Democracy vs Individual Rights
achi...@imap2.asu.edu
They rarely mention individual rights - it's what limits their power.
The world has seen an explosion of democracy. But it has not seen an
explosion of freedom (see China especially). In many countries the people
have successfully voted themselves into socialism.
IN EVERY DEMOCRACY there is some group that wants to vote away the rights
of the other. In America we have the environmentalists who want to remove
the rights of the farmers to their land, multiculturists who want to use
affirmative action to limit their employers rights, feminists, gay
actitivists, and other liberal pressure groups.
We also have the religious right, which wants to remove a woman's right
to abortion, and control what are children are taught in school.
Liberals want to enslave the citizens financially. Conservatives want
to enslave citizens intellectually.
Now is a time to rediscover your rights:
You have a right to your earnings.
You have a right to your property.
You have a right to choose the school your child will attend, and decide
what they will be taught.
You, the individual, are the sole holder of rights. There is no such
thing as group "rights".
Look at what is being done in the name of "public interest". Consider that
the "public" has no rights. The public is made up of individuals, each
with different desires, tastes, and merits. We don't all share the same
stomach - so why should we all share the same wallet?
When people learn to appreciate their rights, and take responsiblity for
themselves, then we will be a free country again.
Let's never forget that the Nazi's were popularly elected in a democracy.
When are we going to learn to LIMIT democracy with individual rights?
******************--***************
I always recommend the books "The Fountainhead" and "Atlas Shrugged",
both by Ayn Rand, to everyone I meet. These books will change the way
you see the world. -Tony Grundon
----------- ----------
------See the Ayn Rand website: http://www.aynrand.org/-----
"Today intelligence is neither recognized nor rewarded, but is being
systematically extinguished in a growing flood of brazenly flaunted
irrationality." - Ayn Rand
Lionell Griffith
Snip...
>
> Now is a time to rediscover your rights:
>
> You have a right to your earnings.
> You have a right to your property.
> You have a right to choose the school your child will attend, and decide
> what they will be taught.
> You, the individual, are the sole holder of rights. There is no such
> thing as group "rights".
******* YES *******
--
Lionell
Windy Hills Ranch, Training Center, and Reading Room:
http://www.av.qnet.com/~lgriffith
achi...@imap2.asu.edu
From achi...@imap2.asu.eduWed Jan 10 19:21:55 1996
Date: Mon, 8 Jan 1996 21:17:47 -0700
From: achi...@imap2.asu.edu
Subject: Democracy vs Individual Rights
Politicians love talking about democracy - it's what gives them their power.
They rarely mention individual rights - it's what limits their power.
The world has seen an explosion of democracy. But it has not seen an
explosion of freedom (see China especially). In many countries the people
have successfully voted themselves into socialism.
IN EVERY DEMOCRACY there is some group that wants to vote away the rights
of the other. In America we have the environmentalists who want to remove
the rights of the farmers to their land, multiculturists who want to use
affirmative action to limit their employers rights, feminists, gay
activists, and other liberal pressure groups.
We also have the religious right, which wants to remove a woman's right
to abortion, and control what are children are taught in school.
Liberals want to enslave the citizens financially. Conservatives want
to enslave citizens intellectually.
Now is a time to rediscover your rights:
You have a right to your earnings.
You have a right to your property.
You have a right to choose the school your child will attend, and decide
what they will be taught. You do not have the right to decide what other
parent's children will be taught.
You have the right to spread YOUR views on ANY SUBJECT you desire
(including sex), so long as you do not violate the rights of others in
doing so. (in other words you spread your views by your own effort -
not by forcing others to pay for the dissemination of your ideas.)
You do not have the right to anybody's profit, property, or air-time.
Your rights end where the rights of other individuals begin.
You, the individual, are the sole holder of rights. There is no such
thing as group "rights".
Look at what is being done in the name of "public interest". Consider that
the "public" has no rights. The public is made up of individuals, each
with different desires, tastes, and merits. We don't all share the same
stomach - so why should we all share the same wallet?
If someone CHOOSES to co-operate with you that is not a violation of
their rights. If you force them that is not co-operation.
The only violation of rights is through the initiation of force.
When people learn to appreciate their rights, and stop demanding the
government violate the rights of others, then we will be a free country
JanHolland
>achi...@imap2.asu.edu wrote:
>Snip...
>>
>> Now is a time to rediscover your rights:
>>
>> You have a right to your earnings.
>> You have a right to your property.
>> You have a right to choose the school your child will attend, and decide
>> what they will be taught.
>> You, the individual, are the sole holder of rights. There is no such
>> thing as group "rights".
>> Snip...
> ******* YES *******
Is this the ceremony of a religious group ?
Jan Holland
t...@pi.net
"A fact is a broken dream, A dream is a future fact"
Nancy K
>Lionell Griffith <lgri...@qnet.com> wrote:
>>achi...@imap2.asu.edu wrote:
>>Snip...
>>>
>>> Now is a time to rediscover your rights:
>>>
>>> You have a right to your earnings.
>>> You have a right to your property.
>>> You have a right to choose the school your child will attend, and decide
>>> what they will be taught.
>>> You, the individual, are the sole holder of rights. There is no such
>>> thing as group "rights".
>>> Snip...
>> ******* YES *******
>Is this the ceremony of a religious group ?
Yes, it's called Liberty...
Nancy K
achi...@imap2.asu.edu
On Sun, 14 Jan 1996, Nancy K wrote:
> t...@pi.net (JanHolland) wrote:
>
> >Is this the ceremony of a religious group ?
>
> Yes, it's called Liberty...
>
This was a reply to a snip of an article I wrote.
A better reply would be that rights can be defended by reasons. They do
not have to be taken on faith, as a religious ceremony. I repost my
original article.
Politicians love talking about democracy - it's what gives them their power.
They rarely mention individual rights - it's what limits their power.
------------
The world has seen an explosion of democracy. But it has not seen an
explosion of freedom (see China especially). In many countries the people
have successfully voted themselves into socialism.
IN EVERY DEMOCRACY there is some group that wants to vote away the rights
of the other. In America we have the environmentalists who want to remove
the rights of the farmers to their land, multiculturists who want to use
affirmative action to limit their employers rights, feminists, gay
activists, and other liberal pressure groups.
We also have the religious right, which wants to remove a woman's right
to abortion, and control what our children are taught in school.
Liberals want to enslave the citizens financially. Conservatives want
to enslave citizens intellectually.
Now is a time to rediscover your rights:
You have a right to your earnings.
You have a right to your property.
You have a right to choose the school your child will attend, and decide
what they will be taught. You do not have the right to decide what other
parent's children will be taught.
You have the right to spread YOUR views on ANY SUBJECT you desire
(including sex), so long as you do not violate the rights of others in
doing so. (in other words you spread your views by your own effort -
not by forcing others to pay for the dissemination of your ideas.)
You do not have the right to anybody's profit, property, or air-time.
Your rights end where the rights of other individuals begin.
You, the individual, are the sole holder of rights. There is no such
thing as group "rights". If someone CHOOSES to co-operate with you that
is not a violation of their rights. If you force them that is not
co-operation.
Look at what is being done in the name of "public interest". Consider that
the "public" has no rights. The public is made up of individuals, each
with different desires, tastes, and merits. We don't all share the same
stomach - so why should we all share the same wallet? We don't all share
the same eyes, so why should we let the government decide which books,
movies, and e-mail we are allowed to view?
The only violation of rights is through the initiation of force. Among
the nations that initiate force against their citizens, democracies rank
high. Let's never forget that the Nazi's were popularly elected in a
democracy.
When people learn to appreciate their rights, and stop demanding the
government violate the rights of others, then we will be a free country
again.
We WILL be a free country when we learn to LIMIT democracy with
individual rights.
achi...@imap2.asu.edu
>
> Please define "earnings."
> Please define "peoperty."
> Please tell us from where these rights spring.
This was a reply to a snip of my article.
Please read my entire article (attached). It makes it clear that rights
spring from the individual. As far a from where the concept "earnings"
and "property" spring, I refer you to a book called "Lost Rights" by
James Bovard. Most rights spring from common law, as I believe the book
documents.
> Do I have the right to decide that my son will be taught to murder, rape,
> and rob?
Increasingly parents are being held responsible for the ideas they teach
their children, as they should be.
Children have a special place in the law, since they are not yet able to
care for themselves. Individual rights theorists take this into account.
-------
Politicians love talking about democracy - it's what gives them their power.
They rarely mention individual rights - it's what limits their power.
The world has seen an explosion of democracy. But it has not seen an
Mike Best
>Lionell Griffith <lgri...@qnet.com> wrote:
>
>>achi...@imap2.asu.edu wrote:
>>Snip...
>>>
>>>
>>> You have a right to your earnings.
>>> You have a right to your property.
>>> You have a right to choose the school your child will attend, and decide
>>> what they will be taught.
>>> thing as group "rights".
>
>> ******* YES *******
>
>Is this the ceremony of a religious group ?
If you are an American this would be a sad comment on the
ability and effectiveness of our education system to inform
us on the very foundation of this republic. That is that
rights are derived from the nature of man and that they
predate government. The right to life, liberty, and to
your property are the most fundamental of natural rights
and to fail to recognize this is sad but to intentionally
disregard this is foolhardy.
Mike Best
be...@anasazi.com
Nancy K
>On Sun, 14 Jan 1996, Nancy K wrote:
>> t...@pi.net (JanHolland) wrote:
>>
>> >Is this the ceremony of a religious group ?
>>
>> Yes, it's called Liberty...
>>
>This was a reply to a snip of an article I wrote.
>A better reply would be that rights can be defended by reasons. They do
>not have to be taken on faith, as a religious ceremony. I repost my
>original article.
>Politicians love talking about democracy - it's what gives them their power.
>They rarely mention individual rights - it's what limits their power.
>------------
>The world has seen an explosion of democracy. But it has not seen an
>explosion of freedom (see China especially). In many countries the people
>have successfully voted themselves into socialism.
>IN EVERY DEMOCRACY there is some group that wants to vote away the rights
>of the other. In America we have the environmentalists who want to remove
>the rights of the farmers to their land, multiculturists who want to use
>affirmative action to limit their employers rights, feminists, gay
>activists, and other liberal pressure groups.
>We also have the religious right, which wants to remove a woman's right
>to abortion, and control what our children are taught in school.
>Liberals want to enslave the citizens financially. Conservatives want
>to enslave citizens intellectually.
>Now is a time to rediscover your rights:
>You have a right to your earnings.
>You have a right to your property.
>You have a right to choose the school your child will attend, and decide
>what they will be taught. You do not have the right to decide what other
>parent's children will be taught.
>You have the right to spread YOUR views on ANY SUBJECT you desire
>(including sex), so long as you do not violate the rights of others in
>doing so. (in other words you spread your views by your own effort -
>not by forcing others to pay for the dissemination of your ideas.)
>You do not have the right to anybody's profit, property, or air-time.
>Your rights end where the rights of other individuals begin.
>You, the individual, are the sole holder of rights. There is no such
>thing as group "rights". If someone CHOOSES to co-operate with you that
>is not a violation of their rights. If you force them that is not
>co-operation.
>Look at what is being done in the name of "public interest". Consider that
>the "public" has no rights. The public is made up of individuals, each
>with different desires, tastes, and merits. We don't all share the same
>stomach - so why should we all share the same wallet? We don't all share
>the same eyes, so why should we let the government decide which books,
>movies, and e-mail we are allowed to view?
>The only violation of rights is through the initiation of force. Among
>the nations that initiate force against their citizens, democracies rank
>high. Let's never forget that the Nazi's were popularly elected in a
>democracy.
>When people learn to appreciate their rights, and stop demanding the
>government violate the rights of others, then we will be a free country
>again.
>We WILL be a free country when we learn to LIMIT democracy with
>individual rights.
It's called following the Constitution of the United States. It does
honor individual rights over the force of the majority. Another
interesting thing is that this country was NOT established as a
Democracy, but a Constitutional Republic. Look in the
Constitution... you will not see the word Democracy mentioned once.
Other than that... great article.
----------------------------------------
" . . . democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and
contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security,
or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their
lives as they have been violent in their deaths."
- James Madison
"Remember, Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts and
murders itself! There never was a democracy that 'did not commit
suicide."
- Samuel Adams
"We are a Republican Government. Real liberty is never found in
despotism or in the extremes of Democracy."
- Alexander Hamilton
Don Cline
>Lionell Griffith <lgri...@qnet.com> wrote:
>>achi...@imap2.asu.edu wrote:
>>Snip...
>>>
>>> Now is a time to rediscover your rights:
>>>
>>> You have a right to your earnings.
>>> You have a right to your property.
>>> You have a right to choose the school your child will attend, and decide
>>> what they will be taught.
>>> You, the individual, are the sole holder of rights. There is no such
>>> thing as group "rights".
>>> Snip...
>> ******* YES *******
>Is this the ceremony of a religious group ?
>Jan Holland
>t...@pi.net
>"A fact is a broken dream, A dream is a future fact"
Are you cute? Or just trying to be cute?
--
Don Cline
The Freedom Fighter Net
frd...@primenet.com
===============================================================
If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of
servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go
home from us in peace. We seek not your counsels or arms.
Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your
chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget
that ye were our countrymen." -- Samuel Adams
===============================================================
Don Cline
>nan...@bga.com (Nancy K) wrote, perhaps among other things...
>>t...@pi.net (JanHolland) wrote:
>>
>>>Lionell Griffith <lgri...@qnet.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>achi...@imap2.asu.edu wrote:
>>>>Snip...
>>>>>
>>>>> Now is a time to rediscover your rights:
>>>>>
>>>>> You have a right to your earnings.
>>>>> You have a right to your property.
>>>>> You have a right to choose the school your child will attend, and decide
>>>>> what they will be taught.
>>>>> You, the individual, are the sole holder of rights. There is no such
>>>>> thing as group "rights".
>>>>> Snip...
>>
>>>> ******* YES *******
>>
>>>Is this the ceremony of a religious group ?
>>
>> Yes, it's called Liberty...
>>
>Please define "earnings."
That which you receive in fair exchange for your services to others
without the aid of capital.
>Please define "peoperty."
"peoperty" unknown. I presume you mean "property". "The term
"property" embraces every species of valuable right and interest,
including real and personal property, easements, franchises, and
hereditaments." (Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 1914). It also includes
anything you produce by your own effort, including money received in
exchange for that which you produce.
>Please tell us from where these rights spring.
From God (and/or) your Creator if you are religious; from your natural
existence as a human being if not.
>Do I have the right to decide that my son will be taught to murder, rape,
>and rob?
That is a strawman. YOU do not have the right to murder, rape, and
rob; ergo, you do not have the right to teach anyone to murder, rape
and rob.
>Just wondering...
I doubt it.
>Paul "Philosophy 101" Madarasz
>Tucson,
>Baja Arizona
>Newsgroups trimmed arbitrarily.
John Power
>
> Lionell Griffith <lgri...@qnet.com> wrote:
>
> >achi...@imap2.asu.edu wrote:
> >Snip...
> >>
> >> Now is a time to rediscover your rights:
> >>
> >> You have a right to your earnings.
> >> You have a right to your property.
> >> You have a right to choose the school your child will attend,
> >> and decide what they will be taught.
> >> You, the individual, are the sole holder of rights. There is
> >> no such thing as group "rights".
> >> Snip...
>
> > ******* YES *******
>
> Is this the ceremony of a religious group ?
I suppose you could consider individual rights a religious
belief if you think other facts like 2+2=4 are also part
of the church's cannon. Then again, you would be wrong.
----John Power
achi...@imap2.asu.edu
>It's called following the Constitution of the United States. It does
>honor individual rights over the force of the majority.
Except that rights exist independent of any political body. A political
body can vote away your rights - but that does not wipe your rights out
of existence. It merely invalidates the government which fails to
recognize your rights.
The reason rights cannot be voted away is that rights are a moral concept,
based on a philosophic view of man's nature. Man's nature is individual,
hence "individual rights". A philosophic view of man is higher and more
important than politics.
The function of a government is to recognize and protect rights.
The function of moral philosophy (ethics) is to develop a proper view of
man, and his proper actions.
Without philosophy, "rights" cannot be defined or defended in an argument.
The Constitution only partially defined rights. The Constitution was an
incomplete framework for defending individual rights. Politicians have
taken advantage of the gaps in the Constitution to tear away at our
freedoms.
What important information was missing from the Constitution?
A complete view of man's nature. Man by his nature is an independent trader.
As such he needs to have the ability to function and produce
independently of other men. For this he requires the right to property,
his life, and his profits. To trade with other men man must have an open,
unregulated marketplace. Hence the virtue of capitalism.
*******************__*******************
I always recommend the books "The Fountainhead" and "Atlas Shrugged",
both by Ayn Rand, to everyone I meet. These books will change the way you
see the world. - Tony Grundon
--------------- ----------------
------- See the Ayn Rand website: http://www.aynrand.org/-----------
Edwin A Peeples III
"DEMOCRACY" for which it stands. I wonder how many people know therere is a legal diffrence
between (U)nited States (and adjutive-fiction of law) and the (u)nited states of America which in
reality is what most people mean when they talk about this country. (see Downs vs Bidwell)
Wynn Peeples
Steve Kangas
>On Sun, 14 Jan 1996, Nancy K wrote:
>
>>It's called following the Constitution of the United States. It does
>>honor individual rights over the force of the majority.
>
>Except that rights exist independent of any political body. A political
>body can vote away your rights - but that does not wipe your rights out
>of existence. It merely invalidates the government which fails to
>recognize your rights.
>The reason rights cannot be voted away is that rights are a moral concept,
>based on a philosophic view of man's nature. Man's nature is individual,
>hence "individual rights". A philosophic view of man is higher and more
>important than politics.
Oh, puh-leeeeze. Whose "moral concepts?" Whose "philosophic
view?" Philosophers have been arguing about the basis of
morality since the dawn of human history, just as they have the
tension between individualism and collectivism. You cite
individualist philosophers; fine, I'll cite collectivist ones.
Let me give a liberal counterpoint to your philosophy: morality
is a function of group survival. Lying, cheating, stealing and
killing are immoral because it ruins the cooperation and
cohesion of the group. And group survival is superior to
individual survival on all counts. The very birth of an
individual depends on a social contract between two people.
Hermits survive more poorly than those in groups; that's why
true hermitism is so rare. And a mass of uncoordinated,
uncooperating individuals is less efficient than an organized,
interdependent team. That's why our society has split up into
job specialties, and why communication technology has become so
vital; ours is an increasingly interdependent world. The fact
is that if you had to build your own computers and cars and
homes, you would struggling for mere survival.
>The function of a government is to recognize and protect rights.
But it's also to establish responsibilities.
>(snip)
>The Constitution only partially defined rights. The Constitution was an
>incomplete framework for defending individual rights. Politicians have
>taken advantage of the gaps in the Constitution to tear away at our
>freedoms.
There was a reason for the generalness of the Constitution. The
Founding Fathers realized that if they specified too much, the
Constitution would be inflexible in the face of changing times
and changing challenges. They knew there would be exceptions to
every rule. Therefore they created the Supreme Court to
interpret the Constitution on a case-by-case basis. And they
created an amendment process to change the Constitution along
with the times. It was a profound foresight, and a correct one.
>
>What important information was missing from the Constitution?
>
>A complete view of man's nature. Man by his nature is an independent trader.
>As such he needs to have the ability to function and produce
>independently of other men. For this he requires the right to property,
>his life, and his profits. To trade with other men man must have an open,
>unregulated marketplace. Hence the virtue of capitalism.
Well, the inclusion of the word "profits" here torpedoes your
whole argument. Profits suggest the existence of a mutual
exchange. A system of mutual exchanges represents an
interdependent society, one where other people's rights must be
respected, rules obeyed, responsibilities fulfilled. In a
complex world, the rules become more complex to ensure
fairness. Conservatives and libertarians would love to tear
down these rules, so they can compete unfairly, and introduce
the survival of the fittest - a brute force Social Darwinism.
It is a self-centered philosophy that turns the members of the
group against each other, abandoning the proven merits of group
survival. This is why they defend executive pay a hundred times
higher than their workers, even though the poverty level is
growing in America. To hell with the group - "I got mine, you
get to suffer."
>
> - Tony Grundon
>
Steve Kangas
Lawrence Kennon
>There was a reason for the generalness of the Constitution. The
>Founding Fathers realized that if they specified too much, the
>Constitution would be inflexible in the face of changing times
>and changing challenges. They knew there would be exceptions to
>every rule. Therefore they created the Supreme Court to
>interpret the Constitution on a case-by-case basis. And they
>created an amendment process to change the Constitution along
>with the times. It was a profound foresight, and a correct one.
Would you care to provide the actual source documents, documents
from the founders that corroborate this opinion? Perhaps a little
snippet from the Federalist Papers, or perhaps something by
Jefferson, Adams, or Hamilton perchance?
Certainly they intended for the rules of the Constitution to be
amendeable, i.e. they provided a process by which the Constitution
could be changed, however they made that process extremely difficult.
I seriously doubt that they intended for the Supreme Court to "interpret
the Constitution on a case by case basis", but rather on the
_principles_ embodied in the Constitution. In retrospect, if there is
any one principle embodied in the Constitution, it is the principle
of diffusing power among competing factions (aka "checks and balances).
It would seem that their intent was to make the Federal government
just powerful enough, and no more. It is beyond question that they
did not forsee the monster that the Federal government would become.
But if you actually have any evidence of the Founders intentions
other than speculation,... fire away with it.
Regards,
Lawrence Kennon
Stephen Mills
<SNIP>
>Let me give a liberal counterpoint to your philosophy: morality
>is a function of group survival. Lying, cheating, stealing and
>killing are immoral because it ruins the cooperation and
>cohesion of the group. And group survival is superior to
>individual survival on all counts. The very birth of an
>individual depends on a social contract between two people.
>Hermits survive more poorly than those in groups; that's why
>true hermitism is so rare. And a mass of uncoordinated,
>uncooperating individuals is less efficient than an organized,
>interdependent team. That's why our society has split up into
>job specialties, and why communication technology has become so
>vital; ours is an increasingly interdependent world. The fact
>is that if you had to build your own computers and cars and
>homes, you would struggling for mere survival.
Steve, I believe you are building a straw man here and it seems to be
a common theme in some of your posts. No one argues that cooperation
among individuals or teams of individuals is necessary for progress
and prosperity. I am a strong individualist and a strong believer in
individual rights. However, I relish social contact and cooperation.
I realize that even among animals that there is cooperation and
teamwork. I think most other individualists feel the same way.
In order to survive and thrive in the modern world, I must deal with
other people. The point is whether those dealings are VOLUNTARY or
COERCED. As an individualist, I believe ALL my dealings with other
people should be based upon respect of each other's INDIVIDUAL rights
and be VOLUNTARY. Collectivists want the government to FORCE
individuals to deal with one another and define the parameters of
those relationships. For example: 1) In your zeal for government
controlled health care, you want individuals in health care to be
forced to give a certain level of care to anyone who needs it, at the
price specified by government bureaucrats, funded by people who make
money. 2) In your desire for regulation you want the government (at
least to some extent) to force individuals to sell only certain
products and/or services, at specified price ranges, to anyone who
asks (anti-discrimination laws). 3) In your support of welfare you
want government to force some people to support other people at a
certain level of living standards.
Please quit throwing out the example that without other people's
cooperation we wouldn't have cars, computers, or homes. WE ALL AGREE
ON THAT. The question at hand is whether that cooperation occurs
voluntarily among free individuals, or by force, via the mob rule of a
virtually unlimited democracy.
The fact that progress requires cooperation, DOES NOT REFUTE THE
POSITION OF INDIVIDUALISM. Please stop using this straw man tactic!
>Steve Kangas
Stephen Mills
It is better to tell the truth than to lie.
It is better to know than to be ignorant.
H. L. Mencken
Franklin Reveal
>> >based on a philosophic view of man's nature. Man's nature is individual,
>> >hence "individual rights". A philosophic view of man is higher and more
>> >important than politics.
>>
>> Oh, puh-leeeeze. Whose "moral concepts?" Whose "philosophic
>> view?" Philosophers have been arguing about the basis of
>> morality since the dawn of human history, just as they have the
>> tension between individualism and collectivism. You cite
>> individualist philosophers; fine, I'll cite collectivist ones.
>> is a function of group survival.
Unfortunately, I cannot accept your statements without the notarized
approval of the group first. This also invalidiates anything else you might
add below to the text above. So be certain next time to provide voting
records that clearly prove you are the duly authorized SPOKESPERSON of YOUR
GROUP.
Otherwise, puh-leeeeze SHUT UP .
