kfl%mx.lcs.mit.edu@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU (09/03/86)
From: foy@aerospace.ARPA
... I THINK, there is a fundamental problem if most people make
decisions on gut feel and rationalization. How do we know who
(including you and me) and when and on what issues is making a
rational decision as contrasted with a rationalized decision?
Does it matter, so long as each person makes decisions only for
himself and not for others?
Do we set up a parliment of the rational?
No.
Do we have a democracy?
Yes, to the extent that decisions cannot be made on an individual
basis. This is the heart of the dispute between libertarians and
others. Most non-libertarians in this country are small d democrats.
They think something is right if and only if the majority agree on it.
This species can be recognized by their insistence that free
elections in a country will result in (or is synonymous with) freedom
in that country. I don't think so. I am convinced that if there were
free elections in the Soviet Union, that the communist party would
still win. This does not make communism right.
If the majority of people in this country believe that a minority
should be enslaved - and they did once, and would have even if you had
counted the black vote - that doesn't make slavery ok. If the
majority of people in this country believe that the tax rate should be
100 percent above some income level, taxation is still robbery. If
the majority of people in this country think that you must believe a
certain religious doctrine or you will be damned, that does not mean
that such a doctrine should find its way into our laws - EVEN IF THE
DOCTRINE IS TRUE!
How do we implement a rational society or government? How do we
insure that the people who get into the position of passing,
enforcing, judging criminal laws are acting rational instead of
ratioalizing a grab for power.
Their power is limited by the Constitution. The Constitution, at
least the first few amendments, is a mostly libertarian document.
Even though the Supreme Court has interpreted most of it in an
unreasonable way, especially the 1st, 2nd, 5th, and 6th amendments.
Those amendments should be clarified with additional amendments, and
there should be additional amendments banning taxes, the draft, and
victimless crime laws.
The First Amendment supports freedom of religion. This has been
interpreted by the courts to mean that no religious organization has
to pay any taxes or keep any records. The IRS, however, considers
some religious organizations to be merely tax dodges and not serious
religions at all. It is no doubt true that some groups were founded
for that reason, but who is to decide which is which? The IRS has set
itself up as supreme arbiter among ALL religions in this country.
This is just the opposite of what the writers of the First Amendment
intended. They wanted government completely out of the religious
sphere - instead we find government picking and choosing legitimate
religions, largely based on the political clout of the religious
group.
A Native American religion uses peyote for its religious rituals.
The government allows this. But peyote is illegal for everyone else,
including members of a religion formed in the 1960s, for which peyote
and other drugs are also used for religious rituals.
Who decides which religions aren't serious? Surely one founded in
the 1960s or more recently is a crock, right? Well, it isn't
necessarily so. Many people are attracted to Christianity and Judaism
at least partly because the origins of these religions is remote in
time and in place. If Moses lived down the street in the 1960s, and
if Jesus lived and preached downtown in the late 1970s, would as many
people take these religions seriously? Would the government? The
governments of the time certainly didn't. Look what happened to
Moses! Look what they did to Jesus and his followers!
And you think our country is any better? Look what happened to the
Mormons. They had to flee to the uncharted wilderness to avoid being
persecuted and killed. A religion founded in the 1830s seems
sufficiently remote to be legitimate today, even though it was founded
in mundane old upstate New York rather than in exotic Jerusalem or
Mecca. But it certainly didn't seem remote enough at the time. Do
you think it couldn't happen again today?
That same First Amendment supports freedom of speech, and of the
press. So by the same reasoning the press ought to be free from
taxes. Book stores should not have to collect sales tax or keep
records for the government. Not only should pornography be legal, it
should be tax exempt!
The Second Amendment proclaims "...the right of the people to keep
and bear arms, shall not be infringed". It seems to me that advocates
of gun control should have to get this repealed before they can have
any anti-gun laws enacted. Instead, this amendment is simply ignored.
By the same reasoning that says that church taxes are illegal
because they would infringe one's religious rights, and that says that
poll taxes are illegal because they would infringe one's right to
vote, the Second Amendment implies that guns should not only be legal,
they should be exempt from taxes and record keeping!
As for taxes themselves, the Fifth Amendment says "No person shall
be ... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of
law". For "life" and "liberty" this is universally interpreted as
meaning that those can be taken away only if a person is convicted of
a crime or found liable in a civil trial. What is the justification
for interpreting "property" in a different way? And if that isn't
clear enough, the Fifth Amendment goes on to say "nor shall private
property be taken for public use without just compensation".
The 13th amendment bans "involultary servitude" except for people
convicted of crimes. A federal income tax rate of 28% means you are
working more than three months each year without compensation. Is
this voluntary servitude? Not in my case. If I was able to isolate
the months I work just to pay federal income tax, the additional weeks
I work just to pay state income tax, and the additional month I work
just to pay social security tax (excluding the so called "employer
contribution"), I would choose not to work during that period.
It is clear, of course, that the writers of those amendments did not
intend to interpret them as banning taxation. But the courts have
never let the intention of the legislators stand in the way of their
interpretation of what the law actually SAYS, even when they are still
living and vehemently object to the court's interpretation.
They favored taxation, but the taxes in those days were very low.
Taxes today are much higher than the taxes that the British extorted
from the colonists, leading to the revolutionary war! I think if the
signers of the Constitution could see what tax rates are today, and
what the tax money is being used for, they would regret having not
added an anti-taxation amendment to the Constitution.
So it seems to me that taxes are already unconstitutional. But
since the courts do not share my interpretation, a new amendment
should be added that bans all forms of taxation in no uncertain terms.
How do we decide if it is an invasion or not for who who to enter
the country by what means etc?
This is something libertarians differ on. Some say that anyone
should be allowed into the country - that everyone has the same rights
whether they were born here or not. Others suggest that this would
make it impossible to legally stop an armed invasion until the
invaders actually shoot someone, and claim that these rights only
apply to our citizens, that citizens of other countries should attempt
to convert their governments into more reasonable forms rather than
flee to the protection of ours.
Another idea is to sell citizenships, for whatever price the market
will bear. This would provide revenue to government in lieu of taxes
from citizens.
But most of all how does one transition to a rational government?
Well, the first step is to convince people that it is possible. The
next step is to elect legislators who agree with these principles.
How does one decide the steps one takes in eliminating this
without creating a violent or non-violent revolution by people who
act on their gut feel.
Well, of course no libertarian president will be elected until the
majority supports the libertarian platform. I doubt the remaining
minority will start a revolution to ensure higher taxes! They are
free, after all, to continue as they have been. Anyone who wants to
pay taxes is free to do so. Anyone who wants to start a VOLUNTARY
welfare system is free to do so. All libertarians intend to take away
is their "right" to a free lunch at OUR expense, and their "right" to
regulate OUR private morality and behavior.
When weapons systems are discussed in terms off jobs is that a
perception of the actions of other governments?
Jobs should NOT be a criterion in defense spending. They aren't
real, anyway, since all of the money that goes to pay those people
came from others, meaning there would be the same number FEWER jobs in
other sectors of the economy. Actually, there ARE probably a few more
jobs, but only because the average defense worker is paid less than
the average worker. People who feel strongly about these few extra
jobs are free to ask for a lower salary, which will have the same
effect.
If defense spending was entirely voluntary, I think we would see a
lot less unnecessary spending and a lot less bogus accounting. DoD
and defense contractors would know they would have to clean up their
act if they want to get paid next year.
When the government wants to test people with security clearances,
it is an interference resulting from the arms race.
Oh, come on. Nobody is COMPELLED to get a clearance. It is purely
voluntary. Government asks applicants the same sort of questions that
I believe employers should be allowed to ask any potential employee.
If enough employees object to such questions, then employers would
become less inquisitive, since they would need no fewer employees. If
enough applicants for security clearances object, government will ask
less intrusive questions, since they would need no fewer cleared
people. I don't see that happening in the case of clearances. I have
one, and the questioning was not all that bothersome. And the only
consequence of not passing such a test is not getting a clearance,
it's not like they can send you to jail if they find a statue of Karl
Marx hidden in your closet. I don't think the level of scrutiny is at
all inappropriate, given the damage that an untrustworthy person can
do.
When the military tests weapons which release radiation into the
atmosphere in is an interference.
Which is one of the main reasons such tests have been banned for
over twenty years.
...Keith
-------