Myth of the Tyranny of the Majority

[dldelancey]

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

It'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."

But you aren't making a practical argument, you're making a theoretical one. You made that clear in your OP, and then later directed me back to that statement because you assumed I missed it. So I have to go with MSK here and call you out on changing your mind as you go. Changing your mind is not a bad thing except if you deny that you're changing it when it's very obvious that you are.

[dldelancey]

Naomi,

I'm not playing this game. You have to do your own homework and learn to think in concepts.

Meanwhile, enjoy your game theory musings about non-reality.

Michael

On the contrary, you're the only one who's "playing this game." You accused me of dishonesty, and now that you can't prove that (because I'm not), you're resorting to calling me stupid.

Oh dear. I'm calling you out again. In this very thread, you've already dissed someone's math skills and resorted to calling someone's argument stupid. You don't get to verbally abuse other people and then cry when it comes back at ya.

[SoAMadDeathWish]

Adam,

This poster deals with selective reality, not real living-breathing-thinking-feeling human beings.

When you tell her about how humans act in real life, she says she's not talking about a situation where they do that.

There are no living-breathing-thinking-feeling human beings in theories or arguments. There are only our ideas about real human beings, but these ideas may be more or less accurate. When you invoke "human nature" in an argument and leave it at that, you're not really providing any reasons for justifying a deviation from hypothesized human behavior. It might be that the theoretical account is inaccurate, but simply saying that is not enough. You have to explain why the deviation exists. Then we can take those reasons into account in our theories (to make them more accurate), figure out the consequences, and only then can the discussion move forward. Just saying "Well no because 'human nature'" is of no use to anybody.

Then she talks about "practical and realistic" overall applications to real human beings of her math fantasies.

You are right. If you take it seriously, it's tedious to keep pointing out the contradiction.

But you aren't making a practical argument, you're making a theoretical one. You made that clear in your OP, and then later directed me back to that statement because you assumed I missed it. So I have to go with MSK here and call you out on changing your mind as you go. Changing your mind is not a bad thing except if you deny that you're changing it when it's very obvious that you are.

What contradiction? It's theorizing about how to solve a practical problem, as opposed to making an ethical or utilitarian defense of individual rights.

But it gets the girl some attention, I guess.

Either that or who knows why she sets herself up that way.

The secret is not take it seriously.

Give her the same intellectual respect she gives you.

This is not a serious thinker.

"It is a fool’s prerogative to utter truths that no one else will speak."

[SoAMadDeathWish]

One issue with game theory that becomes a big problem in democracy is that the players in real life don't have the ability to make the most optimal decision. This is a premise of game theory. But in real life people have a huge variation in mathematical/economical thinking. A large portion of the population cannot for example differentiate the words of Ron Paul from McCain/Romney/Obama. They do not conclude for themselves that the Keynessian arbitrarily chosen formulas have no relation to reality and economic flourishing, nor do they recognize Australian economics. Most people are overwhelmingly manipulated, voting for Obama's promised hope of flourishing instead of voting for Ron Paul's closer to optimal.

Hence equal weighted voting doesn't go well for the middle class producers in the game where players have a more diverse normally distributed decision making ability.

"Middle class producers" are not that much better at making decisions than anybody else. Their decision making ability is still normally distributed, and even if the average "middle class producer" is better than others, there is still a substantial portion of "middle class producers" who are worse than the average non-"middle class producer".

Additionally, politics is not about which person or idea will make things better for everyone. It's about making as many omelettes for yourself and your interest group, regardless of how many eggs you have to break along the way. So if it were up to me, I wouldn't give more voting weight to people who are really good at making decisions. It's very likely that you're just giving a greater say to the most effective predators.

[SoAMadDeathWish]

Nothing wrong with thinking critically and creatively provided that the thinking is also done logically. The problem is that the original post proposed a defense of individual rights while leaving in place one of the key violations of rights, the state's power to tax.

It's not a matter of choice. That the state can tax is simply a fact. There is no way, as far as I know, to take that power away. So if we want the state to not tax people, we have to plan around the inconvenient truths. Wishing them away won't work.

Creating a marketplace for bribery, in which welfare recipients would collect tribute from productive taxpayers in exchange for not voting in higher taxes, does not advance freedom or the defense of rights or the rollback of the mega-state one inch.

Unless of course it leads to a sustainable situation in which the productive are never taxed, as I've argued that it does in the OP.

Employing the state's power to rob as a threat to leverage "private" welfare from productive citizens is simply another form of coercion. Nothing about the proposal changes the central injustice of using the government's monopoly on force to perform wealth redistribution.

Once again, it does change the injustice of taxation by eliminating it. If you think that the government simply having the power to tax an redistribute wealth is an injustice in and of itself, then tough luck. That's never going away.

If, as you say, you're concerned about powerful organizations, then you'd do well to consider that, unlike corporations that must daily cater to consumer preferences, the state with its armed revenue collection power is able to expand and thrive without regard to the vagaries of public opinion.

If this is the case, then why isn't it a communist dictatorship yet?

[SoAMadDeathWish]

Oh dear. I'm calling you out again. In this very thread, you've already dissed someone's math skills and resorted to calling someone's argument stupid. You don't get to verbally abuse other people and then cry when it comes back at ya.

I'm just saying how things are as I see them. I'm not looking for apologies.

[BaalChatzaf]

If this is the case, then why isn't it a communist dictatorship yet?

Too much of a bad thing is bad. A little bit of a bad things sometimes (but not always) turns out good results.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Francisco Ferrer]

Nothing wrong with thinking critically and creatively provided that the thinking is also done logically. The problem is that the original post proposed a defense of individual rights while leaving in place one of the key violations of rights, the state's power to tax.

It's not a matter of choice. That the state can tax is simply a fact. There is no way, as far as I know, to take that power away. So if we want the state to not tax people, we have to plan around the inconvenient truths. Wishing them away won't work.

To begin with, how much the state taxes the population is a matter of choice, and your original post, which was supposed to address defending rights, says nothing to acknowledge that fact.

More to the point, there is no reason to suppose that individuals who consider defense, police, and a court system necessary wouldn't act of their own free will to finance those services.

Of the military draft, Ayn Rand wrote, "It is often asked: 'But what if a country cannot find a sufficient number of volunteers?' Even so, this would not give the rest of the population a right to the lives of the country’s young men . . . Without the power to draft, the makers of our foreign policy would not be able to embark on adventures [such as Korea or Vietnam]. This is one of the best practical reasons for the abolition of the draft."

The same arguments apply to the voluntary financing of government.

This is a forum about Objectivist ideas, and in that context you ought to look up Rand's views on non-coercive funding of government, which can be found in her essay, "Government Financing in a Free Society."

Creating a marketplace for bribery, in which welfare recipients would collect tribute from productive taxpayers in exchange for not voting in higher taxes, does not advance freedom or the defense of rights or the rollback of the mega-state one inch.

Unless of course it leads to a sustainable situation in which the productive are never taxed, as I've argued that it does in the OP.

The surest way to eliminate extortion is to deprive the extorter of whatever weapon he is holding at his victim's head. In this case it is the state's power to seize private property.

Employing the state's power to rob as a threat to leverage "private" welfare from productive citizens is simply another form of coercion. Nothing about the proposal changes the central injustice of using the government's monopoly on force to perform wealth redistribution.

Once again, it does change the injustice of taxation by eliminating it. If you think that the government simply having the power to tax an redistribute wealth is an injustice in and of itself, then tough luck. That's never going away.

No, your idea to have welfare recipients offer their votes for sale rests on the threat of force (higher taxes), which is just as much a violation of property rights as actual force.

By comparison, a woman who pays a man not to rape her cannot be said to have escaped trespass on her property rights.

If, as you say, you're concerned about powerful organizations, then you'd do well to consider that, unlike corporations that must daily cater to consumer preferences, the state with its armed revenue collection power is able to expand and thrive without regard to the vagaries of public opinion.

If this is the case, then why isn't it a communist dictatorship yet?

In large part because state propaganda machines have not completely overcome the American public's traditional distrust of centralization and authoritarianism. But be patient, the current regime is making great strides.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

There are no living-breathing-thinking-feeling human beings in theories or arguments. There are only our ideas about real human beings, but these ideas may be more or less accurate. When you invoke "human nature" in an argument and leave it at that, you're not really providing any reasons for justifying a deviation from hypothesized human behavior.

That's great.

Here I was worried you might be upset that your ideas are so wrong about human nature.

But they are just ideas, nothing important really, and "more or less" is just fine, so it's no biggie for you to be wrong.

Just saying "Well no because 'human nature'" is of no use to anybody.

I agree that this is of no use to people who speculate about humans but are are not the slightest bit interested in human nature.

It even screws up their arguments.

But everybody else knows what it means.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

What contradiction?

That is a perfect example of a blank-out in the classical Rand meaning.

(No smiley for that one. It's a serious problem that ultimately leads to bad places.)

Michael

[SoAMadDeathWish]

To begin with, how much the state taxes the population is a matter of choice, and your original post, which was supposed to address defending rights, says nothing to acknowledge that fact.

I'm quite certain that how much the state taxes plays a central role in the OP.

More to the point, there is no reason to suppose that individuals who consider defense, police, and a court system necessary wouldn't act of their own free will to finance those services.

Of the military draft, Ayn Rand wrote, "It is often asked: 'But what if a country cannot find a sufficient number of volunteers?' Even so, this would not give the rest of the population a right to the lives of the country’s young men . . . Without the power to draft, the makers of our foreign policy would not be able to embark on adventures [such as Korea or Vietnam]. This is one of the best practical reasons for the abolition of the draft."

The same arguments apply to the voluntary financing of government.

This is a forum about Objectivist ideas, and in that context you ought to look up Rand's views on non-coercive funding of government, which can be found in her essay, "Government Financing in a Free Society."

That's all well and fine, but it's beside the point. Which is that this simply assumes that a situation whereby taxation is voluntary and the state doesn't have the power to tax is possible, whereas it is what has to be proved.

The surest way to eliminate extortion is to deprive the extorter of whatever weapon he is holding at his victim's head. In this case it is the state's power to seize private property.

Once again, you still have not shown how that can be done, or that it even can be done.

No, your idea to have welfare recipients offer their votes for sale rests on the threat of force (higher taxes), which is just as much a violation of property rights as actual force.

By comparison, a woman who pays a man not to rape her cannot be said to have escaped trespass on her property rights.

Thomas Jefferson said that the price of freedom is eternal vigilance. Eternal vigilance is a cost. That you have to expend time and other resources to defend your freedom is simply an obvious fact of life. Nonetheless, your analogy is misleading because, to repeat myself yet again, the argument in the OP demonstrates that the producer never has to actually pay the bribe.

Additionally, the government itself never makes the threat of higher taxes, only voters do, which is completely different, unless you consider simply holding the opinion that some people should pay taxes involuntarily a violation of property rights.

In large part because state propaganda machines have not completely overcome the American public's traditional distrust of centralization and authoritarianism. But be patient, the current regime is making great strides.

But you did say in your earlier post that state power can grow without regard to public opinion, which contradicts what you're saying now.

[Brant Gaede]

I made a promise to myself that I would not use the persuasion skills I am learning to manipulate OL posters. I have been very good at keeping that promise and I am fully committed to doing so in the future (on the contrary, I want to help people learn this stuff as intellectual armor), but I swear, it's a temptation at times.

Michael

I don't have anything to add to this. I'm just quoting it because I want to make sure it doesn't get deleted.

Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Brant,

LOL...

I love being quoted. (And pity the reader who thinks the quote is the quote. )

But didja have to go for the jugular?

That's all right.

I preempted your attack a few hours ago.

So there!

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Brant,

LOL...

I love being quoted. (And pity the reader who thinks the quote is the quote. )

But didja have to go for the jugular?

That's all right.

I preempted your attack a few hours ago.

So there!

Michael

That was my reply to your "attack a few hours ago." I'm way ahead of you.

--Brant

slash, slash! (just like old times)

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Dayaamm, Brant!

How on earth can I beat that?

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Dayaamm, Brant!

How on earth can I beat that?

Michael

I'd tell you but you'd exploit it.

--Brant

[Francisco Ferrer]

To begin with, how much the state taxes the population is a matter of choice, and your original post, which was supposed to address defending rights, says nothing to acknowledge that fact.

I'm quite certain that how much the state taxes plays a central role in the OP.

