non-violation.
>
>Notice the Objectivist redefinition of liberty as a more limited

your use of the word "redefinition" implies that there is something
God-given about *your* definition of it. i am prepared to back up
the consistency of my definition, as i have. are you? if so --
go ahead.

>principle of non-violation...i.e. liberty is protected property
>and not much more,

what a joke. *you* claim to understand objectivism and then make
that statement, which is like the 20th sentence i have seen from you
which flies in the face of the most *basic* objectivist concepts?

your comment is nothing more than the oozing out of repressed
collectivist intent.

>and certainly not the right of every individual
>to a right to vote in the formation of the government, the only
>body empowered to tax and to use force.

nonsense. again, everyone has a right to vote. if they choose not
to by being negligent with their own lives, they should have no more
recourse than a driver who doesn't have the discipline to save to
buy a car, or who cannot be insured because of irresponsible driving.
next thing, you'll be putting people in jail for refusing to vote,
or into institutions because they "must be mentally diseased if they
don't want to vote." or you will *force* people to vote. and you
call *me* a fundamentalist. :^)

you have *never* proven this extension of the right to vote.
you *demand* it a lot, but you have never *proven* its validity.
you also cannot reconcile its INHERENT incompatibility with a society
based upon individualism. because individualism includes RESPONSIBILITY
with RIGHTS.

>>a society with no government at all is not consistent with a society
>>which respects individual rights; because individual interpretation
>>of objective law leads to subjective law. non-violation is the
>>principle behind the right to life and liberty. and the "right
>>to basic needs" is not consistent with the principle of non-violation.
>>
>
>A society where an individual does not have an equal vote in the
>formation of the government is not at all consistent with a society
>that respects individual rights...because objective law becomes
>the subjective law of the propertied class.

prove it!

prove that objectivist principles are not consistent
with individual representation in government. and btw, "those with
money will buy off the politicians" is not a valid argument --
because unions of people without tons of money, but with large blocks of votes
can be just as effective. we call them "special interest groups".

(note also that Gerald is mixing his arguments here. we have
been discussing whether the government has the right to provide for
those in need to guarantee the right to vote. at best this would "guarantee"
that every person was able to vote. EVEN IF this was allowed,
the question of "who really controls the politicians" would still be
there. unless Gerald thinks that under his version of democracy there
would be no rich people or SIGs. in which case he has a lot of explaining
to do.)

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