From: cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok)
Subject: Re: Negative Income Tax (Was: Social programs)
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 18:32:10 GMT

In article <1992Dec31.072545.19630@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca> golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
>In article <1992Dec31.024729.25383@athena.mit.edu> cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec30.215954.8733@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca> golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
>>
>>>A person does not lose their right to life just because they are
>>>stupid...
>>
>>no, a person loses their right to freedom because they are *not* stupid, right?
>>and the stupider they are, the more i have to be enslaved to provide them
>>with goods or jobs for them to squander, right? sounds a lot like
>>"from each according to his ability to each according to his need".
>>
>
>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...

>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.

(yawn)

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.

>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*.

>>>neither should they lose their right to a free vote, because
>>>they fail so badly in the market system that they are unable to meet
>>>their most basic needs and thus be able to exercise free independent
>>>will.
>>
>>this is total bull. with freedom (democracy) comes responsibility. now
>>you *are* talking like a socialist. you are still a person, you still
>>have to feed, shelter and clothe yourself, as have all humans from the
>>dawn of time. this "right to basic needs" crap is a recent invention
>>that has never been justified other than a mob screaming "i want someone
>>else to figure out how to take care of me".
>>
>
>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...

"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.

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.

>>>>ok, you are not an objectivist :^)
>>>>seriously though, you are wrong about at what grail objectivists worship.
>>>>objectivists hold all individual rights paramount. you only hear
>>>>so much about economic rights because those are the ones the government
>>>>keeps coming after. objectivists don't look at economic rights as 
>>>>an end unto themselves, but rather as the fruit of productive capacity,
>>>>and as such an extension of all individual rights.
>>>>
>>>
>>>That is what they claim...but their claim is false, because they make
>>>false assumptions about the nature of the human animal.  Objectivists
>>>have such a limited conception of the nature of a human being, that
>>>what they claim and believe about their incomplete set of axioms,
>>>become just another false fundamentalist ideology, where the overlap
>>>between what they believe and reality is very small.
>>
>>oh, this is just *too* much.
>>socialists invented the doctrine of subjugation of the strong to the weak
>>(such concepts as "the right to 'basic needs'"). tell me how consistent
>>*that* is with nature. tell me how consistent it is with a capitalist
>>system. tell me about the axioms that lead to theft from the industrious
>>and payment to the lazy, incompetent or foolish.
>>
>
>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!

by allowing some to be enslaved to provide production to others,
for whatever reason, you are advocating socialism, whether wittingly or not.

>>>As always there is an exception, which proves the rule.  Human beings
>>>are not just logical intellects, but biological animals, and as a
>>>result, if one believes in individual political rights, namely popular
>>>sovereignty and the right to vote, the belief in democracy and in these
>>>individual political rights constrain individual economic rights,
>>>because the logical intellect cannot function freely if minimal
>>>biological needs are not met.
>>
>>as i said, with rights come responsibility. if you require food, it
>>is your responsibility to earn it. you can have a right that protects
>>what you have earned from being stolen, but you cannot have a right
>>that gives you something you have not earned. *that* is a law consistent
>>with man as a rational biological animal. your theory is consistent
>>with man as a parasite.
>>
>
>Political rights are of a different character than economic rights.
>Democracy does impose a minimal obligation upon the individual...
>and does put some constraints on individual economic rights.
>As I have said, Objectivism is not a democratic philosophy.

you can say the sky is plaid too if you want.. you don't have the basis
to make that assessment.

>>>Democracy puts some constraints on
>>>markets; the political rights of the individual put some limits on
>>>the economic rights of the individual.  I know Objectivists and
>>>libertarians do not believe this, but they are wrong...and they
>>>are wrong not because of failed logic but because of false assumptions
>>>about human nature.
>>
>>your theories about need-based societies have already been proven
>>wrong in many countries. political rights include the right to vote.
>>they do not include any right, such as the "right to basic needs" (which
>>is subjective as all hell anyway) which violate more *fundamental*
>>rights, such as the right to freedom.
>
>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.

