Democracy

[Prospero]

Very good Bronco.

There was a debate among students at Harvard which was broadcast by the BBC last week which discussed the issues of Government in the US - and a minority argued that any system which taxed them and then used their tax dollars to provide healthcare or welfare for the very poorest of society was coersive. So yes - if that is coercian then i am in favour of it. There seemed to be the notion afoot that the rich and those who have a comfortable life would, as if by magic, ensure through charity or some other method that the unfortunates of society are looked after.
All the evidence of human nature over a prolonged period of history shows this to be largely fallacious.

Indeed altruism is one defence of religion - where under islam, for instance, beleivers are required (co-erced?) to give a certain percentage of their income to charity. it's called Zakat. Christian teachings also insist on caring for your neighbour.

Ayn Rand, while she certainly wold oppose the Government ruling on our private sexual habits (and that is probably my only point of agreement with her) also expressed views wholly against us forming any system that looks after the weak.

[broncofan]

QUOTE=Prospero;1230691

-Drama, drama drama: appointments to the Supreme Court are important but historically appointing one conservative or liberal judge doesn't make a radical difference when they vote on the law rather than with their ideology, this is an over-egged pudding if ever there was one, but I am sure Americans will have a different take on it. If the Republican party's 'silent majority' do embrace libertarian causes -and I don't know how far this can go- their candidates run the risk of becoming unelectable, and in any case, candidates can say what they like on the husting, in power their radicalism is often neutered by reality -as happened to Obama over Guantanamo. Gridlock in Congress if caused by Tea Party delegates could also backfire on them.

I am not American, but as an outsider I just dont think this is as key an election as Kennedy in 1960 and Reagan in 1980, the two most important elections since 1945.

On this last point I don't pretend to know. Of course we do have the benefit of hindsight on the effects of Reagan's policies though I believe you if you say they were well advertised in advance or anticipated.

As for the Supreme Court, I think you hit the nail on the head when you say it doesn't make a difference when they rule on the law rather than ideology. However, I think it is tough to separate the two sometimes. The best example of this I can think of is Antonin Scalia. I've read some of his opinions and they are well-written and well-thought out but he has a judicial philosophy that leads to predictable results. He is an originalist in constitutional interpretation and a textualist in statutory interpretation. I may be wrong in my explanation but this is how I understand it; originalism says that the original intent of the constitutional drafters should determine our interpretation of that document and textualism says that when a law is passed only the text of that law may be interpreted (not the legislative history or the assumed intent of the legislators). When I say original intent, I think I'm referring to what they envisioned when they drafted the document, essentially freezing its application to that society.

Now if we look atoriginalism, it seems tailor made for regressive interpretations. The founders did not envision all sorts of changes in the size of our nation, in the exigencies we face, in the difficulty coordinating policy with fifty disparate views on a matter and so we cannot expand the power of the federal government without an amendment. This leads almost in due course to narrow interpretations of the commerce clause or the taxing and spending clause.

I don't know that textualism necessarily leads to a systematic political bias (though it may lead to counter-intuitive results), but I think originalism does and is consistent with narrowing the authority of the federal government and often bolstering the power of the several states. The effect could be that the intent of the legislature is thwarted by a conservative court that believes the federal government's power is narrowed, or that the states have more room in utilizing their police power. But you are right that the laws passed may not rest on that borderline where judicial philosophy determines whether they are upheld or struck down. So the effect may be fairly small over a four year term but that the post last for a lifetime can exert this incremental shift over a long course.

[an8150]

Prospero, you have alighted on the basic practical problem of legalised coercion. If you are cool with legalised coercion in support or condemnation of those things that uphold or antagonise your beliefs, then you can scarcely argue with someone who gains the reins of power and uses the same power to uphold his beliefs even where they are at variance with yours. Put simply, you've sold the pass, you're left with no moral argument against, for example, those who would crush aficionados of T-girls and the websites that facilitate them.

[Prospero]

In response to Stavros's latest post the Shia and the Sunni have as you know been in conflict almost since the very earliest days of Islam. The Wahhabist rulers of Saudi Arabia indeed do correctly see them as a threat to their power for their likely pre-disoptition to support Iran. And they are being viciously suppressed in Bahrain for exactly the same reason (they form the majority there). That is why Saudi troops and police from the UAE are in bahrain still. There are, of course, many who argue that the Shia are a much more progressive aspect of islam than the Sunni (and i think it would not be hard to support this argument when applied to the Wahhabist and Salafist elements in Sunni islam. It is from these parts of islam that the contemporary Jihadist movement draws its inspiration together with writings of Sayyid Qutb - the islamist executed by Nasser). Moderate Sunni Muslims - not Jihadists or Islamists - argue that the Shia have always hidden their true intents and even when living peacefully are biding their time for the opportunity to enforce their own brand os islam. On the other side of that equation Iran is one of the few places in the Islamic world where science and scientific inquiry has flourished after the collapse of that impulse in the world of Sunni islam with the influence of the 11th century Islamic philosopher Al-Ghazali (a point which many Islamic scholars define as the point at which the gates of Ijtihad closed - and innovation ceased.)

[Prospero]

Prospero, you have alighted on the basic practical problem of legalised coercion. If you are cool with legalised coercion in support or condemnation of those things that uphold or antagonise your beliefs, then you can scarcely argue with someone who gains the reins of power and uses the same power to uphold his beliefs even where they are at variance with yours. Put simply, you've sold the pass, you're left with no moral argument against, for example, those who would crush aficionados of T-girls and the websites that facilitate them.

No because i hold that the liberalism i embrace is based on enlightenment values unlike the anarchy you seem to admire.

And I think both bronco and Trish have shown the fallacy of your position. Accepting any form of government involves coercion. There are some forms one would resist - national socialism or state communism or fascism. And a stolen election is a stolen election which removes any right to govern.

[broncofan]

Very good Bronco.

There was a debate among students at Harvard which was broadcast by the BBC last week which discussed the issues of Government in the US - and a minority argued that any system which taxed them and then used their tax dollars to provide healthcare or welfare for the very poorest of society was coersive. So yes - if that is coercian then i am in favour of it. There seemed to be the notion afoot that the rich and those who have a comfortable life would, as if by magic, ensure through charity or some other method that the unfortunates of society are looked after.
All the evidence of human nature over a prolonged period of history shows this to be largely fallacious.

Indeed altruism is one defence of religion - where under islam, for instance, beleivers are required (co-erced?) to give a certain percentage of their income to charity. it's called Zakat. Christian teachings also insist on caring for your neighbour.

Ayn Rand, while she certainly wold oppose the Government ruling on our private sexual habits (and that is probably my only point of agreement with her) also expressed views wholly against us forming any system that looks after the weak.

Absolutely. A very good defense.

And one of the most interesting phenomena imo is that often people are happy to give if they know others are giving. But if they suspect one may defect or fail to give in order to sustain an advantage they tighten their purse strings. People at some level may want to do good but they are also intensely competitive and entitled when the source of their advantage is threatened. I think you are right in what you say about human nature. Whatever the quantities of competing factors, there will never be anything like the tax base we have in this country without "coercion". The sick and destitute are not cared for without "coercion".

And Trish makes a compelling argument, that what you and I and an8150 call coercion has some but not all of the elements of coercion. I don't think we're wrong for using an8150's parlance since we still carry the argument in conceding that element of forcing compliance. There is force involved, but it is part of a social contract where you give when you have the means to do so and you receive when you are in need. We opt-in to this system ad we receive myriad benefits from it. A police force protects your "property rights", your taxes pay for services that you benefit from or can potentially benefit from. There is an infrastructure in place that facilitates your commerce, and so the claim of coercion may really be a claim to the benefits of society without the costs of citizenship. I don't think we would call it coercion if upon receiving goods we are then forced to pay.

[an8150]

Trish, you keep confusing contract law with criminal law. Of course contract law is not coercive. But the state does not govern by contract law it governs by criminal law. There's a sleight of hand in your argument: you say that by existing in, say, the UK, by going about my business as an adult as best I can, I'm entering into a contract. You then say that by doing so I agree to be bound by its terms, and it's therefore not coercive.

But the only way this stacks up is if you equate, as you seem to have done, the philosopher's notion of a social contract (of whatever kind, Rousseau's being perhaps the most famous) with the lawyer's notion of a legal contract.

To take one of your examples, that of the driving licence, when I acquire such a licence I do so because it is a legal requirement the absence of which can land me in prison. There is nothing voluntary about this, it is therefore no contract.

A real contract, on the other hand, might be formed when I choose to go to the corner shop to buy a bar of chocolate. My actions are voluntary as are those of the shopkeeper who can, if he wishes, refuse to serve me.

Simply saying, as you appear to be doing, that the act of existing in the world as it is implies consent to the way it is is to ignore the state's power to prosecute me by contrast with the shopkeeper's absence of power to make me buy his chocolate.

As to the origins of liberty, well they pre-existed the state. I need refer to no penumbra in support of my liberty, but only demand you get your hands off it. You, on the other hand, are outraged that I should make so bold. There is something wrong with me for saying to you, "get out of my life". And I, apparently, am the one who requires counselling.

No Randian, or libertarian, incidentally, would argue that a man is entitled to shoot out his neighbour's windows. Our respect for property, legally acquired, extends beyond opposition to confiscatory taxation.

[an8150]

Simply saying, "my beliefs are best" does not answer my point, Prospero. Everybody thinks that of their own beliefs.

And I'm a minarchist, not an anarchist, although I have some sympathy with the anarchist position.

We've come some way if it is now accepted that the beliefs for which you contend are imposed coercively. You're impliedly right that at a certain point a minarchist must accept coercive power. But the minarchist argument is that this power should be so restricted that it cannot be used to, ahem, incentivise "correct" behaviour. Otherwise, when the wrong crowd gets in, as they always do, there will be no argument to prevent the imposition of their beliefs.

Anyhoo, a beautiful and lusty woman awaits my attentions, so you must excuse me for now.

[broncofan]

Right an8150,
but what right have you to any public service without paying in? Any use of services is an affirmative acceptance. And given the way a government has to operate, there is no way to opt out in the sovereign territory of a country. The fire department will not pass over your house if you have a blaze. The police will not fail to protect you because you waive their service. You simply cannot get by without ratifying the contract by implication. The services cannot be provided on an individualized basis, as it would be an administrative nightmare.

And the government was set up here as an indirect democracy. You do not need to consent to what your elected politicians mandate. And what they mandate does not need your individual approval. This is the system you live under; either here or abroad. Living in the sovereign territory of a country subjects you to their jurisdiction. As long as you are here and earning money within that sovereign you are subject to their jurisdiction. You cannot pretend that when you start a business or work for a business you are not availing yourself of the services of the state.

[trish]

when I acquire such a licence I do so because...

you wish to drive on public highways which require such a license. You can't say there's NOTHING voluntary about this. You weighed the benefit against the cost and acquired the license.

If you shoplift a shopkeeper's chocolate he may coerce you to pay for it. Driving down a public highway without a license (or without paying taxes) is akin to shoplifting.

No Randian, or libertarian, incidentally, would argue that a man is entitled to shoot out his neighbour's windows. Our respect for property, legally acquired, extends beyond opposition to confiscatory taxation.

Thanks goodness their concern is property first, endangerment of life second.