The original post does not call for a removing the state's threat of force but for using that threat to obtain bribes from wealthier taxpayers. This does not constitute a defense of rights, but a plan for using the state's coercive arm to perform income redistribution.

More to the point, there is no reason to suppose that individuals who consider defense, police, and a court system necessary wouldn't act of their own free will to finance those services.

Of the military draft, Ayn Rand wrote, "It is often asked: 'But what if a country cannot find a sufficient number of volunteers?' Even so, this would not give the rest of the population a right to the lives of the country’s young men . . . Without the power to draft, the makers of our foreign policy would not be able to embark on adventures [such as Korea or Vietnam]. This is one of the best practical reasons for the abolition of the draft."

The same arguments apply to the voluntary financing of government.

This is a forum about Objectivist ideas, and in that context you ought to look up Rand's views on non-coercive funding of government, which can be found in her essay, "Government Financing in a Free Society."

That's all well and fine, but it's beside the point. Which is that this simply assumes that a situation whereby taxation is voluntary and the state doesn't have the power to tax is possible, whereas it is what has to be proved.

The state does not create the wealth it appropriates in order to perform certain civil functions. That wealth exists independently of the state and thus would be available to finance the same functions provided that the owners of that wealth voluntarily spent it for that purpose. Therefore, it is only a question of the willingness of citizens to provide for their own defense, of which there is little doubt, given that the overwhelming majority of Americans are not philosophical pacifists.

The surest way to eliminate extortion is to deprive the extorter of whatever weapon he is holding at his victim's head. In this case it is the state's power to seize private property.

Once again, you still have not shown how that can be done, or that it even can be done.

One way is to enforce laws against extortion equally and universally. If the Mafia can be prosecuted for threatening a business owner with ruin unless he pays a "protection" fee, then the same rule should be applied to members of a certain government agency who regularly engage in a similar practice.

That is the "how." What about the "can"? That would occur once a significant part of the population recognized the importance of honoring individual rights and determined that they should be upheld consistently. That change will not happen tomorrow. But then chattel slavery and the legal inequality of women did not end in a day either.

No, your idea to have welfare recipients offer their votes for sale rests on the threat of force (higher taxes), which is just as much a violation of property rights as actual force.

By comparison, a woman who pays a man not to rape her cannot be said to have escaped trespass on her property rights.

Thomas Jefferson said that the price of freedom is eternal vigilance. Eternal vigilance is a cost. That you have to expend time and other resources to defend your freedom is simply an obvious fact of life. Nonetheless, your analogy is misleading because, to repeat myself yet again, the argument in the OP demonstrates that the producer never has to actually pay the bribe.

Additionally, the government itself never makes the threat of higher taxes, only voters do, which is completely different, unless you consider simply holding the opinion that some people should pay taxes involuntarily a violation of property rights.

What would Jefferson say about the American colonials bribing Parliament not to tax them or not to quarter soldiers in their homes or not to shut down anti-Crown newspapers?

It is clear that the author of the Declaration (who as President refused to pay tributes demanded by the Barbary pirates) preferred a readiness to an armed defense of rights to a system of permanent bribes.

Now if your proposal is to have a bribe that nobody "has to actually pay," I'm all in favor of it if you mean that there would be no negative consequences to the citizen for not paying the bribe, that there would be no higher taxes--or for that matter no taxes at all.

On the other hand, if you mean that the citizen can just ignore the demand for the bribe and "see what happens," then that "voluntary" bribe is no different than the "contributions" the Mafia solicits from its "donors."

In large part because state propaganda machines have not completely overcome the American public's traditional distrust of centralization and authoritarianism. But be patient, the current regime is making great strides.

But you did say in your earlier post that state power can grow without regard to public opinion, which contradicts what you're saying now.

State power can grow without regard to public opinion--but only up to a point. Revolutions are bloody things, and as Old Tom said,

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

[SoAMadDeathWish]

The original post does not call for a removing the state's threat of force but for using that threat to obtain bribes from wealthier taxpayers. This does not constitute a defense of rights, but a plan for using the state's coercive arm to perform income redistribution.

The OP does not advocate for the state power to tax, it merely accepts that power as an unfortunate reality. That's a very important distinction that I've had to make repeatedly, but you keep ignoring it for some reason.

The state does not create the wealth it appropriates in order to perform certain civil functions. That wealth exists independently of the state and thus would be available to finance the same functions provided that the owners of that wealth voluntarily spent it for that purpose. Therefore, it is only a question of the willingness of citizens to provide for their own defense, of which there is little doubt, given that the overwhelming majority of Americans are not philosophical pacifists.

One way is to enforce laws against extortion equally and universally. If the Mafia can be prosecuted for threatening a business owner with ruin unless he pays a "protection" fee, then the same rule should be applied to members of a certain government agency who regularly engage in a similar practice.

And who would enforce that rule?

That is the "how." What about the "can"? That would occur once a significant part of the population recognized the importance of honoring individual rights and determined that they should be upheld consistently. That change will not happen tomorrow. But then chattel slavery and the legal inequality of women did not end in a day either.

Suppose that we had a direct democracy, and a "significant" part (the majority) of the population recognized the importance of honoring individual rights and determined that they should be upheld consistently. Would that be acceptable to you?

What would Jefferson say about the American colonials bribing Parliament not to tax them or not to quarter soldiers in their homes or not to shut down anti-Crown newspapers?

It is clear that the author of the Declaration (who as President refused to pay tributes demanded by the Barbary pirates) preferred a readiness to an armed defense of rights to a system of permanent bribes.

Now if your proposal is to have a bribe that nobody "has to actually pay," I'm all in favor of it if you mean that there would be no negative consequences to the citizen for not paying the bribe, that there would be no higher taxes--or for that matter no taxes at all.

On the other hand, if you mean that the citizen can just ignore the demand for the bribe and "see what happens," then that "voluntary" bribe is no different than the "contributions" the Mafia solicits from its "donors."

If there were no negative consequences to the producer for not paying the bribe, then his promise to pay would not be credible. If his promise to pay the bribe is not credible, then the parasites wouldn't offer their votes for sale, and settle on a tax instead.

So either, there must be severe negative consequences for not paying the bribe, else there must be a tax. You can pick your poison, but I'd much rather go with the scenario whereby there are severe negative consequences for not paying a bribe I never have to actually pay, to a situation whereby I do have to actually pay a tax, and where there are severe negative consequences for not paying it.

The difference between extortion by the Mafia and the proposed system is that the "donor" never donates anything and nothing bad happens to him.

State power can grow without regard to public opinion--but only up to a point. Revolutions are bloody things, and as Old Tom said,

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Couldn't you then also say that Corporate power can also grow without regard to public opinion, possibly to a very dangerous extent?

[tmj]

What is Corporate power? Do you recognize a context that distinguishes between economic and political power? Economic power meaning a corporation seen as a legal entity that identifies and protects the ownership of assets between individuals, which would have to be protected by the government through its political power , or are you equating the two?

It would need to be identified , your context, before discussions of who wields what can take place, no?

[SoAMadDeathWish]

What is Corporate power? Do you recognize a context that distinguishes between economic and political power? Economic power meaning a corporation seen as a legal entity that identifies and protects the ownership of assets between individuals, which would have to be protected by the government through its political power , or are you equating the two?

It would need to be identified , your context, before discussions of who wields what can take place, no?

All power is political. The kind of power that the government has depends crucially on whether or not the political survival of statesmen depends on a very large group of people or on a very small group of people. If it depends on a very large group of people, such as in modern nation-states (usually, representative presidential or parliamentary republics), then state power rests on the exclusive authority that those governments have to tax the populace and provide the non-excludable goods for that society. If, on the other hand, the political survival of statesmen depends on a relatively small group of people (that is, people who hold "the keys to the kingdom" either because they are of noble birth, or have special knowledge or skills, or control a large enough army, or own a lot of land or money, or some combination of all these things), then state power is indistinguishable from the power of the individuals who control it (i.e. military, ideological, economic or some combination of the three). This is the reality of most states throughout history.

"Corporate" or "Economic" power is the control of economic organizations and the things they produce. It is different from state power, because it's, in some sense, more fundamental than state power. It can be a foundation for a certain kind of state, but does not itself depend on the existence of any particular kind of state. Neither do "ideological" or "military" power, so in that sense, military (the ability to apply the organized use of force) and economic power are on the same footing.

However, power is power. So on that level, there is no essential difference.

EDIT: Edited to change "excludable goods" to "non-excludable goods".

[Brant Gaede]

What is Corporate power? Do you recognize a context that distinguishes between economic and political power? Economic power meaning a corporation seen as a legal entity that identifies and protects the ownership of assets between individuals, which would have to be protected by the government through its political power , or are you equating the two?

It would need to be identified , your context, before discussions of who wields what can take place, no?

All power is political. The kind of power that the government has depends crucially on whether or not the political survival of statesmen depends on a very large group of people or on a very small group of people. If it depends on a very large group of people, such as in modern nation-states (usually, representative presidential or parliamentary republics), then state power rests on the exclusive authority that those governments have to tax the populace and provide the excludable goods for that society. If, on the other hand, the political survival of statesmen depends on a relatively small group of people (that is, people who hold "the keys to the kingdom" either because they are of noble birth, or have special knowledge or skills, or control a large enough army, or own a lot of land or money, or some combination of all these things), then state power is indistinguishable from the power of the individuals who control it (i.e. military, ideological, economic or some combination of the three). This is the reality of most states throughout history.

"Corporate" or "Economic" power is the control of economic organizations and the things they produce. It is different from state power, because it's, in some sense, more fundamental than state power. It can be a foundation for a certain kind of state, but does not itself depend on the existence of any particular kind of state. Neither do "ideological" or "military" power, so in that sense, military (the ability to apply the organized use of force) and economic power are on the same footing.

However, power is power. So on that level, there is no essential difference.

I suggest reading some George H. Smith--on other subjects.

--Brant

[Francisco Ferrer]

The original post does not call for a removing the state's threat of force but for using that threat to obtain bribes from wealthier taxpayers. This does not constitute a defense of rights, but a plan for using the state's coercive arm to perform income redistribution.

The OP does not advocate for the state power to tax, it merely accepts that power as an unfortunate reality. That's a very important distinction that I've had to make repeatedly, but you keep ignoring it for some reason.

In the original post you wrote, "I propose that direct democracy is (theoretically, at least) the best possible defender of individual rights." Yet you cannot defend rights while accepting the violation of rights "as an unfortunate reality," any more than you can defend self-ownership while accepting slavery "as an unfortunate reality."

Your so-called "defense" amounts to a confession of helplessness.

The state does not create the wealth it appropriates in order to perform certain civil functions. That wealth exists independently of the state and thus would be available to finance the same functions provided that the owners of that wealth voluntarily spent it for that purpose. Therefore, it is only a question of the willingness of citizens to provide for their own defense, of which there is little doubt, given that the overwhelming majority of Americans are not philosophical pacifists.

One way is to enforce laws against extortion equally and universally. If the Mafia can be prosecuted for threatening a business owner with ruin unless he pays a "protection" fee, then the same rule should be applied to members of a certain government agency who regularly engage in a similar practice.

And who would enforce that rule?

Those who pool their resources to reduce or eliminate the initiation of force within a community.

That is the "how." What about the "can"? That would occur once a significant part of the population recognized the importance of honoring individual rights and determined that they should be upheld consistently. That change will not happen tomorrow. But then chattel slavery and the legal inequality of women did not end in a day either.

Suppose that we had a direct democracy, and a "significant" part (the majority) of the population recognized the importance of honoring individual rights and determined that they should be upheld consistently. Would that be acceptable to you?

I cannot answer this question because so far you have resisted my attempt to determine exactly how your "direct democracy" would differ from the form of representative government currently in place in the United States.

In Post #89, I wrote, "By the way, in a direct democracy would we get rid of the President, Congress and the Supreme Court? If not, what's so 'direct' about it? If so, wouldn't we have to go the the polls practically every week to approve ambassadors and judges, vote on pay raises, listen to hearings on Benghazi, and get morning briefings from the CIA about the Russians in the Crimea?

Your answer was to reveal the "secret plot" of the thread.

What would Jefferson say about the American colonials bribing Parliament not to tax them or not to quarter soldiers in their homes or not to shut down anti-Crown newspapers?

It is clear that the author of the Declaration (who as President refused to pay tributes demanded by the Barbary pirates) preferred a readiness to an armed defense of rights to a system of permanent bribes.

Now if your proposal is to have a bribe that nobody "has to actually pay," I'm all in favor of it if you mean that there would be no negative consequences to the citizen for not paying the bribe, that there would be no higher taxes--or for that matter no taxes at all.

On the other hand, if you mean that the citizen can just ignore the demand for the bribe and "see what happens," then that "voluntary" bribe is no different than the "contributions" the Mafia solicits from its "donors."

If there were no negative consequences to the producer for not paying the bribe, then his promise to pay would not be credible. If his promise to pay the bribe is not credible, then the parasites wouldn't offer their votes for sale, and settle on a tax instead.

In that case you are not offering a defense of individual rights, but a plan by which unscrupulous opportunists would use the threat of increased taxation to loot wealthier citizens. Be it the status quo or your alleged "rights defense" plan, the productive citizen must still give up a portion of his wealth under threat of a government gun.

So either, there must be severe negative consequences for not paying the bribe, else there must be a tax. You can pick your poison, but I'd much rather go with the scenario whereby there are severe negative consequences for not paying a bribe I never have to actually pay, to a situation whereby I do have to actually pay a tax, and where there are severe negative consequences for not paying it.

I see only two choices under your proposal:

1. You pay the tax under threat of heavy fines and prison term, in which case you are being forced to surrender what is rightfully yours to essentially an armed gunman.

2. You pay a bribe to a fellow citizen in exchange for his promise not to increase the loot collected by the state, in which case you are still being forced to surrender what is rightfully yours to someone else, even though a third party is holding the gun for him.

Both are acts of coercion. Neither is a defense of rights.

If there is a third alternative you've offered, I don't see it.

Since all of this depends on the uphill battle of removing the secret ballot from U.S. elections, I would much rather work on the uphill battle of reducing taxation by first putting low spenders in office and later by making all government financing voluntary.

The difference between extortion by the Mafia and the proposed system is that the "donor" never donates anything and nothing bad happens to him.

Great! Then there is a third choice. Contrary to your statement that "If there were no negative consequences to the producer for not paying the bribe, then his promise to pay would not be credible," Citizen A would be allowed to refuse to pay the bribe and Citizen B would not collude with the state to raise taxes.

State power can grow without regard to public opinion--but only up to a point. Revolutions are bloody things, and as Old Tom said,

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Couldn't you then also say that Corporate power can also grow without regard to public opinion, possibly to a very dangerous extent?

Yes, for example, an automobile company could say "public opinion be damned" and manufacture millions of cars that consumers hate and refuse to buy. Any company could keep doing this year after year as long as it cared nothing about profits and had an unlimited bank account to draw on.

[BaalChatzaf]

Socrates was a victim of "direct democracy" try again.

Aristotle got out of town before "direct democracy" got him.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[SoAMadDeathWish]

In the original post you wrote, "I propose that direct democracy is (theoretically, at least) the best possible defender of individual rights." Yet you cannot defend rights while accepting the violation of rights "as an unfortunate reality," any more than you can defend self-ownership while accepting slavery "as an unfortunate reality."

Your so-called "defense" amounts to a confession of helplessness.

I am not accepting the violation of rights as an unfortunate reality. I am accepting the existence of the power that the government has to violate rights as an unfortunate reality. That there may exist a set of institutional arrangements under which

a) government has the power to violate rights,

b) the government represents the interests of the people,

c) the majority of people want to violate someone's rights,

and most importantly,

d) rights are never violated

is the exact opposite of a confession of helplessness.

The state does not create the wealth it appropriates in order to perform certain civil functions. That wealth exists independently of the state and thus would be available to finance the same functions provided that the owners of that wealth voluntarily spent it for that purpose. Therefore, it is only a question of the willingness of citizens to provide for their own defense, of which there is little doubt, given that the overwhelming majority of Americans are not philosophical pacifists.

One way is to enforce laws against extortion equally and universally. If the Mafia can be prosecuted for threatening a business owner with ruin unless he pays a "protection" fee, then the same rule should be applied to members of a certain government agency who regularly engage in a similar practice.

And who would enforce that rule?

Those who pool their resources to reduce or eliminate the initiation of force within a community.

But if this group has sufficient military might to defeat anybody who might try to initiate force, then who could stop them should they decide to loot the community?

Suppose that we had a direct democracy, and a "significant" part (the majority) of the population recognized the importance of honoring individual rights and determined that they should be upheld consistently. Would that be acceptable to you?

I cannot answer this question because so far you have resisted my attempt to determine exactly how your "direct democracy" would differ from the form of representative government currently in place in the United States.

In Post #89, I wrote, "By the way, in a direct democracy would we get rid of the President, Congress and the Supreme Court? If not, what's so 'direct' about it? If so, wouldn't we have to go the the polls practically every week to approve ambassadors and judges, vote on pay raises, listen to hearings on Benghazi, and get morning briefings from the CIA about the Russians in the Crimea?

Your answer was to reveal the "secret plot" of the thread

To make things easy, let's focus on tax laws alone. Let's say that everything is the same as it is now, except that the constitution has been amended so that tax laws are proposed and voted on by the population directly.

If there were no negative consequences to the producer for not paying the bribe, then his promise to pay would not be credible. If his promise to pay the bribe is not credible, then the parasites wouldn't offer their votes for sale, and settle on a tax instead.

In that case you are not offering a defense of individual rights, but a plan by which unscrupulous opportunists would use the threat of increased taxation to loot wealthier citizens. Be it the status quo or your alleged "rights defense" plan, the productive citizen must still give up a portion of his wealth under threat of a government gun.

Prove it, then. Like I've already said, I've laid out the defense of why this would not happen in the OP already, whereas you have simply repeated this assertion ad nauseum without ever offering the slightest shred of support for it.

So either, there must be severe negative consequences for not paying the bribe, else there must be a tax. You can pick your poison, but I'd much rather go with the scenario whereby there are severe negative consequences for not paying a bribe I never have to actually pay, to a situation whereby I do have to actually pay a tax, and where there are severe negative consequences for not paying it.

I see only two choices under your proposal:

1. You pay the tax under threat of heavy fines and prison term, in which case you are being forced to surrender what is rightfully yours to essentially an armed gunman.

2. You pay a bribe to a fellow citizen in exchange for his promise not to increase the loot collected by the state, in which case you are still being forced to surrender what is rightfully yours to someone else, even though a third party is holding the gun for him.

Both are acts of coercion. Neither is a defense of rights.

If there is a third alternative you've offered, I don't see it.

Since all of this depends on the uphill battle of removing the secret ballot from U.S. elections, I would much rather work on the uphill battle of reducing taxation by first putting low spenders in office and later by making all government financing voluntary.

The difference between extortion by the Mafia and the proposed system is that the "donor" never donates anything and nothing bad happens to him.

Great! Then there is a third choice. Contrary to your statement that "If there were no negative consequences to the producer for not paying the bribe, then his promise to pay would not be credible," Citizen A would be allowed to refuse to pay the bribe and Citizen B would not collude with the state to raise taxes.

This is wrong. The third choice is that the producer offers to pay half of the parasites more money than they can extract from him in taxes, excluding the parasite who proposed the tax bill, in exchange for their vote against the bill. Since every parasite would like to gain as much as possible, none of them wants to be the one to propose the tax bill, and so the tax bill is never proposed, and the producer never has to pay a single penny to anybody. You know, like I argued in the OP. An argument that you keep ignoring for some reason, and simply assert the opposite conclusion without ever justifying it.

Yes, for example, an automobile company could say "public opinion be damned" and manufacture millions of cars that consumers hate and refuse to buy. Any company could keep doing this year after year as long as it cared nothing about profits and had an unlimited bank account to draw on.

Or, they could say "public opinion, individual rights, and free markets be damned" and lobby congress to regulate the competition out of existence, or get them to declare extremely unpopular wars to protect foreign investments.

[Selene]

The OP does not advocate for the state power to tax, it merely accepts that power as an unfortunate reality. That's a very important distinction that I've had to make repeatedly, but you keep ignoring it for some reason.

Nazi to the Jewish person being shot in the back of the head..."You understand that ve do not advocate for the state power to have me shoot you in the back of the head."

Ah, ok, fire away.