From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: Negative Income Tax (Was: Social programs)
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 10:01:27 GMT

In article <1993Jan6.091013.20712@athena.mit.edu> cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok) writes:
>In article <1993Jan6.071512.1097@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca> golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
>
>STILL can't deal with the fact that your "philosophy" is also
>"fundamentalist"?

The difference between my use of the axiom of popular sovereignty,
and Objectivism, is that my axiom isn't used to create or expound
an ideology, but to formalize a methodology of limited democratic
government as a mechanism for assessing ideologies and ideas.

A methodology and the axioms that underly it can be assessed and
judged entirely by their utility...it is a non-fundamentalist system.

>>Do you or do you not support the right of every individual to
>>a right to vote
>
>yes.
>
>>in an environment without physical or mental
>>duress or coersion...
>
>yes, as long as the protection from duress or coersion is based upon
>the principle of protection from use of force. not from self-imposed
>duress, or self-neglect.
>

Redefining liberty again, aren't we...liberty is something one is
able to do, not something someone else is not able to do to you.

>
>>A starving human being is obviously under physical duress
>>and thus is not able to exercise their democratic liberty and right
>>to vote. 
>
>as i said in a previous post:
>   OK, then i guess the government should start work on my lakeside
>   mansion. because i have a right to own it. through no fault
>   of my own, i am being denied my right to own it, because it hasn't yet
>   been built.
>   therefore the state MUST act to ensure that i can exercise my
>   right to own a lakeside mansion. throw in a car, too -- i want
>   to exercise my right to drive, which is being denied me through
>   no fault of my own. i also have a right to religion, so build
>   me a church. i have a right to speak any language i want, so
>   i expect free language lessons as well. i expect a grant from the
>   NEA so i can exercise my right to free expression.
>   and build me a radio station so i can exercise my right to free speech.
>
>and STILL you don't understand the difference between a right that protects
>you from forceful action against you, and a "right" that "entitles" you
>to something. and i don't care about how everyone else defines a right.
>i need you to *justify* your terms. i'm funny that way.
>

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.

>>There is no prioritization or hierarchy...defined individual rights are
>>equally important...the constraints on any particular right, since
>>distinct individual rights have regions of conflict should be based
>>on the principle by society through its legislature or courts to
>>maximize liberty.  Courts balance rights so the that liberty in the
>>space spanned by two distinct rights is maximized.
>
>there is a prioritization. because the "courts" often must decide
>between two rights. and this decision is based upon the principles/axioms/
>fundamentals of the society. or at least it should be. your warm and
>fuzzy "balance" is not possible, unless the courts are just avoiding
>facing what is important and what is not.
>

Our difference here is basically linguistic...we dislike each others
description and choice of words for what is happening.

>and the right to freedom and life take precedence over the right to vote
>in a free society. even a democratic one. because the process of democracy
>derives *from* the right to freedom. and therefore MAY NOT contradict it.
>
>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.

>>However, I will give an example of where line-drawing from your
>>perspective can be construed as placing the right to property above
>>the right to vote...I don't think you should be taxed to pay for
>>the political campaigns of others, or that anyone should be limited
>>in utilization of their property to run their own campaigns...
>
>this is not a valid example, because those things are not required
>to guarantee the individual right to vote. that is the item still
>in question: if there is no hierarchy, name one situation where the
>the individual right to property supercedes the individual
>right to vote.
>try again.
>

Of course, its a valid example...

>and also tell me how your definition of the right to vote follows
>from the principle of "popular sovereignty", i.e. how the concept
>of rule of the people implies "guarantee to the right to vote at all
>costs".
>

Since the individual is sovereign, any legitimate government must
receive the consent of the individual, who is sovereign.  The
sovereignty of the government is merely the sum of the sovereignty
of the individuals in the society.  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.  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.

Gerald