|
|
Post by Administrator on Aug 28, 2012 20:13:27 GMT -5
“Could all of us together really do worse than the representatives we elect today? ”
Frankly, the answer is yes, we could do worse! The biggest reason is that direct democracy is not synonymous for “all of us together.” You yourself confessed that “compulsory consensus” is an oxymoron, and yet assume that a society which forcibly compels the minority to either live by the majority’s rules, or move, to be ruled by “all of us together.” This is collectivism, and it is wrong.
“so long as members of one community are free to emigrate to any other, diversity ought to be left to flourish. In such a tolerant society every citizen might advance in one lifetime through membership in a half dozen different communities, developing in each a clearer sense of what is for them the best way of life.”
This is a deeply flawed perspective, because it places the onus on the individual to move away from communities he doesn’t like, rather than the onus on the community to justify forcing that person’s compliance. It’s initial assumption that democratic societies are “tolerant” is unsubstantiated, but the fundamental problem here is a lack of respect for property rights. If I invited you into my house but told you “if you want to come into my house, you must take off all your clothes, because we’re nudist”, you would have to take off your clothes if you wanted to come in, since it’s my property. Of course, you’d also be free to decline my invitation, so I’m not forcing you to do anything. But if I then showed up at YOUR house one day and said “you have to take off all your clothes, because i’m nudist”, you’d have every right to tell me to get lost. That’s your property, and you make the rules there; you needn’t obey my commands just because I’m offended by your decision to not wear clothes. It wouldn’t matter if everyone else in our neighborhood was also nudist, because the majorities opinion does not trump your individual right to do as you please on your own property. And if we told you to move because we didn’t like you for wearing clothes on your property, we would be equally out of line. And if we took you by force, incarcerated you or took your money or seized your house and kicked you out of our community for failing to comply with our opinions, we would have violated your inherent human birthrights to liberty and property. It would be equally wrong whether 40% of the neighborhood was nudist, or 60%, or 90%, because your rights are irrespective of majority opinion. This final hypothetical is what government does, and that is why it is an evil that must be minimized. Democratic input, however direct, does not mitigate that evil.
|
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Aug 28, 2012 20:17:16 GMT -5
"Could all of us together really do worse than the representatives we elect today? " Frankly, the answer is yes, we could do worse! The biggest reason is that direct democracy is not synonymous for "all of us together." You yourself confessed that "compulsory consensus" is an oxymoron, and yet assume that a society which forcibly compels the minority to either live by the majority's rules, or move, to be ruled by "all of us together." This is collectivism, and it is wrong.
Of course we could do worse; but it is far more moral to let us try our hands than to leave our nation's fate to the Nancy Pelosi's of the world. It's about individual accountability. Better to stand up and take control of your own destiny than to blame the other party until it's too late. Yours would have been a fairer criticism had you also read the page, 51%, where I explain that most voting majorities would be limited to local voting precincts, communities of a few thousand at most. (and fairer if you had also read the Bill of Rights in this Constitution) In this system, no majority may take away the constitutionally-protected civil rights of a minority, any more than they could today--probably less so. You seem to object in principle to democracy--or collectivism, as you describe it. In a sense, I do too. Ideal would be a society where no one imposes anything upon another--where we're all equally well behaved. The proposed localized system of direct democracy is intended to provide the People a hands-on education in good behavior--where local communities can make policy mistakes that others do not--and thus pale in comparison to the rest. In this manner, people aren't just blindly obeying your idea of good conduct: they're seeing the lesser alternatives for themselves. If a community of producers, ala Atlas Shrugged, chooses to settle somewhere and have things their own way, more's the better: they might serve as a shining example for the rest of the world. This is a deeply flawed perspective, because it places the onus on the individual to move away from communities he doesn't like, rather than the onus on the community to justify forcing that person's compliance. In the real world, we often are forced to move away from a community because of changes in its character, whether voted so by a majority or not. If your neighbor runs his leaf-blower at four in the morning, you might move away for this reason alone. You still owned your property. But if a whole community of early-bird leaf-blowers develops, new