Sincerely,
Franklin Reveal
Tom Tadfor Little
>
> But cooperation in a group does not happen spontaneously.
> Groups must agree to plans, strategies, rights and
> responsibilities. There are only two ways this can be
> accomplished: democratic agreement or authoritarian fiat. And a
> lot of individualists I know have severe problems with
> democracy.
>
> Libertarians try to get around this by evoking the
> Constitution. But this only delays the dilemma a step. There
> are only two ways to frame a Constitution: by democratic
> agreement or by authoritarian fiat.
>
This is a false dichotomy. In any group of more than two
people, there are other alternatives besides dictatorship
(one rules many) or democracy (majority rules minority).
For example (and this is the kind of cooperation libertarians
favor), there is consensus: everyone who participates agrees
to do so. Those who disagree are not required to participate.
Much of the rest of your post contains examples of "coercion"
in the free market. I think you are being a little too free
with your terms here. You seem to regard any relationship that
is not optimal for you as being coercive. That is not what
most people mean by the word. If something costs more than
you like, but you choose to buy it anyway because that's
better for you than going without, you are not being coerced.
There is an important insight in what you say, however, because
producers/sellers generally have more control over the terms
of sale in a mass market than do consumers. McDonald's will
not renegotiate the price of a hamburger with each potential
customer. There is an asymmetry in the relationship. But I
think it's odd to see this as "coercion". Someone who has
actually been coerced (by physical violence or its threat)
may find your use of the word a little hollow.
--
Tom Tadfor Little tli...@lanl.gov -or- te...@Rt66.com
technical writer/editor Los Alamos National Laboratory
Visit Telperion Productions on the web at
http://www.rt66.com/~telp/
John Parker
>But this coercion is no less present in the free market which
>you erroniously believe to be the answer to government forms of
>coercion. Let me give you several examples. I am one of those
>people who has a slight reaction to monosodium glutamate. I
>would love to eat my food without MSG. But MSG makes food taste
>better, so people buy it more - and because people buy it more,
>manufacturers put it in thousands of foods. Unfortunately, not
>all of them label their food as containing MSG, and I have no
>way of knowing when I'm going to take a hit. So I am a victim
>of the tyranny of the majority - right in your free market!
>There are many other examples. Health care costs have
>skyrocketed. I can't afford health care unless I am COERCED to
>pay rates three to four times higher than those in other
>countries offering the same services. I would also love to pick
>the few cable channels I do watch, but I am COERCED by the
>cable company to buy virtually all of them, at a much higher
>price. I would love to buy an electric car that has benefited
>from the billions of dollars of R&D that made gasoline cars
>feasible, but auto-makers have refused to do so, and I am
>COERCED to buy fossil-fuel burning cars if I am to function
>optimally in this society. I would love to buy insurance that
>doesn't cost me an arm and a leg, but the insurance companies
>have fixed their prices, and I am COERCED to pay the exorbitant
>rates or face catastrophic loss at any unlucky moment.
It is truely sad that we have reached the pitiful point where someone
who believes that because he cannot arbitrarily have all the things
that wants at the price he chooses to pay, he is somehow under someone
elses control. I don't care what you would love to have, Steve, and it
is not my responsibility, nor anyone elses, to see that you get it.
Further, I'm sick and tired of the pathetic whinings and rantings of
you little dependant creeps about all the things you would like and
don't have. Do you actually believe that you should have the ability
to dictate to investors what kind of car they spend their R&D money
on, or to detirmine how cable companies package their product? Thank
goodness that people like you never mature enough to gain any real
political power.
--John Parker
To respond in a logical manner to your illogical posting is
not logical, but it is great fun to add to your obvious
confusion.
Steve Kangas
>
>Steve, I believe you are building a straw man here and it seems to be
>a common theme in some of your posts. No one argues that cooperation
>among individuals or teams of individuals is necessary for progress
>and prosperity. I am a strong individualist and a strong believer in
>individual rights. However, I relish social contact and cooperation.
>I realize that even among animals that there is cooperation and
>teamwork. I think most other individualists feel the same way.
But cooperation in a group does not happen spontaneously.
Groups must agree to plans, strategies, rights and
responsibilities. There are only two ways this can be
accomplished: democratic agreement or authoritarian fiat. And a
lot of individualists I know have severe problems with
democracy.
Libertarians try to get around this by evoking the
Constitution. But this only delays the dilemma a step. There
are only two ways to frame a Constitution: by democratic
agreement or by authoritarian fiat.
>
>In order to survive and thrive in the modern world, I must deal with
>other people. The point is whether those dealings are VOLUNTARY or
>COERCED. As an individualist, I believe ALL my dealings with other
>people should be based upon respect of each other's INDIVIDUAL rights
>and be VOLUNTARY. Collectivists want the government to FORCE
>individuals to deal with one another and define the parameters of
>those relationships.
But this coercion is no less present in the free market which
you erroniously believe to be the answer to government forms of
coercion. Let me give you several examples. I am one of those
people who has a slight reaction to monosodium glutamate. I
would love to eat my food without MSG. But MSG makes food taste
better, so people buy it more - and because people buy it more,
manufacturers put it in thousands of foods. Unfortunately, not
all of them label their food as containing MSG, and I have no
way of knowing when I'm going to take a hit. So I am a victim
of the tyranny of the majority - right in your free market!
There are many other examples. Health care costs have
skyrocketed. I can't afford health care unless I am COERCED to
pay rates three to four times higher than those in other
countries offering the same services. I would also love to pick
the few cable channels I do watch, but I am COERCED by the
cable company to buy virtually all of them, at a much higher
price. I would love to buy an electric car that has benefited
from the billions of dollars of R&D that made gasoline cars
feasible, but auto-makers have refused to do so, and I am
COERCED to buy fossil-fuel burning cars if I am to function
optimally in this society. I would love to buy insurance that
doesn't cost me an arm and a leg, but the insurance companies
have fixed their prices, and I am COERCED to pay the exorbitant
rates or face catastrophic loss at any unlucky moment.
The fact is that coercion exists in both the public and private
sector. It is my observation that it gets abused more in the
private sector, where executive and CEO power is more
authoritarian, and less democratically derived.
>For example: 1) In your zeal for government
>controlled health care, you want individuals in health care to be
>forced to give a certain level of care to anyone who needs it, at the
>price specified by government bureaucrats, funded by people who make
>money.
But what about the lowly patients coerced to pay astronomical
rates? You don't care about their rights, do you?
>2) In your desire for regulation you want the government (at
>least to some extent) to force individuals to sell only certain
>products and/or services, at specified price ranges, to anyone who
>asks (anti-discrimination laws).
But these conventions protect the rights of the consumer. I
have a right not to be forced to pay an outrageous price
because the company happens to be a monopoly, or a collaborator
on price-fixing. I have a right not to be poisoned by DDT.
(Remember that gem in free market history?) I have a right not
to be discriminated against because I was accidentally born a
certain race or sex. You know, Mr. Mills, the problem I
continually encounter with your rhetoric is that you defend the
individual rights of one group ONLY. You are hypocritical about
applying the concept to everybody. True, you state your
commitment in principle to universal individual rights, but
when it comes down to brass tacks, you take the entrepreneur's
side every time. I don't mind if you take a special interest
point of view. I just wish you would stop cloaking your
rhetoric in libertarian altruism.
>3) In your support of welfare you
>want government to force some people to support other people at a
>certain level of living standards.
But the coercion is no less present on the poor. We run an
economy that intentionally permits 5-6 percent unemployment.
Economists tell us this is for the best, enabling the job
market to react efficiently to emerging and disappearing
industries. But if we allow this sort of unemployment, it means
that a percentage of workers are going to suffer through
unemployment BY FORCE. Since it is no choice of their own, we
have an obligation to tide them over.
And here's another form of market coercion for you. Our economy
can handle only so many executive and managerial jobs, only so
many scholastic and professional jobs. It doesn't matter how
much the economy grows - the percentages will remain pretty
much the same. (You can't have an economy where 100 percent of
the workers are CEOs.) That means a vast part of the job market
will be committed to trash collection, sewer repair, dead
animal removal, etc. Which means that the least qualified among
us are FORCED to take those jobs or starve. Now, it is true
they can educate themselves, and find a better job. But in so
doing, they displace another worker. Someone else becomes less
qualified, and THEY are forced to take that menial job. This is
called the mathematics of displacement, and coercion is a basic
component of it.
>
>Please quit throwing out the example that without other people's
>cooperation we wouldn't have cars, computers, or homes. WE ALL AGREE
>ON THAT. The question at hand is whether that cooperation occurs
>voluntarily among free individuals, or by force, via the mob rule of a
>virtually unlimited democracy.
Well, you missed the subtlety of my point, so I will greatly
simplify the question for you. How should plans - and yes,
individual rights - be determined in a group agreeing to
cooperate? Democratically? Or dictatorially?
>
>The fact that progress requires cooperation, DOES NOT REFUTE THE
>POSITION OF INDIVIDUALISM. Please stop using this straw man tactic!
>
Hardly a straw man - you have yet to define how groups agree to
the strategy, rights and responsiblities of the cooperation you
profess to admire.
Steve Kangas
"People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for
merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a
conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise
prices." Adam Smith
synergy
>gmi...@iamerica.net (Stephen Mills) wrote:
>>
>>Steve, I believe you are building a straw man here and it seems to be
>>a common theme in some of your posts. No one argues that cooperation
>>among individuals or teams of individuals is necessary for progress
>>and prosperity. I am a strong individualist and a strong believer in
>>individual rights. However, I relish social contact and cooperation.
>>I realize that even among animals that there is cooperation and
>>teamwork. I think most other individualists feel the same way.
>But cooperation in a group does not happen spontaneously.
It often does just that. Haven't you ever seen some people trying
to move a car stuck in the snow and joined them with little or
no discussion? I have.
>Groups must agree to plans, strategies, rights and
>responsibilities. There are only two ways this can be
>accomplished: democratic agreement or authoritarian fiat. And a
>lot of individualists I know have severe problems with
>democracy.
Most of their objections are due to their opposition to the
way a tyranny of the majority can violate the rights and liberties
of individuals.
>Libertarians try to get around this by evoking the
>Constitution.
Most libertarians believe that individuals have certain inate rights
and liberties that exist regardless of whether or not they are protected
by the Constitution. For example, I have a right to keep and bear arms.
It's nice that the 2nd Amendment specifically protects that right, but
the right would exist even if the 2nd Amendment were repealed.
>But this only delays the dilemma a step. There
>are only two ways to frame a Constitution: by democratic
>agreement or by authoritarian fiat.
Or people can find some basic principles they agree on and work from there.
One such principle might be "Any individual has a right to do as he pleases
as long as he doesn't violate the rights of others to do as they please
by initiating force or using fraud against them."
>>In order to survive and thrive in the modern world, I must deal with
>>other people. The point is whether those dealings are VOLUNTARY or
>>COERCED. As an individualist, I believe ALL my dealings with other
>>people should be based upon respect of each other's INDIVIDUAL rights
>>and be VOLUNTARY. Collectivists want the government to FORCE
>>individuals to deal with one another and define the parameters of
>>those relationships.
>But this coercion is no less present in the free market which
>you erroniously believe to be the answer to government forms of
>coercion. Let me give you several examples. I am one of those
>people who has a slight reaction to monosodium glutamate. I
>would love to eat my food without MSG. But MSG makes food taste
>better, so people buy it more - and because people buy it more,
>manufacturers put it in thousands of foods. Unfortunately, not
>all of them label their food as containing MSG, and I have no
>way of knowing when I'm going to take a hit. So I am a victim
>of the tyranny of the majority - right in your free market!
You are not being forced to eat any MSG whatsoever. You can simply
refuse to purchase any food unless the seller states that it
contains no MSG. The is no need for draconian labelling laws.
I happen to like labels describing the contents of processed foodstuffs,
drugs, and various household chemicals, but I don't believe manufacturers
should be forced to provide such labels. I simply avoid buying
products whose labels don't meet my standards.
>There are many other examples. Health care costs have
>skyrocketed. I can't afford health care unless I am COERCED to
>pay rates three to four times higher than those in other
>countries offering the same services.
So what? You must not want to pay a fair market price for health
care. Of course if the government quit meddling in the health
care market, you would probably be able to buy good health care
at much lower prices.
>I would also love to pick
>the few cable channels I do watch, but I am COERCED by the
>cable company to buy virtually all of them, at a much higher
>price.
You can thank the FCC for your problem with CATV.
>I would love to buy an electric car that has benefited
>from the billions of dollars of R&D that made gasoline cars
>feasible, but auto-makers have refused to do so, and I am
>COERCED to buy fossil-fuel burning cars if I am to function
>optimally in this society.
You are not coerced into driving a fossil-fueled car. Many
successful people I know ride bikes or walk to work. You
can always buy a farm and become completely self-sufficient,
as some people still choose to do. You are simply whining
because the marketplace has determined that electric cars
suck. You can buy or build one, if you really want one.
But you are extremely naive if you believe that anyone should
be obligated to provide you with any good or service at a price
you like.
I'd like to have 20 carat, flawless diamond. Of course I can't
afford one. That doesn't mean that I'm being coerced into
settling for some alternative.
>I would love to buy insurance that
>doesn't cost me an arm and a leg, but the insurance companies
>have fixed their prices, and I am COERCED to pay the exorbitant
>rates or face catastrophic loss at any unlucky moment.
It's your choice. No coercion except that from Big Brother is involved.
>The fact is that coercion exists in both the public and private
>sector. It is my observation that it gets abused more in the
>private sector, where executive and CEO power is more
>authoritarian, and less democratically derived.
Since you are not forced to buy any good or service from any particular
company (with a few government maintained monopolies being the only
exceptions), your argument is specious.
>>For example: 1) In your zeal for government
>>controlled health care, you want individuals in health care to be
>>forced to give a certain level of care to anyone who needs it, at the
>>price specified by government bureaucrats, funded by people who make
>>money.
>But what about the lowly patients coerced to pay astronomical
>rates? You don't care about their rights, do you?
What rights? Be specific. You have no right to health care.
Health care is a luxury, just like a big, flawless diamond.
Humanity got along just fine for tens of thousands of years before
what we call "health care" even existed. "Health care" as we know it
has existed for maybe a couple of hundred years at most.
[snip]
>>3) In your support of welfare you
>>want government to force some people to support other people at a
>>certain level of living standards.
>But the coercion is no less present on the poor. We run an
>economy that intentionally permits 5-6 percent unemployment.
So what? Nobody is coercing you to get or not get a job.
If everyone was always fully-employed and happy with their
jobs, who would start new companies that provide new products
and services? Who would fill existing job slots when workers
die of natual causes or get hit by city buses?
>Economists tell us this is for the best, enabling the job
>market to react efficiently to emerging and disappearing
>industries.
You should listen to those economists.
>But if we allow this sort of unemployment, it means
>that a percentage of workers are going to suffer through
>unemployment BY FORCE.
False. They are unemployed by choice in most cases. Some are
unemployed because the government makes it too expensive to hire
them.
>Since it is no choice of their own, we
>have an obligation to tide them over.
No we don't. That's just a silly, unsupported assertion on your part.
>And here's another form of market coercion for you. Our economy
>can handle only so many executive and managerial jobs, only so
>many scholastic and professional jobs. It doesn't matter how
>much the economy grows - the percentages will remain pretty
>much the same.
You seem to know little about economics. There has been a huge
change in the way people earn their livings in just the past
century. Look at how few people work on farms now compared to
100 years ago. Look at how many people work with computers and
in the electronic media industry--jobs that didn't exist a century
ago. There is a lot more need for executive and managerial types
these days than there was in the late 1800s. The odds are that
the percentage of managers/executives will be much different in
the late 2000s than it is now.
>(You can't have an economy where 100 percent of
>the workers are CEOs.)
Actually, you could. It would be an economy where everyone was a
self-employed entrepreneur on at least a part-time basis, thereby
making him/her the CEO of his/her own firm.
>That means a vast part of the job market
>will be committed to trash collection, sewer repair, dead
>animal removal, etc. Which means that the least qualified among
>us are FORCED to take those jobs or starve.
Blame nature. It used to be that people had to hunt/gather enough
food to avoid starving. Now you have the option of working at
some job in order to be able to buy food instead of killing it or
harvesting it yourself. Nature forces you to eat or die, but
nowadays you have many more ways to obtain food.
>Now, it is true
>they can educate themselves, and find a better job. But in so
>doing, they displace another worker. Someone else becomes less
>qualified, and THEY are forced to take that menial job. This is
>called the mathematics of displacement, and coercion is a basic
>component of it.
What must they displace another worker? Are you claiming that
no new jobs are ever created? Think before replying, lest you
make an even more complete fool of yourself in public.
>>Please quit throwing out the example that without other people's
>>cooperation we wouldn't have cars, computers, or homes. WE ALL AGREE
>>ON THAT. The question at hand is whether that cooperation occurs
>>voluntarily among free individuals, or by force, via the mob rule of a
>>virtually unlimited democracy.
>Well, you missed the subtlety of my point, so I will greatly
>simplify the question for you. How should plans - and yes,
>individual rights - be determined in a group agreeing to
>cooperate? Democratically? Or dictatorially?
Plans should be determined democratically, but the majority should
never be allowed to oppress any minority by violating their rights
or liberties.
>>The fact that progress requires cooperation, DOES NOT REFUTE THE
>>POSITION OF INDIVIDUALISM. Please stop using this straw man tactic!
>>
>Hardly a straw man - you have yet to define how groups agree to
>the strategy, rights and responsiblities of the cooperation you
>profess to admire.
Yes, it is a straw man, one you can't seem to give up.
>Steve Kangas
Come on, Steve. You probably have a brain--why not use it for
a change?
--
"Necessity is the plea of every infringement of human freedom. It is
the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -- William Pitt
Annoy a Fascist: Just Say No to Gun Control!
Annoy a Leftist: Think!
"Americans of all political persuasions are coming to the sad realization
that [Hillary Clinton]...is a congenital liar." -- William Safire
Tom S.
wrote:
>Steve Kangas <kang...@scruznet.com> wrote:
>
[snip: actually Steve wrote a bunch of whiney adolesent drivel]
>
>It is truely sad that we have reached the pitiful point where someone
>who believes that because he cannot arbitrarily have all the things
>that wants at the price he chooses to pay, he is somehow under someone
>elses control.
I think the term is "brat"!
Tom
Freedom is not empowerment. Empowerment is what the Serbs have in
Bosnia. Anybody can grab a gun and be empowered. It's not entitlement.
An entitlement is what people on welfare get, and how free are they? It's
not an endlessly expanding list of rights -- the "right" to education,
the "right" to health care, the "right" to food and housing. That's not
freedom, that's dependency. Those aren't rights, those are the rations
of slavery -- hay and a barn for human cattle. -- P. J. O'Rourke
achi...@imap2.asu.edu
> Steve Kangas <kang...@scruznet.com> writes:
>
> >But cooperation in a group does not happen spontaneously.
>
> It often does just that. Haven't you ever seen some people trying
> to move a car stuck in the snow and joined them with little or
> no discussion? I have.
Good point.
But better yet, have you seen how people cooperate on an assembly line to
make sure a finished product like an automobile comes out correctly? I
don't see any guns forcing them to make sure they don't turn over crappy
work for the next guy on the line. It's called the power of the profit
motive. When someone is acting in their own interest, they always do
their best.
achi...@imap2.asu.edu
_______
Politicians love talking about democracy - it's what gives them their power.
They rarely mention individual rights - it's what limits their power.
The world has seen an explosion of democracy. But it has not seen an
explosion of freedom (see China especially). In many countries the people
have successfully voted themselves into socialism.
IN EVERY DEMOCRACY there is some group that wants to vote away the rights
of the other. In America we have the environmentalists who want to remove
the rights of the farmers to their land, multiculturists who want to use
affirmative action to limit their employers rights, feminists, gay
activists, and other liberal pressure groups.
We also have the religious right, which wants to remove a woman's right
to abortion, and control what our children are taught in school.
Liberals want to enslave the citizens financially. Conservatives want
to enslave citizens intellectually.
Now is a time to rediscover your rights:
You have a right to your earnings.
You have a right to your property.
You have a right to choose the school your child will attend, and decide
what they will be taught. You do not have the right to decide what other
parent's children will be taught.
You have the right to spread YOUR views on ANY SUBJECT you desire
(including sex), so long as you do not violate the rights of others in
doing so. (in other words you spread your views by your own effort -
not by forcing others to pay for the dissemination of your ideas.)
You do not have the right to anybody's profit, property, or air-time.
Your rights end where the rights of other individuals begin.
You, the individual, are the sole holder of rights. There is no such
thing as group "rights". If someone CHOOSES to co-operate with you that
is not a violation of their rights. If you force them that is not
co-operation.
Look at what is being done in the name of "public interest". Consider that
the "public" has no rights. The public is made up of individuals, each
with different desires, tastes, and merits. We don't all share the same
stomach - so why should we all share the same wallet? We don't all share
the same eyes, so why should we let the government decide which books,
movies, and e-mail we are allowed to view?
The only violation of rights is through the initiation of force. Among
the nations that initiate force against their citizens, democracies rank
high. Let's never forget that the Nazi's were popularly elected in a
democracy.
When people learn to appreciate their rights, and stop demanding the
government violate the rights of others, then we will be a free country
again.
We WILL be a free country when we learn to LIMIT democracy with
individual rights.
******************--***************
I always recommend the books "The Fountainhead" and "Atlas Shrugged",
both by Ayn Rand, to everyone I meet. These books will change the way
you see the world. -Tony Grundon
----------- ----------
------See the Ayn Rand website: http://www.aynrand.org/-----
Barry DeCicco
|> This is a repost of the original article, as requested:
|>
|> You do not have the right to anybody's profit, property, or air-time.
|> Your rights end where the rights of other individuals begin.
|> You, the individual, are the sole holder of rights. There is no such
|> thing as group "rights". If someone CHOOSES to co-operate with you that
|> is not a violation of their rights. If you force them that is not
|> co-operation.
|>
And why don't I have a right to some air-time, if I have purchased/
rented the equipment and electricity?
Barry
achi...@imap2.asu.edu
>
> And why don't I have a right to some air-time, if I have purchased/
> rented the equipment and electricity?
>
Nobody says you wouldn't. You don't have the right to air-time a priori,
as a primary, unless you own the station. You do have a right to purchase
air-time from anyone willing to sell it to you.
I think you were just being argumentative, you knew what I meant.
*******************__*******************
I always recommend the books "The Fountainhead" and "Atlas Shrugged",
both by Ayn Rand, to everyone I meet. These books will change the way you
see the world. - Tony Grundon
--------------- ----------------
------- See the Ayn Rand website: http://www.aynrand.org/-----------
Stephen Mills
>gmi...@iamerica.net (Stephen Mills) wrote:
>>
>>Steve, I believe you are building a straw man here and it seems to be
>>a common theme in some of your posts. No one argues that cooperation
>>among individuals or teams of individuals is necessary for progress
>>and prosperity. I am a strong individualist and a strong believer in
>>individual rights. However, I relish social contact and cooperation.
>>I realize that even among animals that there is cooperation and
>>teamwork. I think most other individualists feel the same way.
>But cooperation in a group does not happen spontaneously.
>Groups must agree to plans, strategies, rights and
>responsibilities. There are only two ways this can be
>accomplished: democratic agreement or authoritarian fiat. And a
>lot of individualists I know have severe problems with
>democracy.
We must be very careful about equivocation around the discussion of
democracy. Are we talking about political systems or private
voluntary associations among free individuals? I have a lot of
problems with "democratic" political systems that either already are
or quickly moving toward unlimited majority rule (the latter being the
case in the U.S). I do not have any problems with "democracy" within
a voluntary organization I have joined, with that being a condition of
membership.
I don't agree that the only solution to government is unlimited
majority rule or unlimited dictatorship. Democracy within a severely
restricted limited government that respects individual rights is fine
with me.
>Libertarians try to get around this by evoking the
>Constitution. But this only delays the dilemma a step. There
>are only two ways to frame a Constitution: by democratic
>agreement or by authoritarian fiat.
First of all I am going to use "force" to mean government force or
physical coercion in violation of individual personal or property
rights. I will answer your points about "free-market force" later.
So please don't answer the immediately following paragraphs by
changing force to include other meanings. You can do that in later
sections where I address those points.
Yes and no. If you believe that the only just society is one in which
rights are not subject to the vote, then it doesn't matter how it is
implemented. Obviously the preferable solution is to get a majority
of the people to agree to this constitution. But if this is not
possible, implementation by force is justifiable.
You might claim that I am forcing my political view on you. But that
is not true. I am asserting MY right to be free. If you don't want
to live free, you don't have to. Under my free society you and any
other people who agree with your views, would be perfectly free to
join together and practice an unlimited democracy. Your voluntary
democracy could tax, provide health care, regulate the business
activities of your members, etc. The only thing you couldn't do is
force people to join or prevent them from leaving. Us libertarians
could live our free and individualistic lives as well. Under your
ideal government, we all (who live in the geographic U.S.) are forced
to live under the democracy of the majority. The basic political
system would be as free as absolutely possible and individuals within
that free society could be as collectivist as they wanted.
The main difference between me and you Steve, is that I don't wan't to
fo0rce my way of living on you. You are free to join together with
whoever you want and live however you want and I am free to do the
same. You on the other hand, want to force those who don't agree with
you to live under your collectivist rules. Think about it. A free
society offers the greatest range of choices - from being a hermit to
living in a commune. You want everyone to live by the same government
enforced policies.
I will state absolutely that I would much rather live in an absolute
dictatorship, where that dictator enforced libertarian principles of a
free society, than under democratic socialism. If there were a
super-powerful person who created a libertarian free society, one in
which the laws were instituted to conform to the principles of
individual property rights, I would move there tomorrow. I think most
other libertarians would as well.
"Democracy" is the primary principle in modern politics. We are
constantly insisting that "Democratic policies" be implemented in
former dictatorships (like Haiti). I think "Freedom" is much more
important than democracy. No politicians ever talk about freedom any
more. The only concern seems to be the mood of the most vocal group
at the moment.
>>In order to survive and thrive in the modern world, I must deal with
>>other people. The point is whether those dealings are VOLUNTARY or
>>COERCED. As an individualist, I believe ALL my dealings with other
>>people should be based upon respect of each other's INDIVIDUAL rights
>>and be VOLUNTARY. Collectivists want the government to FORCE
>>individuals to deal with one another and define the parameters of
>>those relationships.
>But this coercion is no less present in the free market which
>you erroniously believe to be the answer to government forms of
>coercion. Let me give you several examples. I am one of those
>people who has a slight reaction to monosodium glutamate. I
>would love to eat my food without MSG. But MSG makes food taste
>better, so people buy it more - and because people buy it more,
>manufacturers put it in thousands of foods. Unfortunately, not
>all of them label their food as containing MSG, and I have no
>way of knowing when I'm going to take a hit. So I am a victim
>of the tyranny of the majority - right in your free market!
>There are many other examples. Health care costs have
>skyrocketed. I can't afford health care unless I am COERCED to
>pay rates three to four times higher than those in other
>countries offering the same services. I would also love to pick
>the few cable channels I do watch, but I am COERCED by the
>cable company to buy virtually all of them, at a much higher
>price. I would love to buy an electric car that has benefited
>from the billions of dollars of R&D that made gasoline cars
>feasible, but auto-makers have refused to do so, and I am
>COERCED to buy fossil-fuel burning cars if I am to function
>optimally in this society. I would love to buy insurance that
>doesn't cost me an arm and a leg, but the insurance companies
>have fixed their prices, and I am COERCED to pay the exorbitant
>rates or face catastrophic loss at any unlucky moment.
I will state, once again, my firm belief that a wide variety of wishes
are satisfied in the free-market. Much more than under the rule of
government. Minority desires are much more likely to be supplied by
private trade than government rules.
Secondly, your idea of coercion is totally wrong. It is not coercion
if someone on the free market doesn't give you what you want. If you
don't follow the government rules, someone with a gun will eventually
come get you and throw you in jail. If someone chooses not to deal
with you, that is a totally negative behavior. They are not forcing
you to do anything. Let me answer your examples.
MSG - Nobody has to provide you with any food! If you choose to buy
food and you can get someone to agree on conditions, a trade can
occur. You have no right to FORCE (see definition above) someone to
provide you with food or to FORCE any conditions upon them. You must
both agree to all terms. If you don't like MSG then buy MSG-free
food. If nobody offers it, then too bad. If you buy it with the
express condition that it is MSG-free and it is not, then they are
guilty of fraud. You can organize people and try to convince food
suppliers that it is their economic interest to sell MSG-free food.
You can grow your own, or join a cooperative that grows its own. In
any case it is not coercion if you can not get someone to trade with
you on your terms.
By the same logic I can insist that someone provide me with purple
bananas. If they don't, am I being coerced? I think Wal-Mart (which
has about the lowest priced groceries) is charging me too much for
food. Am I being coerced if they don't agree to lower their prices?
The fact that you can't get someone to provide you with a good or
service (requiring a positive action on their part) at exactly the
price or specifications you want IS NOT COERCION. It certainly is
fundamentally different than government enforced rules of trade.
Ultimately you are alone. If you can get people to conduct mutually
beneficial trades with you, then great. Otherwise too bad. Your
wishes do not impose an obligation on someone else.
Health Care - All of the above comments applies here as well. No one
owes you health care service. If you can come to an agreement with a
health care provider at a mutually agreeable price then great. Your
desire for health care at a certain price does not impose a positive
obligation on anyone else to provide it at that price. Here is an
example of an industry, including the health insurance industry, that
is heavily regulated by the government. The health care and insurance
industries are some of the most heavily regulated of all industries.
You and other big government proponents, are always pointing to the
FAILURES OF GOVERNMENT INTERFERNCE as examples of FAILURE IN THE
FREE-MARKET. Insurance is for your benefit to avoid catastrophic
loss. If you don't like the price, don't buy it.
Cable Television - Steve, you have got to quit using this example of
government enforced monopoly as an example of failure in the
free-market. The cable TV industry has since its inception, generally
enjoyed a local government enforced monopoly status. Competition has
been outlawed! Local governments grant cable TV franchises as they
see fit. It is only now that competition from new technologies, such
as DSS, telephone company television, broadcast cable, etc. that this
monopoly status is beginning to crumble. In fact this is a
counter-example I can use. I firmly believe a totally free and
unregulated cable industry would result in numerous choices for
consumers. It is the government controls that have eliminated
competition AND THEREBY ELIMINATED THE INCENTIVE TO SATISFY CUSTOMERS,
that cause your lack of choice. STOP USING CABLE TV AS AN EXAMPLE OF
THE FAILURE OF THE FREE-MARKET. In any case your desires for choice
do not impose obligations upon cable providers.
>The fact is that coercion exists in both the public and private
>sector. It is my observation that it gets abused more in the
>private sector, where executive and CEO power is more
>authoritarian, and less democratically derived.
As I have argued above, you are comparing apples and oranges.
Government coercion is fundamentally different than what you are
calling "private coercion" here.
>>For example: 1) In your zeal for government
>>controlled health care, you want individuals in health care to be
>>forced to give a certain level of care to anyone who needs it, at the
>>price specified by government bureaucrats, funded by people who make
>>money.
>But what about the lowly patients coerced to pay astronomical
>rates? You don't care about their rights, do you?
Yes I do. But I don't believe they have a "right" to health care. I
care that they are free acquire, use, and dispose of their property in
any way they see fit, as long as they respect the same right in
everyone else, and as long as all their relationships with other
people are as free traders. If people agree to trade, no one can
prevent them from trading. If they don't agree to trade, no one can
force them to trade.
>>2) In your desire for regulation you want the government (at
>>least to some extent) to force individuals to sell only certain
>>products and/or services, at specified price ranges, to anyone who
>>asks (anti-discrimination laws).
>But these conventions protect the rights of the consumer. I
>have a right not to be forced to pay an outrageous price
>because the company happens to be a monopoly, or a collaborator
>on price-fixing.
No you don't.
>I have a right not to be poisoned by DDT.
>(Remember that gem in free market history?)
Correct. Anyone who spreads poison onto my person or property is
violating my individual rights.
>I have a right not
>to be discriminated against because I was accidentally born a
>certain race or sex.
No you don't. All associations or trades have to be voluntarily
agreed upon by all parties involved. You do not have the right to
force someone else do deal with you. Racism or Sexism may be morally
repugnant, but it is a matter of individual choice.
>You know, Mr. Mills, the problem I
>continually encounter with your rhetoric is that you defend the
>individual rights of one group ONLY. You are hypocritical about
>applying the concept to everybody. True, you state your
>commitment in principle to universal individual rights, but
>when it comes down to brass tacks, you take the entrepreneur's
>side every time. I don't mind if you take a special interest
>point of view. I just wish you would stop cloaking your
>rhetoric in libertarian altruism.
Here you are crossing the line with a personal attack. You are
TOTALLY wrong when you insinuate I am only spouting rhetoric, like I
am just parroting Rush Limbaugh or his ilk. My libertarian positions
are the result of many years of interest in the subject, many books
purchased and read, thousands of articles read, thousands of hours
watching TV - PBS, network news, news magazines, CNN, etc. (observing
proponents argue pros and cons of almost every issue), a strong
interest in national politics and polices, etc. My position is an
intellectual one. I realize most people do not think deeply about
their positions. That is why the average person holds so many
contradictory positions. That is not the case with me, and I deeply
resent your attempt at trivializing my ideas or my commitment to them.
I have never doubted the commitment you have to your beliefs and I
would expect the same respect from you.
You are TOTALLY wrong when you call me a hypocrite. You are TOTALLY
wrong when you say I defend the individual rights of "one group ONLY".
The only group I defend is the smallest - the individual. You cannot
say I only believe in principle, but don't apply them in real life
instances - that I always take the side of the entrepreneur. If an
entrepreneur is violating the individual rights of a poor unemployed
person I would vociferously defend him against that violation. I
realize that business people are not lily-white moralists. I realize
they can commit fraud, imbezzlement, bribery, etc. I demand the same
respect for individual rights no matter what race, creed, sex, social
status, income, etc. The thing you cannot do Steve, is impose YOUR
definitions of rights into mine and then claim I am a hypocrite for
not supporting them. Please point out to me where I have been a
hypocrite in this area. Please give me a specific example of where I
have come down on the side of an entrepreneur in violation of the
individual rights of some poor worker or whatever you accuse me of and
IN VIOLATION OF THE PRINCIPLES I ESPOUSE (because that is the only
way I am hypocrite). If it appears I always come down on the side of
the entrepreneur in arguments with you, it is because I don't agree
with your idea of rights. It is possible we could have an
intellectual disagreement, Steve, without that making me a hypocrite.
I am really disappointed here. I think this is beneath you. I know
we didn't necessarily get off on the right foot. But I believe I have
tried to avoid these kind of personal attacks with you in recent
posts. I don't think any thing I said in my original post warranted
this attack.
I have begun to respect your knowledge and incredible command of
statistics. I am amazed at your prolific posting. I respect your
commitment to your beliefs and you seem to consistently support them
with arguments and data.
But, I think you are wrong. I think your analysis of that incredible
data store is incorrect. I think you use invalid arguments at times
and bring up irrelevant points. But I don't think your stupid, a
hypocrite, a liberal rhetoric spouter, or cloak you points in "liberal
altruism" whatever the hell that might be.
<SNIP. I think I have made my point>
>>Well, you missed the subtlety of my point, so I will greatly
>simplify the question for you. How should plans - and yes,
>individual rights - be determined in a group agreeing to
>cooperate? Democratically? Or dictatorially?
I guess you think I am so simple minded you have to greatly simplify
things for me. I answered this above. I argue these issues because I
want people to agree to them, but a violent revolution to implement
and enforce them would be just. NOBODY has the right to violate my
individual rights. I have the right to prevent other people from
doing so by force, if necessary. I don't think it has come to that
yet, and so I continue to fight with words, but that possibility
always exists.
>>The fact that progress requires cooperation, DOES NOT REFUTE THE
>>POSITION OF INDIVIDUALISM. Please stop using this straw man tactic!
>Hardly a straw man - you have yet to define how groups agree to
>the strategy, rights and responsiblities of the cooperation you
>profess to admire.
It is a straw man Steve because I haven't heard anyone argue
otherwise. The issue of cooperation among free people to progress is
an entirely different one from the issue of how to create a society in
which that free cooperation can exist. The first issue assumes the
second one. When we are arguing a specific economic or social policy
this "progress requires cooperation" is a straw man because EVERYONE
AGREES.
I don't just "profess to admire", I really do admire. This is just
another example of you attempting to smear my motives or commitment
towards my beliefs.
I am not going to develop a philosophical defense of individual
rights. I suspect you have heard it all before. I assume you
understand, if not agree with, my positions, so I never felt it
necessary to explain the foundations. I thought we could discuss it
without you calling me a hypocrite who spouts rhetoric. When you
continually use the word rhetoric, you imply I am simply parroting
empty phrases with no thought behind them. This is another example of
ad-hominem attack.
I will agree to not engage in personal attacks if you will do the
same. Spirited argument is fine and fun. Passion for beliefs makes
that inevitable. Ad-hominem attacks do nothing to advance the
argument. I went back and reread my previous post, and I will repeat
that I don't believe I said anything that deserved this kind of
response. I admit I am guilty of the same in the past, but after
getting to know you a little better, I have at least tried to avoid it
recently.
I don't expect anyone to sit quietly by and be attacked without
responding, but I try to tailor the level of my insult to the insulter
I am responding to. You have been the victim of totally unwarranted
ad-hominem attacks in this newsgroup. You are not necessarily a
popular guy here, so feel free to return fire if necessary. But I
would suggest that you not encourage it unnecessarily. Think how much
more effective you would be, if you submitted calmly reasoned
responses to stand in contrast to those filled with personal attack.
BTW, Agent is cross-posting this to numerous newsgroups. I am reading
it in ALT.POLITICS.LIBERTARIAN. Is that where you are posting to?
Maybe that is why I didn't see your response.
>Steve Kangas
>"People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for
>merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a
>conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise
>prices." Adam Smith
Michael Lumer
>This is a repost of the original article, as requested:
>_______
>Politicians love talking about democracy - it's what gives them their power.
>They rarely mention individual rights - it's what limits their power.
>The world has seen an explosion of democracy. But it has not seen an
>explosion of freedom (see China especially). In many countries the people
>have successfully voted themselves into socialism.
Ummm, I had never thought of China as a democratic nation before. In any
event, you have confused the institution of voting with democracy. For
instance, in the U.S. we have elections but access to the ballot (and all that
goes with it) is severely truncated. Hence we end up with choices that very
few people actually like. Democracy, if truly practiced, would allow greater
individual expression in politics. And if given the chance to choose
socialism, why shouldn't the choice of free individuals be respected? (I
won't even ask which countries you are referring to, there are virtually no
socialist governments these days.)
>IN EVERY DEMOCRACY there is some group that wants to vote away the rights
>of the other. In America we have the environmentalists who want to remove
>the rights of the farmers to their land, multiculturists who want to use
>affirmative action to limit their employers rights, feminists, gay
>activists, and other liberal pressure groups.
Yeah sure. And in every country there are conflicts between competing
interests. Environmentalists do want to infringe on certain "rights." Of
course one could also argue that industrial concerns commit far graver
violations by permanently degrading and destroying our environment and thus
imposing on our "rights" to a healthier world. As for liberal pressure
groups, well, some of the most effective lobbyists are quite conservative and
not at all in sync with a progressive worldview. They just tend to be a
little more low-profile.
Besides, if individuals believe that they are being discriminated against
because of a common factor which they all share and they choose to cooperate
by bonding together and creating a pressure group, isn't that just a wonderful
example of individual rights co-existing nicely within a democratic framework?
>We also have the religious right, which wants to remove a woman's right
>to abortion, and control what our children are taught in school.
>Liberals want to enslave the citizens financially. Conservatives want
>to enslave citizens intellectually.
How pithy. It must be nice to live in such a neat little two-dimensional
world where everything is one or the other on a concise, linear graph.
>Now is a time to rediscover your rights:
>You have a right to your earnings.
>You have a right to your property.
Not that I disagree entirely but how, exactly, are these rights and not just a
form of entitlements. After all, the notion of earnings and property are not
historically universal themes, nor is the Lockean notion of inalienable rights
necessarily controlling.
>You have a right to choose the school your child will attend, and decide
>what they will be taught. You do not have the right to decide what other
>parent's children will be taught.
So our school system should include a separate school for every child? What
if everybody wants their children to attend the same school? See, no matter
how much you reduce complex, multi-dimensional issues to cheap slogans you
will still be left with a complicated series of interlocking problems that can
only be resolved through some form of compromise.
>....
>Look at what is being done in the name of "public interest". Consider that
>the "public" has no rights. The public is made up of individuals, each
>with different desires, tastes, and merits. We don't all share the same
>stomach - so why should we all share the same wallet? We don't all share
>the same eyes, so why should we let the government decide which books,
>movies, and e-mail we are allowed to view?
Ok, but if the government reenacted Jim Crow laws, would you say that it was
only the group discriminated against whose individual members had their rights
trampled on? As a matter of principle, discrimination effectively strips all
of society's rights away because it legitimizes stripping away any of our
rights as individuals precisely because we belong to a particular group.
>The only violation of rights is through the initiation of force. Among
>the nations that initiate force against their citizens, democracies rank
>high. Let's never forget that the Nazi's were popularly elected in a
>democracy.
As I said earlier, democracies are more than countries with elections. Those
democracies that rule by force are often farces with electoral charades, but
they are still in the minority of human rights abusers. Tell me which is
worse, the military dictatorship that jails and kills political dissidents or
the country that imposes high taxes on its population in order to provide high
levels of social services. Is Sweden really a worse offender than, say, East
Timor?
>....
>******************--***************
>I always recommend the books "The Fountainhead" and "Atlas Shrugged",
>both by Ayn Rand, to everyone I meet. These books will change the way
>you see the world. -Tony Grundon
So will hallucinogens.
Merv
s: Steve Kangas <kang...@scruznet.com> writes:
s: >gmi...@iamerica.net (Stephen Mills) wrote:
s: >>
s: >But this only delays the dilemma a step. There
s: >are only two ways to frame a Constitution: by democratic
s: >agreement or by authoritarian fiat.
s: Or people can find some basic principles they agree on and work from there.
s: One such principle might be "Any individual has a right to do as he pleases
s: as long as he doesn't violate the rights of others to do as they please
s: by initiating force or using fraud against them."
Do any of us individuals have the right to live in a decent society
where we can send our children out into it without encountering and
being surrounded by perverts, drug addicts, and degenerates of every
type?
If we do have such a right, then arguing about the sole evil of force is
irrelevant and short sighted. It is nothing but intellectual
calisthenics. Just as it is hard to define pornography it is hard to
intellectually argue morality....yet many are able to see it easily
without needing to.
With your kind of lenient society we will all live in a swamp, and
scratch our wooden heads asking "how did things ever get like this"?.
There is no absolute freedom. Sooner or later we all be enslaved in the
society you are recommending. Take a look at the world.
Either good suppresses bad or bad suppresses good. There are no other
choices. Anyone who does not see that needs to look much closer. That
is why we have laws.
The appeal of intellectual rhetoric advocating lawlessness serves the
cause of those who wish to eventually tyrannize the country.
Lawlessness leads to the destruction of human values and eventually,
dictatorship. Values must be destroyed before the takeover.
Bruce McQuain
<snip>
>But cooperation in a group does not happen spontaneously.
Hmmm...I've been in ad hoc groups that cooperated quite
spontaneously. Don't forget you don't have to be a nation or a state
to be a group.
>Groups must agree to plans, strategies, rights and
>responsibilities.
Tell me what GROUP plans, strategies, rights and responsibilities a
group of farmers in the midwest must have before they can do anything.
>There are only two ways this can be
>accomplished: democratic agreement or authoritarian fiat.
Or spontaneous order driven by a market.
> And a
>lot of individualists I know have severe problems with
>democracy.
Well so should collectivists, especially if they're on the short-end
of democracy, i.e. the minority end.
>Libertarians try to get around this by evoking the
>Constitution. But this only delays the dilemma a step. There
>are only two ways to frame a Constitution: by democratic
>agreement or by authoritarian fiat.
Actually, the Constitution can be written and left to be accepted or
rejected by those who are interested in joining the group. Now we've
entered choice into the equation...a choice that doesn't require any
minority to "love it or leave".
>>In order to survive and thrive in the modern world, I must deal with
>>other people. The point is whether those dealings are VOLUNTARY or
>>COERCED. As an individualist, I believe ALL my dealings with other
>>people should be based upon respect of each other's INDIVIDUAL rights
>>and be VOLUNTARY. Collectivists want the government to FORCE
>>individuals to deal with one another and define the parameters of
>>those relationships.
>But this coercion is no less present in the free market which
>you erroniously believe to be the answer to government forms of
>coercion. Let me give you several examples. I am one of those
>people who has a slight reaction to monosodium glutamate. I
>would love to eat my food without MSG. But MSG makes food taste
>better, so people buy it more - and because people buy it more,
>manufacturers put it in thousands of foods. Unfortunately, not
>all of them label their food as containing MSG, and I have no
>way of knowing when I'm going to take a hit. So I am a victim
>of the tyranny of the majority - right in your free market!
No sir. You are not forced to buy these products, you buy them out
of ignorance. You cannot make an informed decision by reading the
label so you take a chance. YOU make the choice to take the chance.
It's a consumer relations problem. My guess is if you made a big
enough stink, you'd get your MSG warning on the product.
>There are many other examples. Health care costs have
>skyrocketed. I can't afford health care unless I am COERCED to
>pay rates three to four times higher than those in other
>countries offering the same services.
Thank the government...they've bid up the price of health care
through their Medicare and Medicaid programs. Hardly the mechanism of
a "free market".
You are NOT coerced into buying anything. You are quite free to go
without health care. If you choose to buy it, you do so because you
find it important, not someone else...THAT would be coercion.
> I would also love to pick
>the few cable channels I do watch, but I am COERCED by the
>cable company to buy virtually all of them, at a much higher
>price.
Thank the government again. In most cases they've set these folks
up in monopolies. If there were a true free market, you'd HAVE those
choices because you'd have REAL alternatives. Haven't you noticed how
the cable monopoly is reacting to the small digital dishes? They're
foaming at the mouth. Their monopolies are in jeopardy.
> I would love to buy an electric car that has benefited
>from the billions of dollars of R&D that made gasoline cars
>feasible, but auto-makers have refused to do so, and I am
>COERCED to buy fossil-fuel burning cars if I am to function
>optimally in this society.
You don't HAVE to buy anything to function optimally in this
society. You just have to learn to use what's available. For
instance, a motor scooter will cause minimal polution and get you
there fairly quickly. It's just hell on a suit though when it rains.
Electric cars are on the way, in fact, they're even putting
charging stations up in California. However, other than you and a few
others, there has been no hew and cry for electric cars from t he
buying masses.
> I would love to buy insurance that
>doesn't cost me an arm and a leg, but the insurance companies
>have fixed their prices, and I am COERCED to pay the exorbitant
>rates or face catastrophic loss at any unlucky moment.
Or perhaps you are AGAIN the victim of government. When it makes
insurance a LEGAL REQUIRMENT, then the insurance companies have no
incentive nor reason to provide a reasonably priced product. Look at
the difference between life policies (not required by government) and
auto insurance. Why are we able to buy life at very reasonable rates
and auto costs an arm and a leg? Because in one the free market IS at
work, and in the second, it isn't. You ARE coerced into paying
exorbitant rates for auto insurance, but not by a "free market".
>The fact is that coercion exists in both the public and private
>sector. It is my observation that it gets abused more in the
>private sector, where executive and CEO power is more
>authoritarian, and less democratically derived.
You've yet to point to one example of private coercion...care to try
again here?
>>For example: 1) In your zeal for government
>>controlled health care, you want individuals in health care to be
>>forced to give a certain level of care to anyone who needs it, at the
>>price specified by government bureaucrats, funded by people who make
>>money.
>But what about the lowly patients coerced to pay astronomical
>rates? You don't care about their rights, do you?
Who pays? When they can't afford it *I* pay. *You* pay. They
don't pay.
BTW...in my world, "rights" don't involve other people's assets.
>>2) In your desire for regulation you want the government (at
>>least to some extent) to force individuals to sell only certain
>>products and/or services, at specified price ranges, to anyone who
>>asks (anti-discrimination laws).
>But these conventions protect the rights of the consumer. I
>have a right not to be forced to pay an outrageous price
>because the company happens to be a monopoly, or a collaborator
>on price-fixing.
Did it ever occur to you that a monopoly cannot exist without
government collaboration?
Price-fixing? Do you remember regulated airlines? GOVERNMENT
regulated airlines? Yup...price fixed tickets, all of which were
higher than we pay now under deregulation.
> I have a right not to be poisoned by DDT.
That's right...and you do that by refusing to patronize any company
that won't listen to you. They will eventually listen when enough
people don't "vote" for their products with their dollars. You also
have legal recourse. But, that would require work on your part and I
assume you'd rather let the government intervene instead.
>(Remember that gem in free market history?) I have a right not
>to be discriminated against because I was accidentally born a
>certain race or sex.
Why? I would agree that LEGALLY you have that right, i.e. the right
to equality under the law, but what you're asking is the right to
force yourself on others that may not want you for whatever reason.
That's the price of freedom. You have every right to react to what
you perceive as unwarranted discrimination and refuse to deal with
that person or persons, but it is up to that person to make the final
decision as to who they will hire. If they limit themselves, THEY are
the one's that will suffer.
>You know, Mr. Mills, the problem I
>continually encounter with your rhetoric is that you defend the
>individual rights of one group ONLY. You are hypocritical about
>applying the concept to everybody. True, you state your
>commitment in principle to universal individual rights, but
>when it comes down to brass tacks, you take the entrepreneur's
>side every time. I don't mind if you take a special interest
>point of view. I just wish you would stop cloaking your
>rhetoric in libertarian altruism.
And entrepreneur is a "special interest?"
Man...the damage of current political rhetoric.
>>3) In your support of welfare you
>>want government to force some people to support other people at a
>>certain level of living standards.
>But the coercion is no less present on the poor. We run an
>economy that intentionally permits 5-6 percent unemployment.
>Economists tell us this is for the best, enabling the job
>market to react efficiently to emerging and disappearing
>industries. But if we allow this sort of unemployment, it means
>that a percentage of workers are going to suffer through
>unemployment BY FORCE. Since it is no choice of their own, we
>have an obligation to tide them over.
You speak of Kensyian economists. Try some others. Try the
Austrian school's thoughts in this area. Von Mises is of the opinion
that "unemployment in the unhampered market is always voluntary."
That single statement speaks volumes. Kensyans believe in government
intervention in markets (which obviously hampers the market). It's
direct result is unemployment that is NOT voluntary. So again, you
speak of something that is government's doing, not the market's.
>And here's another form of market coercion for you. Our economy
>can handle only so many executive and managerial jobs, only so
>many scholastic and professional jobs. It doesn't matter how
>much the economy grows - the percentages will remain pretty
>much the same. (You can't have an economy where 100 percent of
>the workers are CEOs.) That means a vast part of the job market
>will be committed to trash collection, sewer repair, dead
>animal removal, etc. Which means that the least qualified among
>us are FORCED to take those jobs or starve. Now, it is true
>they can educate themselves, and find a better job. But in so
>doing, they displace another worker. Someone else becomes less
>qualified, and THEY are forced to take that menial job. This is
>called the mathematics of displacement, and coercion is a basic
>component of it.
This is really reaching. Tell me what stops them from starting
their OWN company beside government regulation, intervention, taxes,
fees and licences? Capital is certainly available to those that have
a good idea and a good marketing plan, etc. Uh, I should caveat that
by saying capital is available IF the government doesn't borrow too
much of what is available to fund it's deficit spending.
>>
>>Please quit throwing out the example that without other people's
>>cooperation we wouldn't have cars, computers, or homes. WE ALL AGREE
>>ON THAT. The question at hand is whether that cooperation occurs
>>voluntarily among free individuals, or by force, via the mob rule of a
>>virtually unlimited democracy.
>Well, you missed the subtlety of my point, so I will greatly
>simplify the question for you. How should plans - and yes,
>individual rights - be determined in a group agreeing to
>cooperate? Democratically? Or dictatorially?
Civily. Civil society is a society of cooperation. The role of
government in that society is to protect the life, liberty and
property of it's members...nothing more.
>>
>>The fact that progress requires cooperation, DOES NOT REFUTE THE
>>POSITION OF INDIVIDUALISM. Please stop using this straw man tactic!
>>
>Hardly a straw man - you have yet to define how groups agree to
>the strategy, rights and responsiblities of the cooperation you
>profess to admire.
I'm afraid I'm lost here...why does a group have to agree on what
constitutes cooperation before people can cooperate? What rights
other than the right of life, liberty and property are there, and why
must this group agree to them first before they exist? Of course the
answer is that a group has no role in any of that...it's role, and
it's ONLY role, is the protection of those rights INDIVIDUALS bring
to the group as inalienable to their species. The group doesn't
create them, has no hold on them, can't grant them nor take them...it
can only help PROTECT them.
______________________
McQ
achi...@imap2.asu.edu
> Steve Kangas <kang...@scruznet.com> wrote:
>
> > And a
> >lot of individualists I know have severe problems with
> >democracy.
>
> Well so should collectivists, especially if they're on the short-end
> of democracy, i.e. the minority end.
In "The Progressive", a far left magazine, they advertise T-shirts that
say, "without me there can be no legitimate majority", on the other side
you have the option of an imprint of a large gun. Can we say 'rule by
brute force'?
Now who has the problem with democracy?
*******************__*******************
I always recommend the books "The Fountainhead" and "Atlas Shrugged",
both by Ayn Rand, to everyone I meet. These books will change the way you
Stephen Mills
>In <4e4dr9$2...@Mercury.mcs.com>, syn...@MCS.COM (synergy) wrote:
>s: Steve Kangas <kang...@scruznet.com> writes:
>s: >gmi...@iamerica.net (Stephen Mills) wrote:
>s: >>
>s: >But this only delays the dilemma a step. There
>s: >are only two ways to frame a Constitution: by democratic
>s: >agreement or by authoritarian fiat.
>s: Or people can find some basic principles they agree on and work from there.
>s: One such principle might be "Any individual has a right to do as he pleases
>s: as long as he doesn't violate the rights of others to do as they please
>s: by initiating force or using fraud against them."
>Do any of us individuals have the right to live in a decent society
>where we can send our children out into it without encountering and
>being surrounded by perverts, drug addicts, and degenerates of every
>type?
No you don't have any such "right". You have the right to live in a
free society where your individual person and property rights are
respected.
As for your assertion, and yes that is all it is, that a libertarian
society would be a degenerate society:
1) You have provided no evidence or arguments to support this view.
2) Some might assert that they live in this kind of society now.
3) Some libertarians might argue that, as government has become more
intrusive, these kinds of "degenerate" behavior have become more
prevalent.
4) Even if this did happen, it is not a reason to violate individual
rights.
That free people might behave in ways of which you don't approve, is
not an obligation on me to give up my freedom.
>If we do have such a right, then arguing about the sole evil of force is
>irrelevant and short sighted. It is nothing but intellectual
>calisthenics. Just as it is hard to define pornography it is hard to
>intellectually argue morality....yet many are able to see it easily
>without needing to.
Since we don't have any such right, then anything you say based upon
such a right, is irrelevant.
>With your kind of lenient society we will all live in a swamp, and
>scratch our wooden heads asking "how did things ever get like this"?.
Some of us living in your "not so lenient society" are currently
scratching our heads and asking "How did things ever get like this?".
I would prefer to live in a free swamp than a sterile cell.
>There is no absolute freedom. Sooner or later we all be enslaved in the
>society you are recommending. Take a look at the world.
I have taken a look at the world. I have concluded that the creeping
socialism you seem to prefer (I say this because I don't now what you
stand for) is indeed creating a swamp.
>Either good suppresses bad or bad suppresses good. There are no other
>choices. Anyone who does not see that needs to look much closer. That
>is why we have laws.
The purpose of law in a free society is not to "suppress the bad".
They are to clearly specify what behaviors are considered violations
of individual rights. Anyone who doesn't agree with you is obviously
unaware of real world!
>The appeal of intellectual rhetoric advocating lawlessness serves the
>cause of those who wish to eventually tyrannize the country.
>Lawlessness leads to the destruction of human values and eventually,
>dictatorship. Values must be destroyed before the takeover.
Please specify where anyone was advocating lawlessness!
Barry DeCicco
|> On Sat, 27 Jan 1996, Bruce McQuain wrote:
|>
|> > Steve Kangas <kang...@scruznet.com> wrote:
|> >
|> > > And a
|> > >lot of individualists I know have severe problems with
|> > >democracy.
|> >
|> > Well so should collectivists, especially if they're on the short-end
|> > of democracy, i.e. the minority end.
|>
|> In "The Progressive", a far left magazine, they advertise T-shirts that
|> say, "without me there can be no legitimate majority", on the other side
|> you have the option of an imprint of a large gun. Can we say 'rule by
|> brute force'?
|>
|> Now who has the problem with democracy?
Excuse me, but the t-shirt is saying that others have no rights over
the wearer, and that he/she is willing to use force to defend his/her
rights.
Got a problem with that?
Barry
Darren Bostock
(previous message snipped)
I'm sorry but it wouldn't matter what anyone said (re: snipped) because
I do not understand your definition of a decent society and your role
I percieve by your example.
>Do any of us individuals have the right to live in a decent society
For me an interesting question. If we do have a right then where is
this right derived/gained/taken/given from.
>where we can send our children out into it without encountering and
>being surrounded by perverts, drug addicts, and degenerates of every
>type?
I yearn to have my children living in a world of peace, tolerence,
understanding and forgiveness. I don't get my wish either.
>
>If we do have such a right, then arguing about the sole evil of force is
>irrelevant and short sighted. It is nothing but intellectual
>calisthenics. Just as it is hard to define pornography it is hard to
>intellectually argue morality....yet many are able to see it easily
>without needing to.
>
I don't debate that we live in a world that contains what we percieve as
good and eveil and that we all have our view of how the world should be.
What this intellectual calisthenics is for is to try to become better.
What would be better. A world were we would be able to use less force.
Unless you like using force... Do you? If less force is better then
isn't talking about, pointing out problem, discussing possible solutions
a good thing.
>With your kind of lenient society we will all live in a swamp, and
>scratch our wooden heads asking "how did things ever get like this"?.
I honestly believe that it is the other way around. I think about my
freedom's today. They are not what I believe they should be but are
I feel without question better then the freedom's of ordinary people
1000, 2000 etc years ago.
>
>There is no absolute freedom. Sooner or later we all be enslaved in the
>society you are recommending. Take a look at the world.
Wrong. We are giving you the freedom to feel differently than we do. We are
encouraging you to explore yourself and your place in the universe. Learn
from your mistakes and progress forward. I feel genuily sorry for people who
feel the need to use force on people such as your 'drug addicts'.
>
>Either good suppresses bad or bad suppresses good. There are no other
>choices. Anyone who does not see that needs to look much closer. That
>is why we have laws.
>
No. I do not see that. I see that some people are trying to tell some other
people how they should live. And if you don't. We'll do something unpleasant
to you. I have also observed that people's perception of good and bad seem
to differ somewhat. Even amongst the righteous. So if whoever you want to
trust in deciding which is evil and which is good or whoever it is that
carries out this force make a mistake. Does that make us good or bad. Is
the act the evil or is the motivation. Wouldn't this be something we could
stretch your weary brain muscles on. I have a very good calisthenics version
you could use :)
>The appeal of intellectual rhetoric advocating lawlessness serves the
>cause of those who wish to eventually tyrannize the country.
How about a different option from one side needing to supress the other. Why
not respect for each other and a unity of purpose.
>
>Lawlessness leads to the destruction of human values and eventually,
>dictatorship. Values must be destroyed before the takeover.
Intolerence leads to discontent which leads to Lawlessness etc etc
or
Intolerence leads to the destruction of humans AND human values.
Whilst I totally disagree with your point of view, I accept your right
to hold a differing opinion and to make your own decisions and choices.
--
Regards,
Darren Bostock (Email :- dbos...@powerup.com.au)
'...... I'd swear to God, If God would let me swear......'
Merv
On Tue, 30 Jan 1996, Darren Bostock wrote:
>
> (previous message snipped)
>
> I'm sorry but it wouldn't matter what anyone said (re: snipped) because
> I do not understand your definition of a decent society and your role
> I percieve by your example.
>
> >Do any of us individuals have the right to live in a decent society
>
> For me an interesting question. If we do have a right then where is
> this right derived/gained/taken/given from.
In the Declaration of Independence Jefferson states that the people have
the right to institute new government "laying its Foundation on such
Principles and organizing it Powers in such Forms, as to them shall seem
most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." These are derived
from our "unalienable right" to the pursuit of happiness derived from our
Creator.
In the Preamble it states the overall purpose of the Constitution and
includes "establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the
common defense, promote __the general welfare__...." This includes the
right to live in a decent society which is the only kind of society
whereby those goals can be realized. That is the purpose of laws.
