From: jmorriso@ee.ubc.ca (John Paul Morrison)
Subject: Re: Negative Income Tax (Was: Social programs)
Organization: University of BC, Electrical Engineering
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 00:30:18 GMT

[ Chuck 'n' Gerry ] 

>
[ Chuck ]
>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.

This is the important part (if we are going to talk about rights, reason etc.
otherwise we might as well ignore it all and arm ourselves with rocks and
clubs)

Charles 1, Gerald 0.

>
[ Gerald ]
>>>>Pure, unadulterated capitalism is not compatible with democracy,
>>>>although it is orders of magnitude closer to compatibility with
>>>>democracy than socialism.
>>>
[ Charles ]
>>>well, what you are calling for is socialism. so if democracy is your
>>>goal, you should give up the ludicrous notion that others are 
>>>responsible for your basic needs, *for whatever reason*.
>>>

This argument doesn't seem to be going anywhere. 
I think both of you are trying to make different points.

Gerald wants a system that entrenches and gaurantees certain rights and
compromises that entail looking after and providin for other people
(say: sick, poor, laszy(?) etc.)

Charles want a rationally and logically consistent set of values.
Now these values don't have the typical platitudes and warm fuzzy statements,
and THIS is what makes people nervous. (One flaw, you can never have a 
set of values, ie a logical system, that is free from contradiction...
look to Godel for an explanation of that, but I digress...)

I think that if you follow 'self-interest', something that I think
Objectivism relies alot on, you can arrive at some of the warm fuzzy
things that people want to hear. A short-sighted view would regard
things like charity etc. as altruism, and therefore useless. But a
long term view  would regard charity as  just another tool of
self interest (although people might not want to call it that).
Why? because from the social nature of people, or of biology, there will
always be envy and the like. People with less will look to scapegoats,
instead of blaming themselves for their own misfortune. Charity, 
philanthropy and the like buy social esteem and standing in society,
( a kind of security).

The thing that's got people feather's ruffled, is how much (if at all)
the State should be sponsoring 'charity' etc. Now there are a lot
of areas where this exists. Even if we eliminated welfare, where does
that leave universal education (for children), or the court system?
I mention the courts, because if we have a free market court system,
maybe the wealthier can buy off judge and jury.
For purity, Charles wants no state gaurantees; while Gerald wants a 
compromise of a sort.

And we also have to look at timetables for implenting things, and the
best way of phasing things in. Last, we can't let any philosphy delude
us into thinking that man is 100% rational. Whatever system we end up
with has to take into account design limitations (the non-rational
side; limited knowledge of consequences of our actions, etc.)
Objectivism seems just as utopian, if it ignores the irrational actions
of others who aren't Objectivists.

So let's look at the consequences of principles, in the context of human
nature, and not in the pure abstract (desirable as it that may be)

jp
>
>--
>charles


-- 
__________________________________________________________________________
 John Paul Morrison                     |  
 University of British Columbia, Canada |  
 Electrical Engineering                 |   .sig file without a cause
 jmorriso@ee.ubc.ca              VE7JPM |  
________________________________________|_________________________________
Xref: sparky soc.culture.canada:9625 can.politics:11041 talk.abortion:52883 talk.politics.animals:10548