resident by new resident, in that area, are you any more or less deprived of your own property than you would be by a voting majority? And isn't it preferable that all of these obnoxious, leaf-hater types are gathered into one local region, while the rest of the county/state is left to us late-sleepers? I use this comical example in part to counter your comical nudist one. The truth is that what I had more in mind was allowing local communities to decide their street names, speed limits, zoning restrictions, and other community "character-building" reforms. If a community, for example, were then foolish enough to vote for all sorts of new local taxes, the rest of the state and the whole country could watch as the more successful residents moved away, leaving the precinct in a much poorer condition. Cause and Effect 101. A real-but-localized education for your growing, soon-to-be-well-behaved citizenry. And what is the real alternative today to our status quo? Ought the politically clueless simply take your word for it--that an all voluntary society is possible and preferable to what we already have--and dissolve the state? Must they, ironically, vote away the state? In part, my system is designed to do just this, over time. But until our global competition does the same--China, Russia, etc.--this won't be a fully-realizable option. But in any case, not only is the right to property equally well protected under this constitution, the right to privacy is added to it. Again, it would be better were no majority ever able to impose any restriction at all upon a minority. But in the real world, we don't all agree to name this street after that person; or to set this speed limit at 20, instead of at 40. This brings up what may be a fundamental difference between our perspectives. I myself am fond of public spaces. I have no desire to see the world parceled into private plots, each individual free to dispose of his little piece of turf as he sees fit. In my ideal world, the good behavior of free individuals would include a respect for the natural world itself--and a desire that it not be completely privatized. For the trend, even within our own U.S. national forests, is for parcels of them to be sold off, a little at a time, until almost nothing remains. Libertarians shrug their shoulders; I pull out my hair. I don't wish to see the world left free and stateless until the natural world is secured by a people who have long since learned to respect it, and also to respect one another. By my way of thinking, the most innocent among us, whether children yet born, or even the animals of the natural world, have priority over the property rights of free thinking "adults." (Check out the page, Of Morality, if this doesn't make sense.) Thanks again for the comment |
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Aug 28, 2012 20:32:31 GMT -5
For starters, rest assured that I by no means wish to leave our fate “to the Nancy Pelosi’s of the world.” As a libertarian, I am certainly not defending the status quo. But to convince me that direct democracy is a good idea, you must do more than demonstrate how it’s preferable to the situation as it stands; you must also demonstrate is is preferable to all other possible remedies for that situation. Doing so requires an accurate diagnosis of just what it is about the status quo that is failing. Is the fundamental problem the level of public input into the decisions being made? Or is it the types of decisions which government, however democratic, is allowed to make in the first place? “I explain that most voting majorities would be limited to local voting precincts, communities of a few thousand at most.” – Good! We agree on this: so long as it is clear that some form of government has to make a decision, localized decisions are usually better decisions. They increase legitimacy by increasing the number of people able to get their way. I expand on these benefits in my post on Federalism, which can be found here: the-thought-that-counts.blogspot.com/2012/08/why-i-like-federalism.html. Although you seem to occasionally seem disparage the framers as irrelevant old dead guys, I’m sure you realize that they, too, saw the benefit in local decision making bodies. This is precisely why they made the powers of the federal government enumerated and few, and reserved the majority of the powers to the states. Most states, in turn, have several smaller governments at the county and township level. But while this mitigates the problem of majority tyranny, it does not eliminate it. One’s rights can be taken away just as readily by a majority of 50 people as they can by a majority of 50 million. Your response to this concern alludes to the real root of the problem: “In this system, no majority may take away the constitutionally-protected civil rights of a minority, any more than they could today.” – This is true. However, there are two problems with the argument. Firstly, saying that individual rights could not be abused “any more than they could today” isn’t saying very much! Individual rights are trampled on today. Just because your system wouldn’t further jeopardize those rights doesn’t make it effective at protecting them. That leads to the second problem, which lies in your unwillingness to limit which powers “the