>>>>however, you cannot have a right which poses a "proactive" restriction
>>>>on others. you cannot say that you have a right to food, because that means
>>>>someone else has to provide that food. and if i am that person, i work to
>>>>make or earn that food. thus, you are de facto enslaving me -- making me
>>>>work so you can reap the reward. *all* "rights" of that nature end up
>>>>the same way, including such things as "the right to work" (who must
>>>>be forced to provide you with a job, and why?)
>>>>
>>>
>>>Democracy and individual political rights are the exception to this.
>>
>>nothing can violate the central concept that a right
>>can only exist if it does not contradict the rights of others.  you
>>conveniently except those two because they fit your agenda.
>>
>
>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.

>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?

>>>There is no coercion involved...you offer the person a choice...workfare
>>>via a guranteed annual income...if they believe that they can fend for
>>>themselves, you allow them that choice...if they fail to be able to
>>>take care of themselves, then they obviously have to be
>>>institutionalized and brought to the point where they are capable
>>>of being offered the choice again.
>>
>>oh no, there is no coercion. i repeat: what happens to the person
>>who says "no"? you're going to put him in a mental institution?
>>and who gets to make these decisions about who can fend for themselves?
>>sounds like a wonderful police state. send me a postcard.
>>
>
>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?

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. 

and that is because the idea is intrinsically flawed.
earning your livelihood is not consistent with having it given to you.

>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.

>>what about employers who don't want to hire these people? going to put
>>them in an institution too? why not just have the government take over
>>all business and allocate jobs? that would be *much* more "efficient",
>>wouldn't it?
>>can't you see where these kinds of ideas *lead*?
>>
>
>I have said nothing about forcing anyone to do anything...neither
>employers or potential employees.  Employers should be free to hire
>whom they want to hire...I have only said that if employment is
>available, people should be required to work as a condition of
>receiving a GAI.

you're deliberately ignoring the obvious, which i have already pointed
out -- no employer in their right mind will hire someone who obviously
does not want to work. and *no-one* will want to work if they know
that if work is not available they can stay home. i can say this because
this happens *now*. therefore there will *be* no "employment
available" and workfare will fail. and we'll be back to where we are 
now. unless the government forces employers to hire these people --
coercion. and then watch the trucks on the 401.

>>>>then you are a utopian, which is in same ways worse than either. you
>>>>can't have "all of the above". you cannot have individual rights if they
>>>>conflict with mine. you cannot have "economic" rights if they conflict
>>>>with my "materialistic" rights. you cannot have "emotional" rights which
>>>>conflict with my "logical" rights.
>>>>
>>>
>>>I am not a utopian...my whole argument has been based on the position
>>>that there are natural constraints on the absoluteness of any particular
>>>individual right, because of limitations imposed by the full spectrum
>>>of the individual rights of others.  
>>
>>your arguments are collective in nature. there can be no other description
>>for an argument that suggests that some have the "right" to enslave others
>>to provide them with their basic needs. if you have a "right" to food, for
>>example, you *must* enslave someone to provide you with it. there is
>>no other way. you want rights without consistency, without responsibility.
>>
>
>My argument is based on the assertion that individual political rights
>exist and are as fundamental as any other individual right.

your rights are conflictory and inconsistent. you can't have your
cake and eat it too. you can't claim not to be a socialist, yet propose
socialist policies. you are demanding basic needs but conveniently
ignoring who has to work to produce those items you demand.

>>>The difference between me and an Objectivist,
>>>is that an Objectivist does not believe that the full spectrum of
>>>individual rights legitimately can constrain individual economic
>>>rights.
>>
>>no, the difference is that objectivists understand that you cannot
>>have secondary rights if they violate primary rights. they also understand
>>that rights come with responsibilities. they also don't allow "need" to
>>cloud their judgment as to "right". heartless bastards, we.
>>
>
>The difference is that an Objectivist believes the right to property
>is more fundamental than the right to vote.

you keep piling on the manure in the hope that eventually something
beautiful will grow. objectivists believe that rights must be
consistent. you are willing to conveniently ignore this in order
to increase the number of rights to which you want to be entitled.

>>>Objectivists are utopian....because they are absolutist
>>>when it comes to individual economic rights, compared to other
>>>individual rights...they set up a hierarchy of individual rights,
>>>and they are mostly not conscious of this hierarchy, because of
>>>their limited conception of what a human being is.
>>
>>socialists use arguments like this to discredit the logical nature
>>of objectivism, claiming some mysterious extra understanding of human
>>nature that they are never able to properly define, that they trot
>>out any time they need to justify the "rights violation du jour".
>>
>
>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.

>I am a democrat...and assert that political rights are
>as fundamental as any other individual rights.  Objectivists are NOT
>democrats.

bull. you don't know what you are talking about.

>>>Objectivists mostly don't like how I analyze them...they are entitled
>>>to their opinion...I think I'm right.  Many Objectivists are essentially
>>>fundamentalist in nature, in their rote acceptance of Randian axioms
>>>and arguments...Objectivism practised by mainly is not unlike 
>>>a fundamentalist religion, where there is a rulebook, and people
>>>follow the rulebook...the fundamentalist credo is that freedom is
>>>necessity...in the case of Objectivists, logical necessity...and
>>>this is the flaw in all fundamentalist ideologies.
>>
>>ah, comparison to a religion. are you referring to your "How To Try To Fight
>>An Objectivist" handbook? religions are based on faith. objectivism
>>is based on reason. and rights have to based on fundamentals, otherwise
>>they can be redefined by the emperor of the day. if there are no rules,
>>what are there? how do you guide your life? if i don't rely on reason,
>>what do i rely on? you to steal for me because it's my "right"?
>>
>
>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.

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.

>>btw, there is *no* argument more "fundamentalist religious" in nature than
>>"you OWE me food, shelter, clothing, a job, and anything else i desire or
>>define as 'basic', because i said so". who says you are entitled to these
>>things? why? who provides them? why?
>>
>
>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.

your rights are conflictory. your argument does not make sense. sorry.

>>objectivists argue that man has the right to exploit his mind and
>>his talent to his own ends, and to engage in free association with others,
>>to the extent that he does not violate the rights of others.
>>this is based on concepts of reason and self-preservation. what is your
>>perversion based on?
>>
>
>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.

as i have said numerous times, just laying claim to a set of inconsistent
rights does not make that claim valid. you criticize objectivists for
prioritizing rights, when that prioritization is based upon principles
of reason and consistency. you then say you support rights which conflict
with each other, ignore the conflicts, and don't even say upon what
you base your claim. how do you expect this position to be believable?
you can say you don't agree with objectivist axioms, but at least they
make some sense.

>>playing role reversal won't hide the essential nature of your position --
>>it is far more "religious" than anything Rand ever wrote. and if
>>fundamentalism (meaning adherence to a set of axioms) is wrong, what is
>>right? adherence to a set of whims? by what standard do you judge my
>>acceptance of Randian axioms as "rote"? simply because i agree with them?
>>is it "rote" to believe in something consistent?
>>sheesh.
>
>Randian axioms are just another form of religious dogma.  I don't
>question the subsequent logic, but one has to demonstrate that the
>underlying axioms are true.

as i have said, Randian axioms are based upon certain assumptions relating
to man's essence as a rational animal. it is no more a "religion" that any
other set of philosophical axioms, and it is far *less* a religion than
*many* other sets of axioms. you have no basis and no argument for judging
it a religion other than that you think it will help discredit the
philosophy. but then you could also do that just by calling me names.
wouldn't change anything either.

>Democracy is a methodology...it is neither true nor false, but
>a way of doing things whose utility can be judged on results.

*everything* is based on certain principles and axioms. democracy is based
on axioms. if you don't even understand that, there is not much point
in conducting a philosophical exchange on the matter.

wishy-washy crap like "neither true nor false" is reserved for those
who want to be able to tailor their argument to suit the need at hand.
and democracy is *not* "neither true nor false" -- it *is* based on
axioms, and it does have certain truths. if you really believe in democracy,
find out what they are. actually, you probably already know them.
you just don't want to look at them.

--
charles
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada