- This topic has 7 voices and 21 replies.
-
AuthorPosts
-
-
03/09/24 @ 8:15am EST #54174 test
Dr. Gregory wrote in another thread (“Haley loses”) about whether the U.S. is a democracy or a constitutional republic.
He said the following:
Democracy can mean many things. The original Athenian democracy was a direct democracy, where each citizen voted on each issue, and for each officer. Most democracies today are representative democracies, thus we vote for MPs/ Senators/ Congressmen. Then there are the “peoples” republics, which aren’t democracies at all except by the concept of Marx’s/Engel’s dictatorship of the proletariat.
What you are citing is the idea that the American Constitutional arrangement is by design not a democracy but a civil republic, on the inspiration of the Ciceronian idea of the Roman Republic. Even this division was watered down when the Senators became directly elected (by the 17th Amendment in 1913). In many ways the USA is more of a democracy that say the UK as it has the democratic/ voting involvement in the judicial tripart of government. The USA has an electoral element in all 3 parts of government, whereas the UK on has one (half) of the legislature: the House of Commons.
However, democracy strictly speaking only refers to the manner of choosing government/ policy, not the limits of the power of that government. It thus need not be an unlimited majority rule.
Even in practice it is not unlimited, but few people are willing to define where the limit is. I frequently posit the question as to whether the majority could vote to enslave a minority, and the answer is always no.
The means of choosing is independent of the limit. You can have a liberty and human right minded monarch, which would be better than a socialist republic or democracy.
If one could strictly limit government to Lockeian/ Objectivist principles, then the manner of choosing it is irrelevant.
I was always under the impression that the U.S. is a constitutional republic, but I must admit I was only parroting what I was told. I never really looked into it.
I did a quick search and found that a constitutional republic only has to do with a set of rules written down to indicate how a head of state and representatives are elected. Although most constitutional republics usually have a separation of powers, this doesn’t prevent a country from creating a set of rules that would allow for a person to have unlimited powers.
The difference between a constitutional republic and a democracy is in the charter or constitution that protects the individual’s right to life and liberty against the whims of a majority. Some claim that the U.S. is a Representative Democracy in that the government is elected by citizens.
From my myopic point of view, it seems that we have a little bit of both, but we can’t seem to get the concept correct. A constitutional republic? A constitutional democracy? A representative democracy adhering to the mechanisms of a constitution? A federal constitutional representative democracy? A democratic republic? A republican democracy?
https://www.npr.org/2022/09/10/1122089076/is-america-a-democracy-or-a-republic-yes-it-is
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artIV-S4-3/ALDE_00013637/
https://www.cga.ct.gov/asaferconnecticut/tmy/0128/John%20C%20Aldieri.pdf
/sb
-
03/10/24 @ 1:43am EST #98610 test
Re: Jose Donis’ post 54174 of 3/9/24
Jose D. wrote:
The difference between a constitutional republic and a democracy is in the charter or constitution that protects the individual’s right to life and liberty against the whims of a majority.ÿ Some claim that the U.S. is a Representative Democracy in that the government is elected by citizens.
From my myopic point of view, it seems that we have a little bit of both, but we can’t seem to get the concept correct.
That’s because one needs to use the right method of concept formation. The right method allows one to validate one’s concepts, rather than merely picking one term from those available.
A proper concept classifies by fundamental similarities and differences. Fundamentals cut through the tangle. In this case, the surface topic is whether the U.S. is a democracy or a constitutional republic. But we are classifying political systems, so let’s ask: what is the fundamental in political philosophy?
Answer: individual rights. Such issues as the manner of voting, the parts of government, and the function of a constitution are details and derivatives. They concern how to best implement some end. The end is fundamental to the means. Things become means because they help get the end.
So the poles are rights-protecting and rights-negating political systems. The term for the former is “capitalism” and for the latter “statism.” The political spectrum must be divided between capitalism and statism, because that is the division between rights and rightlessness, hence between the mind-respecting and the mind-negating. Since man’s mind is his basic equipment for surviving, the capitalism-statism division is also the life-death division. And that is the existence-nonexistence division. You can’t get more fundamental than that—systems permitting your continued existence and systems geared to wiping you out of existence.
All of that deeper background is what makes capitalism vs. statism the fundamental issue—the right Conceptual Common Denominator—for classifying political systems.
Where on the capitalism-statism spectrum does “democracy” fall?
That depends on what you mean by “democracy.” Okay, suppose someone says that by “democracy,” he means “a system in which the leaders and the laws are selected by a vote of the people”? Where does that fall?
In the trash. That is not a valid distinguishing characteristic. It ignores the fundamental: what does the government do to or for the individual; and substitutes the superficial: how do things happen?
Linguistically, in Ancient Greek, “demos” meant “the people” and “kratos” meant “rule.” So “democracy” meant (and still is taught as) “rule by the people,” as opposed to “aristocracy” and “oligarchy,” which are rule by the excellent and rule by the few.
But the issue is not how many or how wonderful are the rulers; it is whether the citizens are to function as order-takers or free agents.
Ancient Athens, the paradigm case of a “pure” democracy, killed Socrates following the majority vote of the Athenian General Assembly. Socrates’ crime? “Impiety” and “corrupting the youth” (by getting them to think). The murder of Socrates should make one want to distance oneself from the name of the system that carried it out: democracy.
Instead, people love the term and bask in its warm rays. Why?
Metaphysically, the cause is the social version of the primacy of consciousness, which is Kant’s baby. The People, when they get together, are superior to any mere fact of external reality.
Epistemologically, Kant’s effect was to socialize consciousness; “objective knowledge” no longer meant reality-based knowledge, something he argued could not be achieved, but only shared delusions.
In ethics, one’s primary focus became: how are my relations to others? Am I doing my duty toward them? Am I being a good neighbor, a valued member of the community, a good citizen?
Politically, “rule by the people” is collectivism. “Vox populi, vox Dei.”
Psychologically, collectivism is the theory of, by, and for social metaphysicians. A social-metaphysical clinger seeks the warmth of the herd. He dreads the prospect of facing reality alone, unbuffered.
Thus the paeans to “the democratic process” and the endless calls to “get out and vote,” no matter which way and no matter how confused one is. Only if we can get vast numbers of people to participate, will the election tap into the General Will, a free-floating consciousness powerful enough to constitute “social reality.” Ordinary reality, they assume, has no chance against social reality.
Democracy accepts no limits on majority rule, which means it rejects the very concept of individual rights. The will of the majority is supreme.
A particularly surprising manifestation of that premise is the Supreme Court’s doctrine of “deference to the legislature.” From the head of the judicial branch of the goverment, in defiance of the system of checks and balances, we get the doctrine that the courts must bow before the Will of the People.
Ayn Rand characterized democracy as “unlimited majority rule.” I taught it as “dictatorship by the majority.” Actually, democracy is thinly disguised mob rule.
Could we keep the word “democracy” but define it in a way that would make it compatible with capitalism? No. The term “rule” implies statism, not capitalism. Capitalism is freedom, not the “rule” of anyone. Rights are moral principles forbidding any man or group to rule over others.
Limited Government
The essence of any government, good or bad, is the use of physical force. What distinguishes government from other social institutions—from schools, churches, and bowling leagues—is that a government uses physical force. In fact, it maintains a monopoly on the use of force within its borders.
Under capitalism, the sphere of government action must be limited to using force in retaliation, to protect us from force. Protecting rights includes protecting them from government. Rights are precisely the barrier that stands between governmental force and the freedom of the citizen.
Force used in retaliation protects individual rights; force not used in retaliation is necessarily force initiated. Being subject to initiated force means being treated as rightless. So the government under capitalism may never reach beyond retaliatory force. That is what “limited government” means.
/sb
-
03/10/24 @ 7:16am EDT #98613 test
Re: Harry Binswanger’s post 98610 of 3/10/24
Thank you, Dr. Binswanger, for this explanation.
I would like to use some, if not all of it, when I cover philosophy of the Baroque and Neo-Classical periods in my class. Needless to say, you (and Ayn Rand) will be cited as a source. Please let me know if that’s OK.
*sb
-
03/10/24 @ 12:25pm EDT #98614 test
Re: Harry Binswanger’s post 98610 of 3/9/24
But we are classifying political systems, so let’s ask: what is the fundamental in political philosophy? Answer: individual rights.
Yes absolutely.
Such issues as the manner of voting, the parts of government, and the function of a constitution, are details and derivatives. They concern how to best implement some end. The end is fundamental to the means. Things become means because they help get the end…All of that deeper background is what makes capitalism vs. statism the fundamental issue—the right Conceptual Common Denominator—for classifying political systems.
I agree.
Where on the capitalism-statism spectrum does “democracy” fall?
I would argue this is an invalid question – it can be anywhere on the spectrum, as can monarchy.
Defining democracy contra not-democracy
That depends on what you mean by “democracy.” Okay, suppose someone says that by “democracy” he means “a system in which the leaders and the laws are selected by a vote of the people”? Where does that fall? … In the trash. That is not a valid distinguishing characteristic.
I would argue that it is the distinguishing characteristic, contra monarchy, aristocracy etc.
All government-choosing systems can be rights-protecting and all can be tyrannical. The Current America (or UK) system would be called tyrannical by the founders or John Locke. A monarch can protect rights.
Linguistically, in Ancient Greek, “demos” meant “the people” and “kratos” meant “rule.” So “democracy” meant (and still is taught as) “rule by the people,” as opposed to “aristocracy” and “oligarchy” which are rule by the excellent and rule by the few.
Dictatorship comes from dictator, a Roman Republican consul who was given emergency power for a fixed amount of time by the Senate, until Caesar was elected dictator perpetuo. Tyranny come from the Greek τύραννος which again meant single absolute ruler.
Tyranny and tyrannical were extended very early (in Plato) to mean an anti-liberty government, and both he and Aristotle refer to tyrannical monarchy, oligarchy, and democracy. Dictatorship has always meant a single absolute ruler from ancient time to Hitler/Franco/Stalin/Mao. The earliest use of it in a wider sense I can think of is Marx and Engels in the dictatorship of the proletariat.
p.s. the -cracy means more than rule by: it means power, stench, and ultimate from ἀρχή meaning beginning, origin and thus sovereignty.
But the issue is not how many or how wonderful are the rulers; it is whether the citizens are to function as order-takers or free agents.”
Yes.
Ancient Athens, the paradigm case of a “pure” democracy, killed Socrates, following the majority vote of the Athenian General Assembly. Socrates’ crime? “Impiety” and “corrupting the youth” (by getting them to think). The murder of Socrates should make one want to distance oneself from the name of the system that carried it out: democracy.
This was the first experiment with democracy. It did not work out. I would not call it pure. Rome was the first to experiment with civil/ constitutional republicanism (which included the options of electing dictators) but I would not call it “pure.”
Instead, people love the term and bask in its warm rays. Why?
Because of the problem with transfer of power, the long-standing problem with monarchs, dictators, effective representation, unfair taxes, etc. (the founders did not oppose taxation but taxation without representation, and you get representation through democracy).
“Democracy accepts no limits on majority rule, which means it rejects the very concept of individual rights. The will of the majority is supreme.”
That is not true even now; the point I frequently make to democrats is that even they accept the limit of government: they do not support the right of the majority to enslave the minority for example.
Ayn Rand characterized democracy as “unlimited majority rule.” I taught it as “dictatorship by the majority.” Actually, democracy is thinly disguised mob rule.
Democracy has a higher propensity than any other constitutional arrangement to become tyrannical, but all forms of government (monarchy, oligarchy, aristocracy, democracy) can respect and protect rights, and all forms invariably don’t after time, even one specifically written to avoid tyranny such as the American. As I have written on here before, I would prefer the government of George III than any post-WW2 government. (In fact, the USA only avoided monarchy due to the principles of George Washington, which gained him the epithet of the American Cincinnatus – after the Roman dictator who voluntarily gave up power and after whom Cincinnati is named).
Of note, Aristotle, Aquinas, and Locke all thought monarchy was the best form of government to secure liberty.
/sb
-
03/10/24 @ 12:50pm EDT #98615 test
Re: Harry Binswanger’s post 98610 of 3/10/24
Ayn Rand characterized democracy as “unlimited majority rule.” I taught it as “dictatorship by the majority.”
Those are identical in meaning but dictatorship is arbitrarily and conventionally viewed as one-person rule, confusing many people. And many will advocate the contradiction, constitutional democracy, rationalizing it with the implicit Kantian context, freedom as freedom of society. The hidden and fanatically hidden context of that is sacrifice of the individual to society. This is a rationalization of eternal “life” in Heaven with God. Of course, you have to be dead to get it, not a problem for believers. In this context, sacrifice to society is a trial run. This dishonest and evasive intellectual chaos makes it difficult to teach about individual rights. Rand said the anti-conceptual mentality dissolved into fog when confronted by anti-conceptual outsiders. This should be widened to confrontation by a conceptual view. Democracy depends on and rationalizes(!) conceptual fog. Conceptual fog is the virtually explicit purpose of democracy. Why reason when unlimited majority rule relieves one from thinking in principles? As Rand said, the anti-conceptual mentality would rather die. This context justifies attacking unlimited majority rule rather than dictatorship by the majority.
/sb
-
03/10/24 @ 2:21pm EDT #98616 test
Re: Harry Binswanger’s post 98610 of 3/10/24
A particularly surprising manifestation of that premise, the supremacy of the will of the majority is supreme, is the Supreme Court’s doctrine of “deference to the legislature.”
It should not be surprising. In Sweet Land Of Liberty, H.M. Holzer says that the SC sacrificed rights to the “general welfare” a few years after the Constitution was signed.
*sb
-
03/10/24 @ 5:37pm EDT #98618 test
Re: Jose Donis’ post 54174 of 3/9/24
Re: Gordon Gregory’s post 98614 of 3/10/24
All government-choosing systems can be rights-protecting and all can be tyrannical. The Current America (or UK) system would be called tyrannical by the founders, or John Locke. A monarch can protect rights.
No. Madison and the other writers of the constitution were well versed in history. One may argue that a dictator or king could rule in a rights-respecting manner, but history proves that they don’t. One may argue that democracies could rule in a rights-respecting manner, but history proves that they don’t. I don’t think they can by their very nature as unfettered power. Likewise with aristocracy, oligarchy, theocracy, the proletariat, or a lynch mob.
The founders were just about equally opposed to unfettered democracy as unfettered monarchs. The British constitution, by which was meant how it was put together or made up, had long been debated. It was a collection of famous documents, a monarchy increasingly fettered by those documents, tradition, Parliament and common law. There was even the concept of rights, which had expanded significantly in the 18th century. These new concepts of rights became the basis for rejecting the previous system, but that system was the context in which our founders worked.
The founders set out to do something far more revolutionary in almost every respect. First they would create a written constitution so that all men may know the law, a concept as old as Hammurabi, making law much harder to arbitrarily apply. Next they restricted the powers of the government, fettering the propensity by either its executives or the people to extend that power over those things men ought to be free to do. Not content with only those restrictions, they devised a system of checks and balances to further fetter any propensity to expand power over the lives of individuals.
Even the features that involved voting were carefully crafted to fetter either groups of people or single officials with ambitions who wished to violate rights or to grab power. Hence we had the Electoral College, a Senate selected by the States, a House selected by vote of the people, and a Supreme Court nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. History had proven that with no such fetters, every form of government — whether single ruler, multiple ruler or democracy — quickly if not immediately devolved into rights violation.
Historically, Rome and later Britain with features of a republic had remained more stable over time than most. A republic was woven into the new constitutional fabric. Since the independent States had to join this new government, a federal system of power allocation was devised incorporating further features of checks on power such as the membership numbers in the Senate and House.
Finally as an afterthought, born of the justifiable fear of many, a listing of rights was amended to the Constitution. These proved to be the ultimate fetters on the powers of the new government.
The United States government is a federation with a republican structure, having features of democracy crafted in a written constitution, designed to fetter the propensity of rulers to violate rights for the purpose of protecting those rights. The fetters devised are constitutional limits on power. The features of democracy facilitate the orderly operation and continuance of that government and provide one means of redressing the grievances of the people (the courts are another). With all its flaws and the erosions of purpose in the following years, that is still a monumental achievement.
Almost every feature in our Constitution is oriented toward limiting the rights-violating potential of government, something absent from the other forms of rule.
/sb
-
03/10/24 @ 6:06pm EDT #98619 test
Re: Stephen Grossman’s post 98615 of 3/10/24
Re: Harry Binswanger’s post 98610 of 3/10/24
Ayn Rand characterized democracy as “unlimited majority rule.” I taught it as “dictatorship by the majority.”
Stephen’s response:
Those are identical in meaning but dictatorship is arbitrarily and conventionally viewed as one-person rule, confusing many people.
Dictatorship refers to the actions of one-man rule.
HB equates the actions of one-man rule to the actions of a democracy.
People are confused because they are not thinking in essentials. Is the essential a number of actors or the brutality of the deeds? Most people have a clear mental picture of Hitler’s brutality but have a warm and fuzzy view of democracy. How better to disabuse them of that notion?
/sb
-
03/11/24 @ 8:34am EDT #98624 test
Re: Joseph Peter Miller’s post 98618 of 3/10/24
Your description is excellent, however it (the constitution) has failed at its aim.
One may argue that a dictator or king could rule in a rights-respecting manner, but history proves that they don’t. One may argue that democracies could rule in a rights-respecting manner, but history proves that they don’t. I don’t think they can by their very nature as unfettered power. Likewise with aristocracy, oligarchy, theocracy, the proletariat, or a lynch mob.
Almost every feature in our Constitution is oriented toward limiting the rights-violating potential of government, something absent from the other forms of rule.
The US constitution was the best and is the best in history, but it has failed in its aim to prevent tyranny. All that has happened is if a government wished to impose an arbitrary law it just amends the constitution or legislates it. Income tax was ruled as unconstitutional, so they passed the 16th Amendment in 1913. Anti-trust was unconstitutional, the central bank was unconditional, the new deal was unconstitutional. Today over a third of the GDP is taken by the government and spent on its programs, and almost the entire economy is regulated in some way, not to mention the issues with immigration, religion, and abortion.
It seems to me that the constitution to most governments of the past 100 years is little more than an inconvenience to be overcome rather than a guide or boundary of morality.
An interesting question: has the American constitution delivered significantly more protection against tyranny that the Canadian? Freedom of speech is the only significant difference I can think of.
If the philosophy of the individuals in a country deteriorates into a tyrannical mind, can any constitution protect against tyranny?
As I wrote above and before, I would prefer the government of George III to any current government in the world today or since 1945 as it was far less tyrannical.
One could argue that a monarch not having to stand for re-election, is far less affected by the whims of the people or desires to oppress each other and take each other’s property, and the elected house in such a case just holds the monarch to account.
n.b. I’m not arguing for monarchy per se; I am simply pointing out that even the best designed and written constitution in history has resulted in a country with a massively invasive state that I would say crossed the threshold of tyranny with FDR, let alone LBJ. (The UK being far worse.)
/sb
-
03/11/24 @ 4:10pm EDT #98627 test
Re: Gordon Gregory’s post 98624 of 3/11/24
The US constitution was the best and is the best in history, but it has failed in its aim to prevent tyranny.
The US constitution has been a massive unmitigated success. It has prevented tyranny for 235 years so far, surviving a civil war, intellectual onslaughts from communists, socialists, progressives, anarchists, racists, etc. etc., and is still going strong.
Yes, some aspects of our freedom have been chipped away, especially economically. That is unsurprising, considering the rotten philosophy that pervades the culture and has for many, many decades. What is surprising is how much freedom we still have despite that, even as other more newly free societies (the UK, France, Australia) have rapidly abandoned their confused defenses of individual rights, the American Constitution soldiers on. The first and only founding document of its kind shouldn’t be measured against some unrealistic ideal (that it is a failure if it doesn’t prevent tyranny forever no matter what), but should be measured by how well it has protected rights despite the onslaughts against it even after more than two centuries.
Also, the constitution has in fact improved dramatically since its ratification! We have amendments that ban slavery, enfranchise women and black people, fix the vice presidential elections, prevent state governments from violating rights, plus the entire bill of rights!
We don’t live under tyranny in the US. Not even close to it. I’m staggered by the lack of perspective in much of what is written about American politics, American history, and American political systems by Europeans.
/sb
-
03/11/24 @ 5:13pm EDT #98628 test
Re: Gordon Gregory’s post 98624 of 3/11/24
As I wrote above and before, I would prefer the government of George III to any current government in the world today or since 1945 as it was far less tyrannical.
King George’s government did the following:
– forced Americans to feed and house a British army during peacetime
– heavily taxed the Americans without their consent or representation in Parliament
– explicitly claimed full authority over the colonies without restriction: “had hath, and of right ought to have, full power and authority to make laws and statutes of sufficient force and validity to bind the colonies and people of America … in all cases whatsoever”
– searched the private homes and businesses of individuals without warrant (using “writs of assistance” that were transferable and did not expire until the King’s death))
– forced colonists to trade only with England
– forced customs/smuggling cases to be tried before Royal courts without juries, rather than colonial courts
– put Boston under military occupation, severely limiting travel and trade between the city and its neighbors and closing its port to trade via military blockade. Bostonians had to burn furniture and buildings for heat.
– passed many laws specifically designed to punish Americans
– unilaterally dissolved the government of Massachusetts and severely restricted the right of its people to assemble
– put Royal officials above the law, allowing them to be tried in Great Britain for crimes committed against colonists in the coloniesFor more, read the Declaration of Independence.
It is bizarre to me that one could find the egregious tyranny of 1760s and 1770s in the American colonies to be somehow better than “any current government in the world today or since 1945.” But if you honestly do, then I hope you find your time machine.
/sb
-
03/11/24 @ 6:00pm EDT #98629 test
Re: Garrett Garcia’s post 98628 of 3/11/24
King George’s government did the following:
– forced Americans to feed and house a British army during peacetime
We both still have to feed and house our current standing armies in peacetime, and they cost far more.
heavily taxed the Americans without their consent or representation in Parliament
As far as I can find out, the tax burden on the American colonies was around 1.5% just prior to the revolution.
I am not saying that the government of George III was good, at the time I would have been arguing against its tyranny on the side of the Americans (and the British liberals) but its tyranny was less in practice than any government since 1945. Even under Thatcher, the tax burden was just under 40% GDP. In the 1970s in the UK, the top rate of tax was 87%. In the USA from 1945 to 1964 the top rate I believe was 90%! These are orders of magnitude far, far higher and worse. Today almost every interaction between individuals in both our countries is regulated by the government!
The rest are examples of tyrannical government (as well as some legislation aimed at stopping trade with France or conflict with the Indians), but governments today exercise the same powers to a greater extent. Writs of assistance are still used to enforce customs and excise law, i.e., to stop not only smuggling, but breaking of our very strict import regulations such as from the EU. (Needless to say we believe in total free trade – something that did not reach the UK until the 1840s with the repeal of the corn laws, and ended in the early 20th century.)
/sb
-
03/11/24 @ 6:10pm EDT #98630 test
Re: Gordon Gregory’s post 98624 of 3/11/24
While there are many ways of carving up the political spectrum, one is better than the others: the freedom-statism axis HB laid out. It’s better because it gets at the essentials. As a consequence it relegates the evaluation of democracy vs. aristocracy, oligarchy, etc., to where it belongs: to the status of a secondary detail.
Organizing by inessentials gets us exactly where the popular media and their hapless readers are today: the US and the western European states are “democracies” because, uh, well, y’know, they try to do what’s good for the people, right? And that’s good, right? Not like the Nazis, I mean, y’know, right?
*sb
-
03/11/24 @ 6:12pm EDT #98631 test
Tyranny is any political system that does not recognize individual rights (which necessarily include property rights).
In all political systems (including the USA) today, the power to take our property at the point of a gun (or threat thereof) rests in the arbitrary whim of the government, for example, in taxation. This power is used to a very large percentage but even 1% would be not respecting property rights. Thus property rights are not recognised. By this definition therefore all the world to greater or less degrees is under tyrannies.
/sb
-
03/11/24 @ 6:13pm EDT #98632 test
Re: Jim Hanson’s post 98630 of 3/11/24
While there are many ways of carving up the political spectrum, one is better than the others: the freedom-statism axis HB laid out. It’s better because it gets at the essentials. As a consequence it relegates the evaluation of democracy vs. aristocracy, oligarchy, etc., to where it belongs: to the status of a secondary detail.
Yes, that was the point I was making.
/sb
-
03/11/24 @ 7:22pm EDT #98633 test
Re: Gordon Gregory’s post 98629 of 3/11/24
King George’s government did the following:
– forced Americans to feed and house a British army during peacetime
We both still have to feed and house our current standing armies in peacetime, and they cost far more.
Do you really not see the essential difference between a people voting to pay for a garrison of professional domestic soldiers and permanent legalized pillaging by a foreign army?
We feed and house our soldiers, but not by forcing private inn-keepers, business owners, and residents to feed and house them directly and without consent or compensation. The two things are not comparable, legally or morally. As others in this thread have observed, this false equivalency arises from not thinking in essentials.
*sb
-
03/11/24 @ 11:53pm EDT #98635 test
-
03/12/24 @ 3:29am EDT #98636 test
Re: Garrett Garcia’s post 98633 of 3/11/24
As others in this thread have observed, this false equivalency arises from not thinking in essentials.
The essential point is lack of respect for property rights, which is part of the definition of tyranny, and we have already agreed that you cannot vote away your rights, let alone others’ rights.
(Also it wasn’t a foreign army until declaring independence; both armies as I understand billeted in private property by force during the (American) Civil War as they had in the English Civil war and did during WW2 (in Europe including England)).
HB: But wartime is a different case. The coloniess were not at war when the billeting in private homes was going on./sb
-
03/12/24 @ 3:41pm EDT #98637 test
Re: Gordon Gregory’s post 98624 of 3/11/24
almost the entire [US] economy is regulated in some way
Almost?! I’ve thought about this for some time and can’t think of any unregulated production and trade. Wait a minute! For many years, I’ve used “midnight mechanics” to fix my cars. Whatever regulations apply to regular car repair shops don’t exist here.
*sb
-
03/16/24 @ 9:25pm EDT #98692 test
Re: Stephen Grossman’s post 98637 of 3/12/24
I’ve thought about this for some time and can’t think of any unregulated production and trade.
If you don’t count the regulations that apply to all businesses, like tax law and labor laws, the software industry is the least regulated. There are very few regulations that apply to software industry qua software, which is a large part of why so much of the wealth created in the past 20 years came from that industry.
Both political parties are working diligently to destroy this freedom and stifle as much growth and innovation as they possibly can. They’re supported financially and morally by all of the “big tech” CEOs, as far as I know without exception. The world desperately needs an Alex Epstein for the software industry.
/sb
-
03/18/24 @ 5:08pm EDT #98702 test
Re: Jim Hanson’s post 98630 of 3/11/24
“democracies” because, uh, well, y’know, they try to do what’s good for the people, right? And that’s good, right?
I went to a public lecture on the Constitution yesterday given by a lawyer/political science professor who said, more or less, the same thing. I became somewhat dizzy identifying all her “the people”-based errors and wondering if I should ask anything. You, know, like, how a democracy can have a, you know, like, a Constitution that limits unlimited majority rule. But, since she mentioned a magic brain-scrambler, “the people,” I figured that she would either get a brain-freeze or lead me down a conceptual rabbit-hole of increasingly irrelevant details. The alternative was to take over the lecture by uttering another magic brain-scrambler, “Ayn Rand said.” I became instantly tired and kept my mouth shut. She will give a series of lectures on the Constitution and I’m wondering if I should return. Could I charge a fee for good questions? Well, there was an interesting-looking woman in the audience . . .
/sb
-
03/18/24 @ 5:14pm EDT #98703 test
Re: Garrett Garcia’s post 98692 of 3/16/24
If you don’t count the regulations that apply to all businesses, like tax law and labor laws
That’s the deal-breaker.
Socially just labor law: you must hire five socially correct incompetents before one competent applicant.
*sb
-
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.