>
> >where we can send our children out into it without encountering and
> >being surrounded by perverts, drug addicts, and degenerates of every
> >type?
>
> I yearn to have my children living in a world of peace, tolerence,
> understanding and forgiveness. I don't get my wish either.
Does "understanding and forgiveness" mean tolerance by society of
offensive behavior that violates the standards of the common good?
If wrong is tolerated there can be no peace within or without.
It eventually affects every person in a purjorative way.
> >
> >If we do have such a right, then arguing about the sole evil of force is
> >irrelevant and short sighted. It is nothing but intellectual
> >calisthenics. Just as it is hard to define pornography it is hard to
> >intellectually argue morality....yet many are able to see it easily
> >without needing to.
> >
>
> I don't debate that we live in a world that contains what we percieve as
> good and eveil and that we all have our view of how the world should be.
> What this intellectual calisthenics is for is to try to become better.
> What would be better. A world were we would be able to use less force.
> Unless you like using force... Do you? If less force is better then
> isn't talking about, pointing out problem, discussing possible solutions
> a good thing.
If men would govern them selves there would be no need for force. The
less they do this, the more force is required to maintain order. The
thing that encourages those who would do wrong, is a permissive
attitude that actually amounts to encouragement for the lawless to pursue
their lifestyle to the detriment of society in general.
>
> >With your kind of lenient society we will all live in a swamp, and
> >scratch our wooden heads asking "how did things ever get like this"?.
>
> I honestly believe that it is the other way around. I think about my
> freedom's today. They are not what I believe they should be but are
> I feel without question better then the freedom's of ordinary people
> 1000, 2000 etc years ago.
Why go back so far? We are worse of than just 30-40 years ago.
>
> >
> >There is no absolute freedom. Sooner or later we all be enslaved in the
> >society you are recommending. Take a look at the world.
>
> Wrong. We are giving you the freedom to feel differently than we do. We are
> encouraging you to explore yourself and your place in the universe. Learn
> from your mistakes and progress forward. I feel genuily sorry for people who
> feel the need to use force on people such as your 'drug addicts'.
>
> >
> >Either good suppresses bad or bad suppresses good. There are no other
> >choices. Anyone who does not see that needs to look much closer. That
> >is why we have laws.
> >
>
> No. I do not see that. I see that some people are trying to tell some other
> people how they should live. And if you don't. We'll do something unpleasant
> to you. I have also observed that people's perception of good and bad seem
> to differ somewhat. Even amongst the righteous. So if whoever you want to
> trust in deciding which is evil and which is good or whoever it is that
> carries out this force make a mistake. Does that make us good or bad. Is
> the act the evil or is the motivation. Wouldn't this be something we could
> stretch your weary brain muscles on. I have a very good calisthenics version
> you could use :)
>
> >Lawlessness leads to the destruction of human values and eventually,
> >dictatorship. Values must be destroyed before the takeover.
>
> Intolerence leads to discontent which leads to Lawlessness etc etc
> or
> Intolerence leads to the destruction of humans AND human values.
That depends on what the intolerance is directed at. Tolerance of the
wrong things is as dangerous as intolerance of the right things.
> Whilst I totally disagree with your point of view, I accept your right
> to hold a differing opinion and to make your own decisions and choices.
>
>
> --
> Regards,
>
> Darren Bostock (Email :- dbos...@powerup.com.au)
> '...... I'd swear to God, If God would let me swear......'
I accept your right to hold your views but having a right to our opinion
does not make our opinion right. Society lately is more interested in
the right to be wrong than the right to be right.
Regards, Me...@rain.org
Los Angeles
Brad Aisa
>If men would govern them selves there would be no need for force. The
>less they do this, the more force is required to maintain order. The
>thing that encourages those who would do wrong, is a permissive
>attitude that actually amounts to encouragement for the lawless to pursue
>their lifestyle to the detriment of society in general.
In other words, men have the "inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the
pursuit of happiness" as long as they are doing what _you_ approve.
In other words, men have the "freedom" to do what the state (or its
representatives -- you?) agree. But as soon as the individual does anything
with which the state disagrees, coercion will be brought to bear upon him.
So, in other words, the individual is not free at all, but may only act by
permission of the state, according to what are its dictates.
>I accept your right to hold your views but having a right to our opinion
>does not make our opinion right. Society lately is more interested in
>the right to be wrong than the right to be right.
No, you just don't get it. There has never been any society anywhere, no
matter how repressive or primitive, in which you didn't have the
unrestricted, absolute right to *agree* with the accepted order of the day,
and the opinions of sovereign, church, dictator, or chief, whatever these
may have been, however true or false. The thing which has been lacking
throughout history, is the right to *disagree*.
It is RIGHTS which subjugate society to moral law. Your rights are not
violated because someone else chooses to exercise their rights in a way
with which you disagree.
You have a deeply malevolent view of existence -- you seem to think that
without another inquisition and totalitarian theocratic dictatorship, that
man will go down the tubes. You view freedom as impractical, and force,
coercion and terror as extremely practical and necessary.
Ayn Rand taught that the logical corollary of mysticism (belief in God and
faith) was coercion in reality -- that an arbitrary belief in "good"
delivered by God, must necessarily lead its adherents to seek to force
their beliefs on others, and to coerce others individuals for their own
good.
We are seeing the Middle Ages waiting to arise again. Birthplace: USA.
They used to burn "witches." How soon til we are burning homosexuals, the
inchaste, or those who dance on Sundays?
It is NOT the elements of freedom in America which are responsible for such
things as widespread drug abuse or crime or other legitimate immoralities
or illegalities. It is the profound distortions of the free market --
particularly the crucial markets of ideas, such as academia and schools --
perpetrated by decades of liberal welfare intervention. And that orgy has
had a cause: bad philosophy.
What we need are better philosophic ideas and more freedom. Not the Holy
Dominion of American States, theocratic successor to the free Republic.
--
Brad Aisa, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
ba...@hookup.net web archive: http://www.hookup.net/~baisa/
"The highest responsibility of philosophers is to serve as the
guardians and integrators of human knowledge." -- Ayn Rand
Merv
On Wed, 31 Jan 1996, Brad Aisa wrote:
> Merv <me...@coyote.rain.org> wrote:
>
> >If men would govern them selves there would be no need for force. The
> >less they do this, the more force is required to maintain order. The
> >thing that encourages those who would do wrong, is a permissive
> >attitude that actually amounts to encouragement for the lawless to pursue
> >their lifestyle to the detriment of society in general.
>
> In other words, men have the "inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the
> pursuit of happiness" as long as they are doing what _you_ approve.
It is not my views that matter but society's standards as manifested by law.
If your pursuit of happiness is harmful to the poeple's pursuit of
happiness, they may be abridged, as they have been since the inception of
our country.
Have you discovered a new principle in our Constitution that has never
been seen before?
> In other words, men have the "freedom" to do what the state (or its
> representatives -- you?) agree. But as soon as the individual does anything
> with which the state disagrees, coercion will be brought to bear upon him.
> So, in other words, the individual is not free at all, but may only act by
> permission of the state, according to what are its dictates.
Obviously we do not have absolute freedom. We are surrounded by
restrictions on it....many of them excessive, I would agree, but not all.
Moral standards legislated for the protection and benefit of the people are
completely legitimate. Yes .....if you do something that the state makes
illegal, you will pay the price if caught, as it should be.
Why should you be the one to define society's standards for it? That is
exactly what you are calling for.
> >I accept your right to hold your views but having a right to our opinion
> >does not make our opinion right. Society lately is more interested in
> >the right to be wrong than the right to be right.
>
> No, you just don't get it. There has never been any society anywhere, no
> matter how repressive or primitive, in which you didn't have the
> unrestricted, absolute right to *agree* with the accepted order of the day,
> and the opinions of sovereign, church, dictator, or chief, whatever these
> may have been, however true or false. The thing which has been lacking
> throughout history, is the right to *disagree*.
>
No one is calling for agreement on yours or anyone elses part. All that
is required is obedience to the laws of your area. Feel free to disagree
and soceity will feel free to apply punitive actions if you are caught
violating it's laws.
> It is RIGHTS which subjugate society to moral law. Your rights are not
> violated because someone else chooses to exercise their rights in a way
> with which you disagree.
Society will define what is harmful to it and it may not agree with your
definition. My rights are not violated if anyone commits a crime on
anyone else as long as they don't do it to me. I still want laws to
protect everyone from the spread of harmful actions.
>
> You have a deeply malevolent view of existence -- you seem to think that
> without another inquisition and totalitarian theocratic dictatorship, that
> man will go down the tubes. You view freedom as impractical, and force,
> coercion and terror as extremely practical and necessary.
It is you who are calling for a change in society's rules, not I. Let's
not bring up the inquistion or Adolph Hitler right now. We just have a
different view of morality and the role of government.
> Ayn Rand taught that the logical corollary of mysticism (belief in God and
> faith) was coercion in reality -- that an arbitrary belief in "good"
> delivered by God, must necessarily lead its adherents to seek to force
> their beliefs on others, and to coerce others individuals for their own
> good.
Coercion is not bad in every instance. If man would live by his
conscience it would not be needed, but it is.
>
> We are seeing the Middle Ages waiting to arise again. Birthplace: USA.
Not even close.
>
> They used to burn "witches." How soon til we are burning homosexuals, the
> inchaste, or those who dance on Sundays?
If they were going to burn homosexuals why didn't they do it when our
morals were much stricter than they are now?
> It is NOT the elements of freedom in America which are responsible for such
> things as widespread drug abuse or crime or other legitimate immoralities
> or illegalities. It is the profound distortions of the free market --
> particularly the crucial markets of ideas, such as academia and schools --
> perpetrated by decades of liberal welfare intervention. And that orgy has
> had a cause: bad philosophy.
I agree that this has been harmful to the moral tone of society, but the
slacking up on the laws has contributed much to it.
> What we need are better philosophic ideas and more freedom. Not the Holy
> Dominion of American States, theocratic successor to the free Republic.
We need to return to the values that have been lost due to the influence
of big brother....the federal government.
Tony Veca
[...deletia...]
>Do any of us individuals have the right to live in a decent society where we can send our
>children out into it without encountering and being surrounded by perverts, drug addicts,
>and degenerates of every type?
Please define the following terms decent society, perverts and degenerates.
These are higly subjective terms and can be interperted many ways.
>If we do have such a right, then arguing about the sole evil of force is
>irrelevant and short sighted. It is nothing but intellectual
>calisthenics. Just as it is hard to define pornography it is hard to
>intellectually argue morality....yet many are able to see it easily
>without needing to.
Morals are just customs people choose to follow.
>With your kind of lenient society we will all live in a swamp, and
>scratch our wooden heads asking "how did things ever get like this"?.
How so? If everyone else is respecting the individual rights of others, how will the
swamp develope. Because of the fact that people have been trying to control the behavior
of others through the use of government force we have the swamp that currently exsists and
we are trying to get out of.
>There is no absolute freedom. Sooner or later we all be enslaved in the
>society you are recommending. Take a look at the world.
Once again, how so? If you have a populus that is armed and willing to DEFEND their
individual rights how will they be enslaved?
>Either good suppresses bad or bad suppresses good. There are no other
>choices. Anyone who does not see that needs to look much closer. That
>is why we have laws.
The only laws need are ones that prohibit the following:
* Initiation of physical force against others. This includes:
Murder
Assault
Rape
Physical and Mental Abuse
* Robbery
* Trespass
* Fraud
* Misrepresentation
Anything beyond these is just giving a groups beliefs the force of law to infringe on the
rights of the idividual
>The appeal of intellectual rhetoric advocating lawlessness serves the
>cause of those who wish to eventually tyrannize the country.
If the laws are bad in the first place they need to be gotten rid of. Those who wish to
eventually tyrannize the country can only do so by giving their beliefs and values the
force of law.
>Lawlessness leads to the destruction of human values and eventually,
>dictatorship. Values must be destroyed before the takeover.
Wrong, ingorning the rights of the individual destroys values and leads to dictatorships.
We do not recieve our rights from government. Individuals have the right to hold sole
dominion over their own lives, and have the right to live in whatever maner they choose,
so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal rights of to live in whatever
manner they choose
"We are ready to accept almost any explanation of the present crisis
of our civilization except one: the the present state of the world
may be the result of genuine error on our own part; and that the
pursuit of some of our most cherished ideals has apparently produced
results utterly different from those which we expected."
-- Friedrich Hayek
Tony Veca
star...@blarg.net