First, we need to make sure you understand the distinction between “charity” and “government handouts”
Charity is when people voluntarily give to causes and people they deem worthy of assistance.
If your past posts are any reliable basis for judgement I’m quite sure what you actually mean is “people who rely on the government to steal from the productive and redistribute goods and services to them”.
These are entirely different situations.
First I do not support an expansion of welfare transfer payments especially not in England. When I said charity above, I meant charity. But on a separate point I also think that someone’s receipt of welfare should also not impinge on their right to vote. Otherwise this would be pragmatism - i.e. the denial of the vote to people who you disagree with. Once such a precedent is set, you could deny people who receive welfare the right to free speech by making it illegal for them to speak in favour of increasing welfare. Moralist replied to my post about pragmatism above, but I would like a better reply please that actually addresses the point of pragmatism.
I already explained why voting is not a right:
Can you elaborate on why voting is not a right and square your thoughts with the following statement from Ayn Rand (bold mine):
The right to vote is a consequence, not a primary cause, of a free social system—and its value depends on the constitutional structure implementing and strictly delimiting the voters’ power; unlimited majority rule is an instance of the principle of tyranny.
According to Rand, there is a right to vote irrespective of the votes value. Also please note when answering, that today’s system is not unlimited majority rule.
Edit: I have scratched out the above, because I actually do not understand Rand on this issue at all. Can someone knowledgeable please explain, and let me know why you think her view isn’t moral pragmatism.
Can you elaborate on why voting is not a right and square your thoughts with the following statement from Ayn Rand (bold mine):
According to Rand, there is a right to vote irrespective of the votes value. Also please note when answering, that today’s system is not unlimited majority rule.
The right to vote is not a primary means that there is no acontextual right to vote, just like there’s no acontextual “right to move around.” The right to vote depends on the constitutional structure limiting the ability of voters to violate rights. In other words you have a right to vote, so long as you don’t violate rights, and the purpose of a constitutional structure is to limit ability of the government to do this.
The right to vote is not a primary means that there is no acontextual right to vote, just like there’s no acontextual “right to move around.” The right to vote depends on the constitutional structure limiting the ability of voters to violate rights. In other words you have a right to vote, so long as you don’t violate rights, and the purpose of a constitutional structure is to limit ability of the government to do this.
Are you saying that no one in the UK or USA has the right to vote because the constitutions are not sufficiently limiting of the votes power?
First I do not support an expansion of welfare transfer payments especially not in England. When I said charity above, I meant charity. But on a separate point I also think that someone’s receipt of welfare should also not impinge on their right to vote. Otherwise this would be pragmatism - i.e. the denial of the vote to people who you disagree with.
First, I have not yet come out in favor of restricting on this basis, so I am not yet ready to argue in favor of it.
I will say however that you are misrepresenting the position of the people advocating for this.
It is not an issue of denying the vote to persons you disagree with (although incidentally someone who lives off of welfare would most likely disagree with a capitalist on many important issues- but again- that is incidental) the issue is to borrow a term from the unionists creating a class of “free riders”- that is- persons who use the resources of something they are not contributing to the good of. Putting aside the trickier question of people who have worked and “contributed to society” their whole lives who suddenly find themselves destitute we have a large segment of our society that have never worked, have always taken the stolen property of others to survive and intend to continue doing so.
I think it is important to ask- if we (we being capitalists/Objectivists) believe in voluntary user fees for a court system, for other government functions in general what would be a proper “user fee” to vote?
Again, I have not made up my mind on this issue- but these are important questions to ask.
Are you saying that no one in the UK or USA has the right to vote because the constitutions are not sufficiently limiting of the votes power?
Well no, I think that might be a bit of a jump. I think that quote just means that no one has a right to vote to initiate force and that a constitutional structure ought not allow it to. That would mean that people in the present day US and UK have a right to vote on all kinds of things, whatever they want in fact, they just don’t have a right to vote to initiate force. Certainly this might make voting for a lot of things impermissible, but it wouldn’t translate to losing their rightly understood right to vote. It would just mean that they never had a right to vote for all sorts of things that they might have thought they did.
If one had a capitalist constitution, there would be no need to restrict people on welfare from voting, since there would be no such people. In general, a capitalist constitution would not benefit from restricting votes based on aspects like property-ownership, or the payment of a poll-tax. While one can make arguments for such things, I don’t really think they matter in the larger scheme of things. Statists are rich and poor, and the rich routinely vote irrationally. I would keep in place the two current principles: age of competence, and the idea of a tie to the country-- based on birth/naturalization.
Apart from these, I think a good constitution should have some type of voter test. In the past, literacy tests have got a bad rap, because they have been used as a way to unfairly exclude voters. Any test comes with all sorts of administrative issues that can allow the administrating authority to deny the test to some groups, or make it tough for them, in order to deny them a vote. If this type of fraud can be controlled, I think the constitution should include a short series of (say) 10 questions that a person must answer correctly before they can vote. The constitution would also contain the right and wrong answers to each question: a multiple-choice questionnaire, to remove any element of subjectivity.
I think this would help reinforce the key tenets of the constitution. (See here for more)
Do you realize that is now the minority viewpoint?
The majority has clearly and loudly voted for something for nothing… and the government they have created in their own image will give them exactly what they deserve.
If one had a capitalist constitution, there would be no need to restrict people on welfare from voting, since there would be no such people. In general, a capitalist constitution would not benefit from restricting votes based on aspects like property-ownership, or the payment of a poll-tax.
But all the administration related to these issues and the actual vote itself would incur expense.
So, while “poll-tax” is an unpopular term I think a reasonable user fee would be necessary to cover expenses.
Poll tax carries with it an implication of excluding people from voting, but I don’t think this is neceesarily so- at least no more so than paying a fee to file a contract or what have you.
So, while “poll-tax” is an unpopular term I think a reasonable user fee would be necessary to cover expenses.
Sure, I don’t have a big problem with having voters pay something that will cover expenses of one qualifying test, and – subsequently – expenses of the vote. As long as it is just that – i.e. covering expenses and nothing more – it would be legitimate.
The basic principle is that voting should be part of a negative feedback loop controlling government action. A positive feedback or open loop should be prevented. That means people receiving goodies from the treasury of the commonwealth should not be able to vote themselves more of the same.
It has been pointed out by many, that democracy is inherently unstable. As soon as a politician learns to buy votes by dispensing benefits from the common treasury he and his like will just keep on doing more of the same.
We are already (here in the U.S.) living through that. There is a good chance the system will come crashing down around our ears.
We are already (here in the U.S.) living through that. There is a good chance the system will come crashing down around our ears.
ruveyn1
This is why I consider Ayn Rand as having given good advice to keep a safe distance when people are getting exactly what they deserve, so that the system doesn’t come crashing down around your ears.
This is why I consider Ayn Rand as having given good advice to keep a safe distance when people are getting exactly what they deserve, so that the system doesn’t come crashing down around your ears.
I would not be so harsh. Many people have been hoodwinked by what passes for education. It is not the victims fault (necessarily) if he was taken in by people who presented themselves as faithful teachers or leaders. If a person persists in something after he has been shown proper proof (empirical proof is best) then he has brought woe upon his own head.
My first impulse is to see if someone was a victim, rather than a wrong doer or a passive accomplice in a wrong thing.
Don’t be in such a hurry to condemn. You could make (innocent) mistakes. Would you like to be roasted for an innocent error? If not, do not be so quick to roast another. Find out about his situation first.
I would not be so harsh. Many people have been hoodwinked by what passes for education.
…and they even assume huge student loan debts to get hoodwinked! Talk about weaving your own hangman’s noose.
It is not the victims fault (necessarily) if he was taken in by people who presented themselves as faithful teachers or leaders.
Nevertheless, each adult assumes personal responsibility for the consequences of believing lies… and the government subsidized education system is chock full of tenured liars.
If a person persists in something after he has been shown proper proof (empirical proof is best) then he has brought woe upon his own head.
Absolutely. And real life provides the empirical proof through causality.
My first impulse is to see if someone was a victim, rather than a wrong doer or a passive accomplice in a wrong thing. Don’t be in such a hurry to condemn. You could make (innocent) mistakes. Would you like to be roasted for an innocent error? If not, do not be so quick to roast another. Find out about his situation first.
ruveyn1
I agree with you about not acting against others. Standing safely aside when others get what they deserve as the consequences of their own actions is not taking action against them. It is for your own personal protection from becoming collatoral damage. Galt’s Gulch was a metaphor for that… a place where moral protocols are observed provided safety from becoming collatoral damage when a corrupt system collapses.