From: cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok)
Subject: Re: Negative Income Tax (Was: Social programs)
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 18:15:56 GMT

In article <1993Jan3.072921.9716@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca> golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
>In article <1993Jan2.225819.18188@athena.mit.edu> cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok) writes:
>>i have already explained *many* times the difference between protecting
>>the right to something and forcing others to provide you with it.
>>you may not like it, but there is a difference. i'm not going to
>>keep repeating my arguments over and over.
>
>When "the right to vote" exists and is seen to be meaningful and
>able to be exercised by the poorest in the society, this is the
>best protector of all the individual rights of all the rest of
>the citizens, including the property of the well-to-do.

you still haven't the foggiest about what rights are, how they work
and how they interact. pretty sad. still sure that you have no
prioritization of rights, that which you accused objectivists of?

i can see that you continue to prefer spouting dogma instead
of dealing with rational, logical counter-arguments. fine -- that
is the last you will see of such counter-arguments. you obviously
aren't interested in real debate because you know you don't have
a leg to stand on. well, most people who have blind faith in something
which can't stand up to criticism do exactly the same thing. i
just expected more of you.

>A human being is not a rational animal, if they are starving, and
>the other citizens cannot expect that starving human being will act
>rationally.  There are enough real criminals to worry about...it
>is foolish to create them, along with the need for more police.

this is a practicality argument that does not belong in a
philosophical debate. in fact, you are the one who insisted upon
this in another post, when i raised the issue of potential compromise,
remember?  don't even *start* with me on practicality --
because the practicality of your "right to vote" perversion is even
worse than its theoretical foundation.

>The right to vote does put constraints on the right to property, but
>ultimately, democracy will impose the minimal constraints on the
>right to property.

so now you admit the hierarchy that you refused to admit before?
where is your response to my demonstration in a previous post
that you actually have at least as strong a hierarchy as an
objectivist (even though yours is not nearly as supportable)?
the evidence that you are willing to tolerate any obscenity to guarantee
your definition of the right to vote?

>Too bad more Objectivists would not read Les Miserables along with 
>Atlas Shrugged.

this is mere foolishness. you project your ignorance upon those you
unsuccessfully criticize. you also demonstrate more socialist bias
by this statement, which you will no doubt protest again without
valid counter-argument.



i refuse to continue this alleged discussion with you any longer.
you clearly don't know how to debate; you don't understand objectivism;
you confuse practicalities with philosophies (i.e. "what will
you do with the people who are starving", when we were only considering
how philosophically *right* it was for them to have a right to food);
you can't even admit when you have been proven wrong -- instead you
ignore arguments that i spend literally hours putting together.

i provided a very good counter-example in my last post that demonstrates
the folly of your moronic definition of "the right to vote" (i.e.
extending your definition to the right to property and showing how
it would force the government to guarantee me property, build me
a house, or buy me a car). this you ignored, and instead just
continue to repeat the same dogma, the same inconsistent,
perverted definition of the "right to vote" which clearly demonstrates that
you are more interested in repetition and spreading your brainwash
than you are in examining your positions to see how nonsensical they
are. your endless recycling of unsubstantiated claims and ignoring
of counter-arguments to your positions is reminiscent of discussions
i have had with evangilists, cult members, and anti-abortion fanatics.
at some point it is no longer worth the bother.

so as i said -- wallow in your ignorance. and if you change
your mind at some point and want to actually use the good brain that it
is obvious you have, please let me know. in the meantime, tone down
the anti-objectivist rhetoric, because you clearly can't support it.

--
charles
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,can.politics