From: cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok)
Subject: Re: Negative Income Tax (Was: Social programs)
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 18:45:57 GMT

In article <1993Jan1.015700.9317@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca> golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
>In article <1992Dec31.183210.27586@athena.mit.edu> cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec31.072545.19630@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca> golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
>>>
>>>I have expressly not enunciated a right to basic needs...but only
>>>what is required for individual political rights to be satisfied,
>>
>>as i have said N times, all that is required for you to "exercise
>>your political rights" is to walk into a voting booth. *anyone* can do that --
>>we do not have widespread famine and starvation on a Somalia-like scale here.
>>and we wouldn't under an objectivist society either. this is simply a crutch
>>you keep leaning on to justify socialist policies while insisting that they
>>are not socialist...
>>
>
>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.

>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.

>>>just as courts and police are legitimately required to insure and
>>>protect other individual rights.  Objectivists are just not democrats.
>>>But from an Objectivist point-of-view, democracy is not necessary,
>>>because like any fundamentalist ideology, which is what Objectivism
>>>is, freedom is necessity.
>>
>>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.

>>>Pure, unadulterated capitalism is not compatible with democracy,
>>>although it is orders of magnitude closer to compatibility with
>>>democracy than socialism.
>>
>>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*.
>>
>
>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.

>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.

>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.

>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.

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.

>>>Courts and police require the state to raise some form
>>>of taxation to finance these activities, and Objectivists do not
>>>consider this theft...however, when it comes to protecting the
>>>integrity the the political rights of the individual, i.e. 
>>>the integrity of democracy, Objectivists consider any taxation
>>>by the state to serve this function as theft.
>>>
>>>Objectivists are NOT democrats.
>>
>>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".

>>"the political rights of the individual" is a bunch of hooey. we are
>>talking about marking an "X" on a piece of paper. taxation by the governemnt
>>to give to some what everyone else has to work hard to earn,
>>is not necessary to ensure that people can mark "X" on a piece of paper.
>>your "political rights" catch-all could be used to justify any ridiculous
>>claim of "necessity" by the parasites you would support, and you know it.
>
>Yes, Locke, Jefferson, and Hamilton were all idiots to think that
>"the political rights of the individual" are a bunch of huoey...

name dropping will get you nowhere. i, and other rational beings, 
base my decisions on reason, not concensus.

and i never disputed the right to vote. i disputed your right
to enslave me to provide you with any conceivable thing you demand,
in the *name* of the right to vote.

>but then that is exactly what I said an Objectivist would say about
>political rights...Objectivists believe only that fundamental economic
>rights exist.  Political rights are a not a catch-all phrase...political
>rights, or democratic rights as they are denoted in the Canadian Charter
>of Rights and Freedoms and in the US Constitution also.  All that is
>really meant by political or democratic rights is the right to vote,
>along with how that vote is translated into the a legislative assembly.

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.

>>democracy means
>>being provided the opportunity to make your voice heard, *not* being
>>guaranteed that society must do whatever you ask, no matter how unjust,
>>simply to ensure that your voice is heard. you don't even know what
>>the hell democracy is about.
>>
>
>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.

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.

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.

>>>I think socialism is evil.  I do not advocate socialism. I advocate
>>>democracy, and the foundation of democracy are the political rights
>>>of the individual, which are as important as any other rights of
>>>the individual such as freedom of expression, and the right to property.
>>
>>bullsh*t.
>>you claim you don't advocate socialism, but you are willing to allow
>>socialist policies as a means to your end. you want "rights" which
>>aren't rights, and you don't mind if they conflict with other rights.
>>you have no problem with this? how do you reconcile this hodge-podge
>>of so-called "rights"? by simply saying "they are all equally important"?
>>justify it!
>
>Is the right to vote a right or not?

see above, my fingers are getting tired...

>My entire assertion, simply put,
>is that the right to vote is as important as the right to property, and
>that just as the state is empowered to act to protect the right to
>property, it may act as necessary to protect the right to vote.

