From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: Taxation as Theft
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 12:19:22 GMT

In article <1993Jan8.073810.28929@zip.eecs.umich.edu> marky@quip.eecs.umich.edu (Mark Anthony Young) writes:
>golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
>>If I am advocating a limited democratic government...how can I
>>be arguing that there is one right and true way to run a country...
>
>I was referring to past discussions we have had on the nature of
>"fundamental human rights".  You have said that every rational
>person has these fundamental rights, that these rights are
>limited _only_ by each other, and that any action that otherwise
>restricts those rights is immoral.
>
>In particular, you said that there is exactly one policy on gun
>control that is moral (tho' you did not explicitly say what that
>policy was).  You allowed no differences due to local morality or
>conditions.  Rights are rights are rights.
>

This couldn't have been recently...I don't think I would say something
the way you have said it, and gun control is not particularly one
of my hobby horses...are you sure it was me...I am for waiting periods,
and graduated licensing after proper training and medical assessment of
competency...however, I would not ban any particular weapons.  The
only particular right that would probably drive me to say rights are
rights are rights is probably freedom of expression...Objectivists
and libertarians find me soft on property rights as they see them.
I also don't believe I would use an appeal to morality...could you
give a more detailed context of the time I supposedly said these things.
Refresh my memory...I can believe I said that banning guns was not
right, but I can't believe that I said there was only one moral 
policy with respect to guns.

>You are now saying that the only right and proper way to run a
>country is through a limited democracy.  No variations due to
>local morality or conditions.
>

And I say why, because of the sovereignty of the individual.  I
am perfectly willing to let limited democracy to be judged on
its utility, rather than on its ideological basis, because it
is really a methodology more than an ideology, and thus can be
judged on results.  You are free to criticize and offer alternatives,
and I am free to criticize and argue for what is wrong with
any alternative you offer.

>You stuff yourself into a tiny box labeled "Fundamental Human
>Rights" and loudly proclaim that you have all the room in the
>world.
>

I am only one person stating my opinion, and offering up a system
where I only have one vote.  I am expressing my opinion about
what is right and wrong and should be allowed, not imposing it...
I have no tanks.

>>I would argue that simple majoritarianism is not sufficient...
>
>At what point did I say that majoritarianism was the rule?  I
>never did.  I never even said that democracy was necessary.
>I said that government action is inappropriate to the extent
>that it offends the morals of its people -- the greater the
>offence the greater the inappropriateness.
>
>By greater offence I do not mean a greater number of people
>offended, but rather separate people each more offended.
>
>>A society can often be judged extremely quickly by how it
>>treats its dissidents.
>
>I agree.  The mathematics is not terribly difficult, either.
>Dissidents are offended by the way the gov'ment is doing things.
>If the dissidents are maltreated, they only become more offended.
>Also, people who weren't offended by the gov'ments original 
>actions are offended by the way the dissidents are treated.
>The total amount of offence increases when the dissidents are
>mistreated.  Thus the government is acting inappropriately 
>when it mistreats dissidents.  QED
>

You offer no explicit means of checks and balances so
dissidents have a mechanism to appeal government edicts.

>No need to invent spurious rights.

I would argue that the notion of individual rights is an extremely
utile, since it is the basis for a mechanism of checks and balances
on the government.

A methodology of government should attempt to be self-sustaining
rather than require revolutions and revolts to correct injustices
that build up in the system.

>
>Also note that the mistreatment of dissidents is not _a priori_
>inappropriate, but relies on the fact that it offends someone
>when you mistreat them or their friends.  It's a property of
>the human race.  If humans were all masochists, there'd be
>nothing wrong with mistreating dissidents, since they'd _enjoy_
>it.
>

If you won't even concede or agree that mistreatment of dissidents
is not particularly a good or healthy basis for a sustainable 
society and government, what exactly is your position on, say for
example, genocide...the ultimate mistreatment of dissidents?

Gerald
Newsgroups: can.politics