people” may democratically wield on one another. You cite the Bill of Rights (which I have read and actually carry in my backpack, thank you very much!) as ample protection for individual rights, without recognizing that those rights were only one part of the framers system to limit government. The first part was the system of enumerated powers, telling the federal government just what it was allowed to do. The reason the Bill of Rights was not initially included in the constitution was that most of the framers deemed it redundant; if the government is only allowed to do X, Y, and Z, why make an addendum saying that it’s NOT allowed to do A, B, and C? The Bill of Rights was not designed as a list of the only things which government cannot do; it was designed as an additional limit on those powers which had already been enumerated, with the understanding that any other power didn’t need to be limited because it wasn’t allowed in the first place. So when you propose returning all decisions to local majorities without enumerating which decisions those local majorities are allowed to make, citing the Bill of Rights alone is an inadequate defense against minority rights. People don’t merely have freedom of speech, right to bear arms, right to trial by jury and all the other incorporated constitutional limits. Additionally, they have a right NOT to have force wielded on them for ANY reason other than those listed in the constitution the people consented to. “In this manner, people aren't just blindly obeying your idea of good conduct: they're seeing the lesser alternatives for themselves.” – The beauty of libertarianism is that nobody needs to give a hoot-n’ hell what my idea of good conduct is. They can conduct themselves however they like. It is the most tolerant of all political perspectives, because it maximizes liberty and minimizes government force and coercion. The only conduct which may be restricted by force is an even greater forcible restriction on the rights of others, maximizing people’s ability to “conduct” themselves however they damn well please. This transitions nicely into our next area of contention: the definition of force. You write: “In the real world, we often are forced to move away from a community because of changes in its character, whether voted so by a majority or not. If your neighbor runs his leaf-blower at four in the morning, you might move away for this reason alone.” This is a deeply flawed definition of force. A leaf-blower makes an irritating noise, but it does not wield any force on you or your property. Now, it may irritate you so much that you CHOOSE to move away, but it does not FORCE you to move away, because it does not use physical coercion to restrict your rights. Nobody has a right to not be irritated; people do have rights to life, liberty, and property. In a system which protects those rights, anybody annoyed with the early morning leaf-blower might trade something they own – perhaps a sum of money, or a promise to stop annoying him with their late-night lawn mowing, etc. – to the leaf-blowing person in exchange for the promise to stop/delay his leaf-blowing. Now, if the leaf-blower were to blow his leaves onto your yard, he would be infringing on your right to property, and some degree of government force would be justified on him for that. “But if a whole community of early-bird leaf-blowers develops, new resident by new resident, in that area, are you any more or less deprived of your own property than you would be by a voting majority?” - Yes, you are far less deprived of your own property in this situation than you are by a voting majority, because only the voting majority wields force to deprive you of it. In the first scenario you are inconvenienced, but entitled to stay where you are. You are also entitled to install noise-proofing in your bedroom, or to make private agreements with your neighbors establishing a mutually beneficial transaction. In the second scenario, somebody holds a gun to your head and says “give us your property, or else.” The latter is a far greater evil, and it violates the universal moral precept of the non-aggression principle. “The truth is that what I had more in mind was allowing local communities to decide their street names, speed limits, zoning restrictions, and other community "character-building" reforms.” – This already makes a host of unfair assumptions. Why is it an essential purpose of government to build, name, and govern roads? Why must these things go up for a vote? Why can’t whoever owns the road name it? Obviously this is a fairly extreme libertarian position, but I don’t see why it couldn’t work. Once again, the central area of disagreement is not the level of democratic input in government; rather it is the things should the government be able to do in the first place. “And what is the real alternative today to our status quo?” – that, I’m afraid, would take a bit longer than I have to explain haha. I’m no anarchist, but I do feel some constitutional reforms, as well as a change in society’s mindset, would help improve on the status quo. You’re right that it can’t happen immediately, and that we need to win the mental battle before we win the legal battle. But luckily for both of us, the signs are good that we’re winning that battle. The