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.

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.

>Objectivists don't like the second part of that statement...socialists
>don't like either part.

objectivists don't like *anything* that doesn't make sense. and that's
the problem *you* have: you don't want anyone to make you choose between
having your cake and eating it.

>>>For an Objectivist, the right to property is more fundamental than
>>>the right to vote...and this is why Objectivism is ultimately 
>>>undemocratic.  Objectivism is less offensive than socialism,
>>>but it is offensive none-the-less.
>>
>>you are totally wrong. it is obvious that you don't really understand
>>Rand's theories at all. besides, you hang yourself with the argument
>>above anyway -- because if the choice is between objectivism and what
>>you propose, you should pick objectivism. because what you propose
>>is that i must support others -- which is socialism. nobody ever claimed
>>that objectivism was perfect. but what you are proposing is inconsistent.
>>which is *much* worse than being imperfect.
>
>The fundamentalism of Objectivism becomes clear...one is either an
>Objectivist or a socialist, and if one is not an Objectivist, one must
>be a socialist.

i am trying to use reason, logic, and analogy in my arguments. you continue
to make claims that are nothing more than propaganda. if i call you a socialist,
it is because you are making socialist arguments. show me why they are not,
if you disagree. don't just brush it off as some kind of "intellectual
oppression or categorization". that is a cop-out.

>I am not challenging the internal consistency of
>Objectivism

good.
but i *am* challenging the internal consistency of *your* theory.

>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.

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.

>>>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".

>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.

>>>Neither
>>>Objectivists nor socialists believe that individual political rights
>>>such as the right to vote are fundamental individual rights...of course,
>>>socialists really don't believe that individual rights exist at all.
>>
>>then why support their positions?
>>
>
>I don't support socialist positions.  I support a democratic position.

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".

>>>Society should offer a choice of a combined
>>>workfare/guarenteed-annual-income...people are entitled to refuse that
>>>choice and fend for themselves. 
>>
>>you heartless libertarian bastard! you're going to let people starve
>>to death?? what about their "fundamental political rights"? you're
>>willing to let them fend for themselves?? what if they starve?
>>*you* sir, are not a democrat... sound familiar?
>>
>
>Well, they won't starve...when they begin starving, the state
>has the right to intervene, because a starving person is basically
>incapacitated.

oh, people who refuse to work are now "disabled"? 

and if they know the government won't let them starve, why should they
work? 

>You get them to the point were they are not starving
>anymore, and have regained their ability to exercise their will freely,
>and then reoffer them the choice.

if you're willing to let them starve, what is so damn wonderful about
your social safety net? that i have to pay taxes on? if they know you
won't let them starve, why work? you haven't addressed the problem
*at all*.

you also have the problem of determining who is "able" to work and who
is not, which encourages a society of people trying to underachieve.
plus all the other arguments i have made.

this "workfare" concept has been shot so full of holes there's not
much fabric left. every time we iterate you delete the part you
can no longer defend. stop wasting my time.

>>you have proven *my* point: workfare is both coercion and blatant
>>socialism -- if not worse. there is no way you can structure it without
>>one of three things happening: undeserving people get supported by
>>hard workers; or people starve; or you force people to work at the
>>point of a gun. probably all three happen. 
>>
>
>I do not advocate forcing anyone to do anything...offering someone
>a job with a salary which may require work if there is work to be
>done is not coersion.

oh that's right, now you're not going to force them, you're going
to let them starve instead. that *was* one of the three things
i mentioned, wasn't it? didn't you see that?

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.)

>Such a policy, by the way, also helps protect
>the property of citizens, since there will be no crime which results
>from people stealing to satisfy their basic human needs...

totally unsubstantiated utopianism.

>or is
>crime prevention and pre-emptive property protection not a legitimate
>field of activity for the state.

if that were all it was, it would be legitimate. but it is much more
than that, and "pre-emptive property protection" is a clutched straw,
a post-hoc argument that was never the motivation for these programs.

