The Majority Doesn't Have The Right to Steal

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

More goodness from Schiff. These buffoons are crazy if they think increasing taxes on a small percentage of people is going to get us out of this. People like myself will just pick up their pieces and play elsewhere.

[JACK-2]

If you create a society where good and productive people can prosper. Then that's where they'll stay, if you do the opposite then don't be surprised when your surrounded by parasitic people. Ultimately all this means is that America and the west has choosen to fail. Good luck to them.

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

It's disgusting that we've gone from being the freest country in the world to this.

[JACK-2]

It's really weird when you have to explain to people that stealing is wrong. Of course, you get all the rationalizations since human nature being what it is. But, it's still silly.

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

Dec 20, 2013 15:21:36 GMT -5 JACK-2 said:

It's really weird when you have to explain to people that stealing is wrong. Of course, you get all the rationalizations since human nature being what it is. But, it's still silly.

Pretty much, the whole thing is disgusting. People are all looking out for themselves no matter what they say to others.

[malum]

Harvard Professor Robert Nozick addresses this in Anarchy, State and Utopia with his famous Tale of a slave. In it he breaks the condition of the slave's existence down to different states and asks when the slave is no longer a slave but is in fact free.

1) There is a slave completely at the mercy of his brutal master's whims. He often is cruelly beaten, called out in the middle of the night, and so on.

2) The master is kindlier and beats the slave only for stated infractions of his rules (not fulfilling the work quota, and so on). He gives the slave some free time.

3) The master has a group of slaves, and he decides how things are to be allocated among them on nice grounds, taking into account their needs, merit, and so on.
4) The master allows his slaves four days on their own and requires them to work only three days a week on his land. The rest of the time is their own.
5) The master allows his slaves to go off and work in the city (or anywhere they wish) for wages. He requires only that they send back to him three-sevenths of their wages. He also retains the power to recall them to the plantation if some emergency threatens his land; and to raise or lower the three-sevenths amount required to be turned over to him. He further retains the right to restrict the slaves from participating in certain dangerous activities that threaten his financial return, for example, mountain climbing, cigarette smoking.

6) The master allows all of his 10,000 slaves, except you, to vote, and the joint decision is made by all of them. There is open discussion, and so forth, among them, and they have the power to determine to what uses to put whatever percentage of your (and their) earnings they decide to take; what activities legitimately may be forbidden to you, and so on.

Let us pause in this sequence of cases to take stock. If the master contracts this transfer of power so that he cannot withdraw it, you have a change of master. You now have 10,000 masters instead of just one; rather you have one 10,000-headed master. Perhaps the 10,000 even will be kindlier than the benevolent master in case 2. Still, they are your master. However, still more can be done. A kindly single master (as in case 2) might allow his slave(s) to speak up and try to persuade him to make a certain decision. The 10,000-headed monster can do this also.


7) Though still not having the vote, you are at liberty (and are given the right) to enter into the discussions of the 10,000, to try to persuade them to adopt various policies and to treat you and themselves in a certain way. They then go off to vote to decide upon policies covering the vast range of their powers.

8) In appreciation of your useful contributions to discussion, the 10,000 allow you to vote if they are deadlocked; they commit themselves to this procedure. After the discussion you mark your vote on a slip of paper, and they go off and vote. In the eventuality that they divide evenly on some issue, 5,000 for and 5,000 against, they look at your ballot and count it in. This has never yet happened; they have never yet had occasion to open your ballot. (A single master also might commit himself to letting his slave decide any issue concerning him about which he, the master, was absolutely indifferent.)

9)They throw your vote in with theirs. If they are exactly tied your vote carries the issue. Otherwise it makes no difference to the electoral outcome.


The question is: which transition from case 1 to case 9 made it no longer the tale of a slave?

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

Well a democracy is still the tyranny of the majority. And the tyranny of the majority is often worse than the tyranny of just one man. The founding fathers would have rather had George Washington be a monarch than to have a democracy because they knew the dangers of it.

When you can have any moron who is uneducated, doesn't work, or do anything have the same voting power as a person who is productive, employs, and pays a huge amount of taxes, you have a large fundamental problem.

[JACK-2]

Democracy is the biggest hoax in western history.

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

Or anywhere else it's been tried. People are supposedly "free" but vote themselves into oppression. Brilliant for the politicians.

[JACK-2]

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch"

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

Dec 23, 2013 21:27:22 GMT -5 JACK-2 said:

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch"

That ratio is getting worse everyday too.