Michael Stuart Kelly Posted April 10, 2014 Share Posted April 10, 2014 It's not about what you want. It's about doing what is necessary to defend individual rights.Naomi,Against whom?Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoAMadDeathWish Posted April 10, 2014 Author Share Posted April 10, 2014 It's not about what you want. It's about doing what is necessary to defend individual rights.Naomi,Against whom?Michael Against anyone who might try to violate them, of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted April 10, 2014 Share Posted April 10, 2014 It's not about what you want. It's about doing what is necessary to defend individual rights.Naomi,Against whom?Michael Against anyone who might try to violate them, of course.Naomi,And who might that be in your formulations?Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoAMadDeathWish Posted April 10, 2014 Author Share Posted April 10, 2014 Naomi,And who might that be in your formulations?MichaelB and C. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoAMadDeathWish Posted April 10, 2014 Author Share Posted April 10, 2014 NOW, you're talking.Take it further - not only, "...no one has an incentive to actually tax anyone else".How about, "No one would have a need to actually tax..."?More, "One would find it abhorrent for another to be taxed on his behalf"...?Then, we can remove the "You", in "You have to structure political institutions..."- because the structure is already determined, by the rationally selfish individual.I guess one can dream... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted April 10, 2014 Share Posted April 10, 2014 Naomi,And who might that be in your formulations?MichaelB and C.Naomi,You mean nonproductive people?How could they possibly violate individual rights? They don't do anything.And are you only considering "A" worthy of individual rights? That's mean. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dldelancey Posted April 10, 2014 Share Posted April 10, 2014 Sweetie, you are eventually going to have to accept that the reality of human nature != mathematics.I think we've had this discussion before. Please note that I pointed out the theoretical nature of my argument in my OP. Even if my model isn't a perfect representation of reality ,or even a good one, you have to admit that it presents possibilities that I'm pretty sure were never considered before.I might admit it if I were aware of any of those possibilities. I don't see anything new here in spite of all the lovely math. Perhaps you could ennumerate these possibilities in non-mathematical terms? (Which is pretty much the approach I've suggested you take in those other discussions we've had before, and would likely be as beneficial for you as for me.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoAMadDeathWish Posted April 10, 2014 Author Share Posted April 10, 2014 Naomi,You mean nonproductive people?How could they possibly violate individual rights? They don't do anything.MichaelThey don't produce anything. Unfortunately for the rest of us, that doesn't mean they don't do anything. For instance, a thief produces nothing. But he sure does keep himself busy.And are you only considering "A" worthy of individual rights? That's mean. No. The parasites, because they don't produce anything, can't be taxed. It's very simple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted April 10, 2014 Share Posted April 10, 2014 You have to structure political institutions in such a way that no one has an incentive to actually tax anyone else.Naomi:Now that is an intriguing question...However, I have to get used to your starting a thought, or, idea with "You have to..." because my generic response to someone who starts a conversationg with that statement is not positive.My sense is that you would have to modify the phrase "no one" because as Ms. D explained mathmatical models cannot take into account human nature.Unless you go B.F. Skinner behavioralist on me.A... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anthony Posted April 10, 2014 Share Posted April 10, 2014 Who was it said "A verbal agreement ain't worth the paper it's printed on"? (Some Hollywood mogul?)Same as I think of the most ideal Constitution - without the ongoing will to freedom of the populace.{I'll dream on...} ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted April 10, 2014 Share Posted April 10, 2014 And are you only considering "A" worthy of individual rights? That's mean. No. The parasites, because they don't produce anything, can't be taxed. It's very simple.Naomi,That's not what I asked.Do you understand what individual rights are?It sounds like you are equating them with being able to be taxed.Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoAMadDeathWish Posted April 10, 2014 Author Share Posted April 10, 2014 I might admit it if I were aware of any of those possibilities. I don't see anything new here in spite of all the lovely math. Perhaps you could ennumerate these possibilities in non-mathematical terms? (Which is pretty much the approach I've suggested you take in those other discussions we've had before, and would likely be as beneficial for you as for me.)Well the key here is that, because A can get money independently of B and C, and because B and C's income depends on the choices A makes (for example, if they tax him too much, he can just "shrug" and then they actually get less than if they had taxed him a little less) he is capable of committing himself to courses of action not available to B or C. This allows him to use strategy to defend himself from expropriation, as I've demonstrated with the game theoretic argument in the OP. Wealth is power. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tmj Posted April 10, 2014 Share Posted April 10, 2014 Do you mean to suggest that in theorizing about an institution designed to protect oneself from the possible deprivations wrought by parasites , it would be wise to give the parasites an equal say in the decisions of the body politic? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoAMadDeathWish Posted April 10, 2014 Author Share Posted April 10, 2014 Who was it said "A verbal agreement ain't worth the paper it's printed on"? (Some Hollywood mogul?)Same as I think of the most ideal Constitution - without the ongoing will to freedom of the populace.{I'll dream on...} ;) If "the ongoing will to freedom" of the populace could be relied upon we wouldn't need a constitution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted April 10, 2014 Share Posted April 10, 2014 Do you mean to suggest that in theorizing about an institution designed to protect oneself from the possible deprivations wrought by parasites , it would be wise to give the parasites an equal say in the decisions of the body politic?Tmj,Not wise according to this...Logical and sound.Rational. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoAMadDeathWish Posted April 10, 2014 Author Share Posted April 10, 2014 Naomi,That's not what I asked.Do you understand what individual rights are?It sounds like you are equating them with being able to be taxed.MichaelI'm only considering taxation here in order to make the analysis quantifiable and easy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anthony Posted April 10, 2014 Share Posted April 10, 2014 Who was it said "A verbal agreement ain't worth the paper it's printed on"? (Some Hollywood mogul?) Same as I think of the most ideal Constitution - without the ongoing will to freedom of the populace. {I'll dream on...} ;) If "the ongoing will to freedom" of the populace could be relied upon we wouldn't need a constitution. No, the constitution reins in the government. The populace are free, without anyone's permission. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoAMadDeathWish Posted April 10, 2014 Author Share Posted April 10, 2014 Do you mean to suggest that in theorizing about an institution designed to protect oneself from the possible deprivations wrought by parasites , it would be wise to give the parasites an equal say in the decisions of the body politic?Giving them an equal say sounds generous until you consider the fact that, otherwise, they have a far greater say in the decisions of the body politic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dldelancey Posted April 10, 2014 Share Posted April 10, 2014 I might admit it if I were aware of any of those possibilities. I don't see anything new here in spite of all the lovely math. Perhaps you could ennumerate these possibilities in non-mathematical terms? (Which is pretty much the approach I've suggested you take in those other discussions we've had before, and would likely be as beneficial for you as for me.)Well the key here is that, because A can get money independently of B and C, and because B and C's income depends on the choices A makes (for example, if they tax him too much, he can just "shrug" and then they actually get less than if they had taxed him a little less) he is capable of committing himself to courses of action not available to B or C. This allows him to use strategy to defend himself from expropriation, as I've demonstrated with the game theoretic argument in the OP. Wealth is power.I'm pretty sure this is exactly what Rand said in Atlas Shrugged, so the only thing I'm willing to admit is that your way of stating it is much shorter. In any case, you've failed to address why B and C have any right to tax A at all. Perhaps that's why it took Rand so many words to make her argument. Because she did address that.The possibility I'm really intrigued by is if you'll ever come up with something practical as opposed to theoretical. If you do, I have no doubt it will be brilliant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoAMadDeathWish Posted April 10, 2014 Author Share Posted April 10, 2014 No, the constitution reins in the government. The populace are free, without anyone's permission.Look at the history of the constitution and the government (especially the recent history) and then try to say that three times with a straight face. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted April 10, 2014 Share Posted April 10, 2014 I'm only considering taxation here in order to make the analysis quantifiable and easy.Naomi,Then you are not talking about individual rights.You are talking about advantages in taxation.In other words, your statement: "I propose that direct democracy is (theoretically, at least) the best possible defender of individual rights," is wrong in relation to your intentions as you give them here.In that case, I have no objection to the theorizing.I do object to calling that theorizing a defense of individual rights. It's not and you just said so.Or are you going to change your mind again?Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Francisco Ferrer Posted April 10, 2014 Share Posted April 10, 2014 Naomi,My perspective is that I don't have to do anything to structure you.I think you've already got that covered.I don't want you structuring me, either.I don't need "incentives" for this.MichaelIt's not about what you want. It's about doing what is necessary to defend individual rights.Confiscation of person's possessions by a public official is morally no different than theft by a private gunman. That the motive of the public official is for the commonweal, the greater good (that is he acting to "protect property") does not change the nature of his action; it is still the initiation of force to compel the taxpayer to spend the money in a way he would not otherwise have done in the absence of force.Furthermore, if the importance of defending property justifies the initiation of force, then why wouldn't other worthy goals such as education, healthcare, aid to the indigent, public housing, wilderness preservation, trips to Mars, and public television also justify pointing a gun at a man's head? Eating is no less important than security, so why shouldn't we use the armed power of the state to make the public contribute to food banks?The proposition that stealing is necessary to prevent stealing (or that violating rights is a defense of rights) is self-contradictory and thus false. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoAMadDeathWish Posted April 10, 2014 Author Share Posted April 10, 2014 I'm pretty sure this is exactly what Rand said in Atlas Shrugged, so the only thing I'm willing to admit is that your way of stating it is much shorter. In any case, you've failed to address why B and C have any right to tax A at all. Perhaps that's why it took Rand so many words to make her argument. Because she did address that.The possibility I'm really intrigued by is if you'll ever come up with something practical as opposed to theoretical. If you do, I have no doubt it will be brilliant.The problem is not that they have the "right" to tax A (which they don't), but rather that they have the power to do so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoAMadDeathWish Posted April 10, 2014 Author Share Posted April 10, 2014 Naomi,Then you are not talking about individual rights.You are talking about advantages in taxation.In other words, your statement: "I propose that direct democracy is (theoretically, at least) the best possible defender of individual rights," is wrong in relation to your intentions as you give them here.In that case, I have no objection to the theorizing.I do object to calling that theorizing a defense of individual rights. It's not and you just said so.Or are you going to change your mind again?MichaelIt's not a defense of individual rights with regard to ethics. Like, I'm not saying "we ought to respect individual rights because...". What I'm doing is outlining a practical defense of individual rights. Again, I'm not saying "individual rights are a good thing because they get us practical benefit such and such."What I am saying is "If you want to prevent people's individual rights from being violated, this is how you would shape political institutions in order to bring about that goal." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoAMadDeathWish Posted April 10, 2014 Author Share Posted April 10, 2014 Confiscation of person's possessions by a public official is morally no different than theft by a private gunman. That the motive of the public official is for the commonweal, the greater good (that is he acting to "protect property") does not change the nature of his action; it is still the initiation of force to compel the taxpayer to spend the money in a way he would not otherwise have done in the absence of force.Furthermore, if the importance of defending property justifies the initiation of force, then why wouldn't other worthy goals such as education, healthcare, aid to the indigent, public housing, wilderness preservation, trips to Mars, and public television also justify pointing a gun at a man's head? Eating is no less important than security, so why shouldn't we use the armed power of the state to make the public contribute to food banks?The proposition that stealing is necessary to prevent stealing (or that violating rights is a defense of rights) is self-contradictory and thus false. Whoa whoa whoa whoa... When did I say that defending property justifies the initiation of force? If you read the OP without bias, then you can clearly see that I'm saying that direct democracy (and I said nothing at all about the initiation of force) is best able to defend individual rights even when the government has the power to violate them, and even when the majority has an interest in doing so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now