>>>It is always a complex
>>>medical/judicial decision when a person is incapacitated, and
>>>when society is allowed to intervene, but there are always 
>>>complex decisions...which are the reason we have legislatures and
>>>courts to decide where lines are drawn in seas of grey.
>>
>>nice cop-out.
>
>It is Objectivists who say that courts are one of the few legitimate
>functions of the state, exactly because such complex decisions routinely
>result from conflicts between individuals over property.
>
>So is it your position that we don't need courts either?
>
>I figured you for an Objectivist, not an anarchist!

spare me the melodrama.. :^)

i called it a cop-out because in my opinion you are setting up a system
which includes a nightmare of difficult decisions, and simply foisting
it upon the judicial system, which is already overloaded. i also think
you know deep down what will *really* happen: another bureacracy, and
no work required for anyone who doesn't feel he can work; i.e. some
combination of the government deciding, and the individual deciding
for himself, both of which represent conflicts of interest.

>>>I am not a socialist...socialists basically deny that individual rights
>>>exist at all.
>>
>>they also claim "rights" which don't exist and are inconsistent with
>>other rights. just as you are doing.
>>
>
>Do you acknowledge that the right to vote exists?  And if so, is it as
>important as the right to property?

my position is explained above. the right to vote and the right to
property are both subsets of the right to freedom. the right to basic
needs is not.

>>>Fundamentalist religions repeat by rote text as their "rules"...
>>>Objectivists repeat by rote logical arguments based on flawed
>>>axioms as their "rules".
>>>
>>>I don't believe in rules, but advocate a methodology called democracy.
>>>Democracy is a methodology for action which sets up a system for
>>>limited government based on the the principal axiom of popular
>>>sovereignty...that the individual is sovereign, and possesses a
>>>full spectrum of protected rights. 
>>
>>what, *inconsistent* rights? what a joke.
>>
>>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. 

>>your "methodology" is not based on axioms? not based on anything?
>>then why do you believe in it? you claim that dependence on 
>>fundamentals is a flaw of objectivism, yet without them you have no
>>basis for believing anything, other than your whim. why should
>>anyone believe in a system based only on whim? sounds like a religion
>>to me.
>>
>
>Democracy is based on the principle of popular sovereignty...it is
>a single, but complex organizing principle for the methodology of
>democracy.

at least you now admit the existence of axioms. i still don't think 
you have identified them properly, but whatever. my main point was 
refutation of your ignorant claim that your philosophy was not
based upon axioms.

>To argue for any methodology, one has to assert at
>least one organizing principle or axiom

yes.

>about which there is
>a concensus, or that it is an organizing principle that suggests
>a methodology that is at least worth trying and experimenting 
>with. I think I've chosen a pretty good axiom, and I think
>far more people will agree with my choice of an axiom, than
>Ayn Rand's fundamentalist ideology.

how foolish. you try to use "fundamentalist ideology" as a slur,
in the same paragraph where you admit that your philosophy
is based on an axiom, which means it too is "fundamentalist".
you are chasing your tail.

Rand's fundamentals are based on reason and the theory of man
as a responsible, capable, rational being. what are *your* fundamentals
based on? "concensus"? "popular agreement"? those are just examples
of "whim". if your fundamentals are not based upon anything objective,
they are based upon whim. which is no basis at all.

so i ask again: *why* do you believe in your methodology?

>>>I have not made that argument. The only argument I have made is
>>>that political rights are as fundamental as any other individual rights.
>>
>>that's false. you have argued that you have "political rights",
>>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.

and if you are wondering whether i would support those who have more
property to protect paying more for its protection, yes i would.
i would argue that they do so right now, too, in the form of higher
income taxes.

>>>To be a democrat, one must hold that the right to vote is as important
>>>as the right to property.
>>
>>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.
*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.

--
charles
Xref: sparky soc.culture.canada:9647 can.politics:11063