From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: Negative Income Tax (Was: Social programs)
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 00:02:19 GMT

In article <1993Jan6.174135.11621@athena.mit.edu> cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok) writes:
>In article <1993Jan6.100127.4083@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca> golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
>>The government, which I believe you would agree is necessary, has to
>>to be formed and structured and empowered in such a way that it is
>>consistent with liberty and individual rights.  A government doesn't
>>magically appear out of thin air...the basis of legitimate government
>>has to be something...and that something is popular sovereignty...or
>>should be popular sovereignty...and that requires an assured right to
>>vote free from duress, just as the right to property requires courts
>>and police.  The former requires taxation for a minimal
>>social-safety-net of very particular construction; the latter also
>>requires taxation.
>
>this is the answer i would expect from a politician. i am not trying
>to flame here. i am being dead serious. because i asked you to address
>all the "guarantees" which would come to me if we allowed your
>extension of a right to vote to include the right to basic needs necessary
>to guarantee that right. instead of tackling the issue you just AGAIN
>repeated your opinion, with NO justification. AGAIN. you will forgive
>me for feeling frustrated. and not too impressed.
>

You have never answered the question about how a legitimate government
can be constructed that respects the sovereignty of the individual,
and legitimately receives its authority from the limited delegation
of sovereignty through the consent of the individual.

>so let me answer for you: you CANNOT deal with the inconsistent
>nature of your extension of the right to vote. it violates more
>primary rights and therefore is invalid. it also contradicts a
>philosophy based upon individualism, which is what you *claim* to support.
>your response to my challenge says basically "yes, you have the right
>to all those things because i am not willing to deny you them if it
>weakens my definition of the right to vote". this simply means that
>you are either a socialist or the most stubborn man on earth.
>

Is the individual sovereign or not?  If yes, then a government is
not legitimate unless it seeks out the consent of every individual...
or at least offers them the opportunity for consent.

>>>since you will no doubt have a problem with this, you can start by explaining
>>>"popular sovereignty" in more detail, specifically from where it derives,
>>>and what axioms and principles *it* is based on. and don't cop out again.
>>>i don't want to just hear "popular sovereignty" and "the right to vote
>>>is essential" repeating 400 times. i want to hear you justify your
>>>philosophy for once -- tell us WHY you believe what you do.
>>>
>>
>>Popular sovereignty===the individual is sovereign...that is all popular
>>sovereignty is...limited democratic government and the idea of
>>individual rights are based entirely upon this simple assertion.
>
>WHY is the individual sovereign?
>i'm serious: i want to know why you feel this way.
>if you can't explain why, then you have no basis for any of your arguments.
>

Well, if the individual is not sovereign, then you are advocating
statism or socialism.  An individual has rights, because they are
sovereign entities unto themselves, and the legitimacy of any state
comes only from the delegated sovereignty given by the consent of
individuals.

>
>>Since the individual is sovereign, any legitimate government must
>>receive the consent of the individual, who is sovereign.
>
>why?
>
>>The
>>sovereignty of the government is merely the sum of the sovereignty
>>of the individuals in the society.
>
>so if 90% of the individuals want to kill the Jews, the government
>does so? this definition of government is so lame i can't even *list*
>all the ways it can be ripped to shreds.
>

No...popular sovereignty requires individual rights and limited
government.  Legitimate democratic government is limited by the
rights of the individual...no matter how many people vote for a
particular policy.  There is even a term for when the majority
in a democracy oversteps what is legitimate for it to do...this
is called the tyranny of the majority.  Majoritarianism is not
a legitimate democratic government...majoritarianism is the
system labour unions typically operate under, and that is why
labor unions are inherently undemocratic and routinely violate
individual rights, since the tyranny of the majority is the
rule for labor unions, not the exception.

>>Any government which does not
>>receive the consent of every individual in the society is not a
>>legitimate government, and any laws which such a government show
>>pass are not legitimate.
>
>then none of the laws *ever* passed in *any* democratic country
>are legitimate. because a LARGE percentage of the eligible voters
>don't vote. it also means that if i refuse to vote, i can cripple
>the entire democratic process for as long as i live.
>(do you actually think about this stuff before you post it? or
>were you just really tired at the time?)
>

The right to vote includes the right not to vote...society is only
compelled to guarentee the opportunity to vote, not to force you to
do so.

>>Thus, every individual must have a guarenteed
>>right to vote free of duress, or else the sovereignty of the individual
>>cannot be legitimately transferred to the government.
>
>fine. then you better start putting non-voters in prison. please include
>in their jail cell an explanation of how you are only doing this
>in the name of "individualism".
>

Gerald

Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada