From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: Negative Income Tax (Was: Social programs)
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 01:57:00 GMT

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...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, just as it is for the state to set up courts and police forces
to protect the right of property.

>>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.

>>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 make the typical Objectivist argument...if one is not an
Objectivist, then one must be a socialist, which is patently false.

The organizing idea of an Objectivist is individual economic rights
such as the right to property and the right to work.  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.

>>
>>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...

>"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...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.

>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.

>>
>>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?  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.

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

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

I am advocating democracy...which is a political system, and not an
economic system.  The economic system which is most compatible with
democracy is capitalism, but it is not pure capitalism, because
political rights are undefined in a pure capitalistic economic system,
whereas they are defined and exist in a democracy, and hence capitalism
in a democracy must operate under limited constraints resulting from
the existence of political rights.

>>
>>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 not challenging the internal consistency of
Objectivism, 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.

>>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...the problem with Objectivists is that
they advocate that the right to property must not be constrained by
any other right.

>>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.

>>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.  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.

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

>
>>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!

>>
>>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?

>>
>>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...
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.

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

>>
>>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.                

>>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.

Gerald
Xref: sparky soc.culture.canada:9683 can.politics:11108