majority of Americans are both socially tolerant and fiscally conservative, and self-proclaimed independents now outnumber both Democrats and Republicans. “I myself am fond of public spaces. I have no desire to see the world parceled into private plots, each individual free to dispose of his little piece of turf as he sees fit. In my ideal world, the good behavior of free individuals would include a respect for the natural world itself--and a desire that it not be completely privatized.” – The problem with this philosophy is that you attempt to forcibly impose your ideal world on those who disagree with you. While I have my own opinions, I do not attempt to forcibly impose them on anyone. I hate to break it to you, but the world has ALREADY been parceled into private plots. I presume that you yourself own one such plot. At the very least you own some property, from the chair you’re sitting in to the computer you’re reading on. You probably would not like it if these things were forcibly taken from you by somebody else, because that person “had no desire to see the computers of the world given only to private owners.” You also wouldn’t like it if your were forced to move because your neighbors voted on such a law. I share your desire that people respect the natural world. But our desire can only be forced on others to the extent that doing so protects the universal rights of others. The opinion that “wielding force on others is evil” is far more universally legitimate than the opinion “fishing is evil” or “mining coal is evil.” If global warming threatens some people’s right to life, or destroys their property, governance can be justified. In fact, private ownership is preferable for addressing these concerns, because it isolates the real victim and gives him legal standing against the polluter or vandal. Anyway, I’m rambling now. The root of our disagreement appears to be two things: 1) In addition to their rights to life and liberty, do people really have a right to property? I say they do, you say they don’t. Therefore, you’re comfortable with the use of force by local majorities to seize this property in accordance with the majorities wishes, and I am not. 2) Regardless of which rights people have, which is the best method to protect these rights? You say direct, local majority rule with minimal restrictions on what those local majorities may decide to do; I say indirect, constitutionally limited government with a system of checks and balances that checks not only the government, but the people themselves. |
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Aug 29, 2012 17:24:54 GMT -5
you must also demonstrate is is preferable to all other possible remedies for that situation. Doing so requires an accurate diagnosis of just what it is about the status quo that is failing. Is the fundamental problem the level of public input into the decisions being made? Or is it the types of decisions which government, however democratic, is allowed to make in the first place? We already disagree here. You're coming at this from the standpoint of a logical technician, one who diagnoses a system and tinkers with it. I'm primarily focused upon what is most moral, not what is efficient. Libertarians seem to view morality solely within the framework of the rights of adults. I start with the protection of the innocent, particularly children, but also protection of the natural world. You can design for me the most efficient, "principled" libertarian system imaginable, and if it affords the innocent no special protection, I'll stick with what we have now. disparage the framers as irrelevant old dead guys, I’m sure you realize that they, too, saw the benefit in local decision making bodies. I respect their wisdom and their contribution: but I disdain the traditional, patriotic mindset that theirs was a unique generation of men--that we ourselves could not do as much, let alone better. It was never a perfect document, not even close. And it is absurd to attempt, still today, to divine their original intent centuries after their deaths. Our concepts of law and justice are thus handed over to historians in partnership with our Justices' subjective interpretations. So when you propose returning all decisions to local majorities without enumerating which decisions those local majorities are allowed to make, citing the Bill of Rights alone is an inadequate defense against minority rights. People don’t merely have freedom of speech, right to bear arms, right to trial by jury and all the other incorporated constitutional limits. Additionally, they have a right NOT to have force wielded on them for ANY reason other than those listed in the constitution the people consented to. As I indicated via email, I have in fact laid out all those public policy decisions citizens may make: it can be found on the page, New DD Const. But if you're suggesting that a constitution must also include every law prohibiting every type of violence, then we disagree. The general right to a protection of life, liberty, privacy and property (Amendment IV) is a sufficient guidepost for the judiciary in every precinct. The beauty of libertarianism is that nobody needs to give a hoot-n’ hell what my idea of good conduct is. They can conduct themselves however they like. It is the most tolerant of all political perspectives, because it maximizes liberty and minimizes government force and coercion. The only conduct which may be restricted by force is an even greater forcible restriction on the rights of others, maximizing people’s ability to “conduct” themselves however they damn well please. When I use the term "conduct", I'm not referring to personal fashion choices; I'm focusing upon the choices of citizen legislators--whether they seek to proliferate local taxes, legalize PCP and heroin, or zone for adult bookstores and farm animals. Choices have consequences. And with the nation divided into thousands of local legislative testing grounds, the entire nation would benefit from the mistakes of the few. Libertarianism, in its ideal integration, immediately opens the door for us all to widespread "anarchy", all in the name of granting adults their natural non-violent liberties. Do adults come before children then? Curbing the harm done to the innocent, including even non-aggressive harm, is a higher moral principle than not giving a "hoot-in hell" what others' conduct might be. Yet I actually designed the proposed system to serve as a moral transition to a society in which government is neither needed nor desired. somebody holds a gun to your head and says “give us your property, or else.” The latter is a far greater evil, and it violates the universal moral precept of the non-aggression principle These exaggerations don't do libertarians any good. It also makes you seem an anarchist; though you later disavow it. For the government also forces you to contribute to a national defense, without which we, and most importantly our children, would all be more vulnerable to real world threats-- including that Russian sub recently in the Gulf of Mexico: www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/aug/28/russias-shot-across-the-bow/ That force comes in all different forms--that was the greater point. A right to property--property being finite--necessitates compromises, whether by ballot, or by voluntary accommodation. You can't absolutely "win." (By the way, forcing homeowners to become nudists would equally violate the constitutional right to property under this new system.) And a majority need not vote away your property anyway; they could just as easily take it: non-aggression principle or not. The ideal, moral system teaches the greatest number of these people the virtues of the non-aggression principle, through trial and error, before setting them loose on the innocent. Why can’t whoever owns the road name it? Obviously this is a fairly extreme libertarian position, but I don’t see why it couldn’t work. Once again, the central area of disagreement is not the level of democratic input in government; rather it is the things should the government be able to do in the first place. You're off into the anarchist deep end here again; though the results of such an aburdity would at least greatly slow down economic overdevelopment--as private road owners would no doubt seek to profit via tolls, whose fluctuations would constantly disrupt traffic and thus commerce. Think about how many streets you cross just to get to the store or to work. Ridiculous. Public property, just like the nation states themselves, acts as a buffer upon the over-privatization of the natural world. Good! whatdirectdemocracymightbe.wordpress.com/2012/08/04/direct-democracy-vs-libertarianism-reason-vs-logic/You’re right that it can’t happen immediately, and that we need to win the mental battle before we win the legal battle. But luckily for both of us, the signs are good that we’re winning that battle. The majority of Americans are both socially tolerant and fiscally conservative, and self-proclaimed independents now outnumber both Democrats and Republicans. I applaud your optimism. I'm waiting until November. – The problem with this philosophy is that you attempt to forcibly impose your ideal world on those who disagree with you. While I have my own opinions, I do not attempt to forcibly impose them on anyone. I hate to break it to you, but the world has ALREADY been parceled into private plots. I presume that you yourself own one such plot. At the very least you own some property, from the chair you’re sitting in to the computer you’re reading on. You probably would not like it if these things were forcibly taken from you by somebody else, because that person “had no desire to see the computers of the world given only to private owners.” You also wouldn’t like it if your were forced to move because your neighbors voted on such a law. If a lunatic with a knife is running toward a child, I will impose myself upon him by force. And if both children and the natural world would be further harmed by freer markets and fuller adult liberties, I will oppose both--or support their being limited accordingly. It is a higher principle--and a clearer one to me--to protect the innocent than to protect the right to mere property. If one must yield to the other--and in the real world, compromises are necessary--I choose to diminish the latter. We may just have to agree to disagree upon this. And, once more: I don't take away the protection of property in this constitution: I just allow local majorities to decide local issues concerning public spaces. |
|
