From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: Negative Income Tax (Was: Social programs)
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 09:51:25 GMT

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:
>>
>>A starving homeless person with pneumonia cannot exactly make it to the
>>voter's booth...
>
>ah, you finally set up your straw man. you are arguing for a general
>set of overblown "social rights" for all, not for the few who are ill.
>
>>but such a person has the right to vote, and it is
>>a legitimate function of the state to act so that person has the capability
>>to vote
>
>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?

>>just as it is for the state to set up courts and police forces
>>to protect the right of property.
>
>i have already explained the difference between a right
>preventing something from being done *to* you and a "right" forcing
>others to do something *for* you. you simply prefer to ignore this
>and call me a fundamentalist. the more closed-minded you accuse me
>of being, the more obvious it becomes just who is not listening.
>

But you are forcing me to pay taxes to pay for the courts and police
to protect your property...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're just repeating yourself without further explanation or justification.
>>>objectivists believe strongly in democracy, but unlike you, believe you
>>>have to *work* to have a democratic society, not steal from others so it
>>>can be provided to you. they also don't believe you can set up a mess
>>>of conflicting "rights" that cloud what is really important and just.
>>>
>>
>>Well, in some sense, the purpose of my participation in this discussion
>>is to draw and elucidate distinctions, and with the crucial distinctions
>>drawn, anyone who has been following this discussion can draw their
>>own conclusions.
>>
>>You essentially make my point for me..."...(Objectivists) don't believe
>>you can set of a mess of conflicting 'rights' that cloud what is really
>>important and just."  That is exactly the point...Objectivists believe
>>the individual economic rights such as the right to property are the
>>most fundamental and important, and one should not cloud the issue
>>with considerations such as freedom of expression, and the right to
>>vote.  For an Objectivist, the state is only allowed to act to
>>protect individual economic rights...damn the others.
>
>now i think you are being intentionally stubborn...
>
>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".  

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?

>>
>>What I am advocating is NOT socialism...socialist believe that
>>individual rights to not exist, and in particular that individual
>>economic rights to not exist...I assert individual rights exists,
>>and that individual economic rights exist.
>
>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?

>>You make the typical Objectivist argument...if one is not an
>>Objectivist, then one must be a socialist, which is patently false.
>
>no, i make the argument that if you propose socialist policies, or allow
>them to be the means to your end, you are a socialist, at least in part.
>my *dictionary* also makes this "argument". trying to distract the
>issue by claiming that my argument is "typically objectivist" is a dishonest
>ruse.
>

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 organizing idea of an Objectivist is individual economic rights
>>such as the right to property and the right to work.
>
>(yawn)
>individual rights. not just individual *economic* rights.
>

Do you believe that the right to vote exists and is as fundamental
and equally important to the right to property?

>>The organizing
>>principle of a socialist is that individual rights, and particularly
>>individual economic rights do not exist.  The organizing principle
>>for a "democrat", which is what I advocate is popular sovereignty.
>>Objectivists accept the idea of popular sovereignty only so far,
>>so far as that an individual is entirely defined by their property,
>>and that is the only characteristic or right of an individual that
>>needs protection.  Popular sovereignty is kaleidoscopic idea...it
>>embrace the idea of a full spectrum of individual rights and 
>>political rights.
>
>you don't understand objectivism. at some point i will have to simply
>stop responding to you, because i refuse to conduct a conversation
>with someone who is a willing enemy of the truth.
>

Someone who knows the truth...i.e. we have discovered a fundamentalist
in Objectivist clothes.

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

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

>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.)

>>>gee, you sound like a fundamentalist... rote repetition of your points
>>>without justification...
>>
>>It is sufficient for my purposes to elucidate differences...
>
>translation: "yes, thank you for pointing that out, charles, and no,
>i don't have anything to back up my rhetoric".
>

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.

>
>you're going in circles. the right to vote does not demand that others
>provide you with the necessities of life. what next? the right to free
>speech means i have to provide you with a newspaper column? explain how
>that is any different from what you are demanding. the right to free
>expression means i have to provide you with an artistic grant?
>there are people who *do* argue for these things, and they are no different
>in principle from what you demand. they are just as inconsistent and
>unjustifiable.
>

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

>>
>>In simple terms, democracy means that one has the right to vote...an
>>Objectivist would argue that it is a legitimate function of the state
>>to guarentee that society must do whatever is necessary through the
>>via courts and police to protect the integrity of the individual right
>>to property...but then Objectivists argue that the state can do nothing
>>at all to protect the integrity of an individual's right to vote.
>
>protection of integrity is the protection from having something done *to*
>you, e.g. war, theft, enslavement, or other violation of individual rights.
>an objectivist would never argue that the state's job was to provide you
>with guaranteed property.
>

That is not what I said...an Objectivist argues that it is appropriate
and justified to tax and spend to protect an individual's right to
property...why is it not appropriate to do the same to protect an
individual's right to vote?

>similarly, the objectivist would argue that it is the state's job to ensure
>that no-one *prevents you* from voting. that is not the same thing
>as "providing every conceivable need to ensure that under any and all
>circumstances you are guaranteed a vote". i have said that numerous times. if
>you don't understand that, you don't understand *any* of the fundamental
>concepts of objectivism and this conversation is over.
>

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.

>this idea that "a right to vote" means "everyone has to sacrifice themselves
>so i can live in comfort so i can walk down to the toll booth every five
>years" is ludicrous and unjustified. and *not* part of democracy.
>

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.

>
>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...rather than positively as most people would,
as the ability to do as one chooses...one does not have liberty
in the realm of political liberty if one is not able to vote
freely for ANY reason other than freely willed choice.

>the rest of it is part of neither objectivism nor democracy.
>the right to property cannot exist when coupled with the "right" of
>others to take that property. simple as that. choose, or live a lie.
>

>>I am challenging one of the axioms underlying Objectivism
>>which is an article of "faith" for Objectivists.  Individual rights
>>do include political rights, in addition to economic rights...and are
>>just as important and deserving of the protection of the State.
>>The right to vote and the right to property are equally important.
>
>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.

>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.  You can hold whatever belief system or ideology
you want, as long as the principle of popular sovereignty and the
resulting democracy is respected.  The principle of popular sovereignty
is inherently political, and its political nature results in the notion
of the right to vote as a fundamental individual right.

>>>>And you prove my point that an Objectivist believes that the right to
>>>>property is more fundamental than the right to vote.
>>>
>>>not the right to property: the right to freedom. you just don't
>>>understand the underlying principles -- which is why you are willing to
>>>allow a set of inconsistent rights.
>>>
>>
>>What is inconsistant about the right to vote and the right to property
>>and the right to free speech and the right to life...each right is 
>>constrained by the others...
>
>this is actually the best argument i have seen you try yet.
>unfortunately, it backfires -- because you are providing an example
>which proves *my* argument: choices have to be made. you have been claiming
>that man has a set of ten or so rights which are all equal. and that is
>not so for the very reason you demonstrate -- they are not consistent
>with each other.
>
>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".

>>the problem with Objectivists is that
>>they advocate that the right to property must not be constrained by
>>any other right.
>
>now you are referring to how objectivists choose to resolve the inconsistency
>of the rights you claim to be equal. but what you don't understand is that
>property rights are a subset of freedom rights. and that is why you have
>a problem with objectivism. wealth and earning potential are nothing more
>than the past and present productive capacity of a person; violating his rights
>to this is violating his freedom.
>

I have said that an individual has a right to property, but you have not
said that an individual has a right to vote and that this right is an
fundamental and equally important as the right to property for an 
individual's ability to exercise their liberty.

>
>answer this question: 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.
>but that does not change the answer to the question, nor the nature
>of the position. it is inherently and totally collectivist, regardless
>of how noble the cause you need it to support. and almost *all* socialist
>policies claim to be in support of "noble causes".
>

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?

>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 claim not to have any "rules" that you govern yourself by? sure.
>>>
>>
>>What my personal belief system is should not be imposed on society...
>
>then you have no business advocating it in a public forum, as an
>alternative to any philosophy. sorry. i would ever dispute
>your right to your own opinion about anything. i *would* dispute
>your suggesting that this opinion was valid if it were not.
>
>>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.  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.  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.  I can advocate democracy on
purely a trial-and-error basis, and ask you to judge the utility
of the system on the success of the results.   

>>>which *i* have to defend by providing *you* with your needs because your
>>>"political rights" are as fundamental as my property rights. therefore
>>>you *are* making the argument that you are owed your basic needs as a matter
>>>of course. it doesn't matter if you make the argument directly or indirectly,
>>>nor if you simply say "i have a right to this, it's up to *you* to figure
>>>out how to do it". which is more classic socialist thinking.
>>
>>Well, you argue that there are "property rights" which "I" have to
>>defend by providing resources to the state to pay for the courts and
>>police to protect your property, so you can use your property to fulfil
>>your basic needs...the end result is the same...the state taxes me so
>>your basic needs can be provided for.                
>
>this argument is *easily* refuted. the difference is that you are
>paying for your *own* property rights to be enforced as well. two people
>pay, two people benefit. under your "basic needs for political rights"
>system, one person pays, and a different one benefits. the difference
>is that one system has a bidirectional flow and the other a unidirectional
>flow. and that does not even consider the differences between the
>justifiability of the rights.
>

In both cases, the taxes can be seen as insurance for the protection
of ones right to property and ones right to vote.  Courts are necessary
for me only when I am unable to enjoy my property.  If I am having no
problem enjoying my property, I have no need for courts, and have no 
reason to be taxed (or stolen from) so you are able to enjoy your
property.  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.

>>>that is like claiming without any problem at all that society can function
>>>just fine with both a "right" to abortion on demand, and a "right" of the
>>>fetus to life. not taking sides here, just pointing out the obvious
>>>foolishness of supporting a "spectrum" of rights without examining
>>>how they conflict with each other.
>>>
>>
>>Any two rights are going to conflict with each other...the right to free
>>speech, and the right to life are in conflict when someone yells "fire"
>>in a crowde theatre.  The whole abortion issue is a conflict between
>>two rights...the right of a women to the security and integrity of her
>>body, and the right of the foetus to life.  Rights do conflict and
>>limit each other.  Objectivists get around this dilemma by saying that
>>economic rights such as property rights are more fundamental than any
>>other, and prevail in any conflict.
>
>and ______ists (*whatever* you are) get around this dilemma by sticking their
>head in the sand and ignoring it. you think this is preferable? give me
>a break.
>
>as i said where you first mention
>the "fire in a crowded theatre" argument, you are proving that making
>these decisions between rights is necessary.

Exactly...they mutally constrain each other...the existence of more
than one particular individual right means that no single right is
absolute...the right to property is constrained to be less than
absolute, not by the state, or by socialists who don't believe the
right exists, but merely because other individual rights exist
in addition to the right to property, and among these are the
right to vote.

>*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,
and the dilemma become not placing one right above the other,
but delineating the border in the area of overlap where the
rights conflict.

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