Whether voting should be anonymous

[When] is the last time we have seen a presidential candidate that wanted to end the Federal Reserve  that wasn't laughed off the stage as a crazy by the media?

Apples and oranges, Dean. I was just saying that in a representative type of government the control of the government by elected officials is only effective until a certain stage in a move towards tyranny. When that stage is reached, the government ignores or abuses the electoral process - just another of the steps they take to move sovereignty away from the individual and to themselves. What the electorate understands - what political principles they accept and vote on - that's a different thing. We have seen the educational system more or less taken over by the left and the result is an electorate that votes more and more to the left. And the media is made of the students graduating from what are now very left-leaning schools of journalism.

Begging the question?

if a government is doing it's proper job there's no need for me to hide my vote - the government will respect it on it's own behalf and will protect me if others should they initiate force against me because of that open vote

if a government is elected in secret votes I smell a fishy rat somewhere beneath it ... either by the government wanting to empower itself secretly or by the voters trying to pull one over me

You said it was fantasy to imagine that without a government there could be the acceptance and implementation of any single set of rules. I disagree, so according to you, I suffer a fantasy. You thus begin your argument by throwing out a blanket epistemological insult at anyone who might not share your opinions.

It wasn't my intention to insult you.  Referring to an opinion as being based in fantasy is, or at least was intended by me, to mean that it isn't supported by reality. Quite often people hold opinions that turn out not to have a basis in reality - there may be some of those people who should look to their epistomological processes, but most just need to reexamine the opinion that had thought to be reasonable but really isn't.  

--------------

You claim that there are good governments. This is news to me. I doubt you could prove it.

I would never undertake a fools errand of trying to point out a good government to someone who claims that no government, by its nature could be good.  Just as I wouldn't have tried to tell someone in the 1700's that one day there could be flying machines after they had declared such things to impossible by the nature of things.

--------------

You claim a ruling elite is necessary to "administer" correct rights-protecting law. By administer, you mean enforce and arbitrate (judge). But anyone who claims the right to a monopoly on either enforcement or judgement is violating rights the moment he attempts to enforce such a monopoly. Why is person 1 right to enforce a good law and person 2 wrong to enforce that same good law?

I never used the words "elite" or "ruling" in this context.  It is precisely because the violation of individual rights requires force, fraud or theft that these things must be illegal. There must be laws to define what actions constitute those violations. There must be a monopoly on the laws for a given jurisdiction. The absurd chaos that would result if anyone could make up their own rules is obvious. For all things that properly flow from human choice in a social setting (which is anything that doesn't violate the rights of another) there should be no monoply or restriction. But for anything that flows a human choice to violate individual rights, there should be a monopoly of laws.   Choice - Free, Initiated force - Not Free.

I don't care about who enforces the laws, only that they are a proper set of laws (objective and based upon individual rights) and fairly and efficiently enforced. Anarchy always comes up with floating abstractions rather than workable concepts to explain how things could be handled without a government.

--------------

You also claim that a ruling elite is necessary since some people might not agree on the laws and would violate them. But some people might not agree on who is to be the ruling elite and might ignore your choice of ruling elite

Again, I never used the terms elite or ruling in this context. Those are your words, not mine. The vote on the choice of representatives is the least objectionable fashion for solving the problem of how to staff a particular function which must get done even if some people aren't in agreement.  People do disagree, but the majority will get their way in that choice. Those who disagreed are free to do whatever they want, under a proper set of laws, as long as they don't violate the rights of others.

I don't agree with Obama, but I don't exactly know what it would mean to ignore him as the choice people made. If that means that I ignore the mandates of, say, ObamaCare, that is a disagreement about the law.

---------------

Why is it that somehow we can manage such disagreements about rulers but not about rules? Why must our majority decisions be handed off to a minority ruling class?

On one level we aren't managing disagreements on either laws or representatives - at least in the sense that we are now more factionalized and partisan a society as we have ever been, with the exception of the time before the American Revolution and during the Civil War period.  Our division intensifies when the gulf between the opposing sides becomes more fundamental. On another level, we are managing the conflict fairly well in the sense that voting and variations on Roberts rules of order, and court decisions are keeping us from going at each other with violence.  It is to prevent violence between factions that we have the monopoly of laws for a jurisdiction and the enforcement and the use of the vote.

-------------

How about voting on "deciders" to decide our "rulers" for us. But wait! That's called the Electoral College. We can't choose our rules, but somehow we can choose the deciders who will choose the rulers who will choose the rules for us. Why does it make sense to make decisions at a triple proxy distance? Decision by proxie is irresponsibility.

You are wrapped up in talking about rulers instead of workable mechanisms and structures and processes for making the non-use of initiated force the standard of everyday society.  That's the proper purpose of government which is just a man-made structure and organization. The electoral college exists because the founding fathers had a deep distrust that a run-away democracy might elect tyrants.  In practice the electoral college  helps to decentralize power by ensuring that a few highly populated states didn't make the votes of the less densely populated states meaningless.

---------------

Well I may believe in choosing different "administrators" than you. I may decide to administer law myself. Where's the problem? Why does good law become bad when enforcement and arbitration are decentralized?

Without a government how do we get "law"? Do you make up the law you adminster? Can anyone else make up the laws they adminster? I don't see anything workable in what you are suggesting.

---------------

There certainly is a need for good rules, for instance a rule that says that the parties to a dispute may not act as the arbiters over that dispute. But all government - by its nature - is a violation of that good rule, is it not?

Government isn't monolithic. By design it made of different parts that act as checks and balances against one another. The constitution was designed to limit power of the government. The use of the vote is designed to let citizens choose the representatives. Anyone can argue that the these designs have been ignored and trampled on more and more with each passing year, but that doesn't mean they are the source of the failure to achieve a higher degree of liberty. No nation will ever get a government that is significantly better than the people's understanding and passion for freedom. There is a lot of truth in the old saw that in government a people get what they deserve.
�

I have already made very clear that I agree to a single set of right rules, but object to anyone having a monopoly on the enforcement of those rules or arbitration concerning those rules.

I've asked how in the world you will get your single set of right rules agreed to or enforced. You don't answer.

-----------------

Individual rights and majority rule cannot both be moral principals. Morally, they are mutually exclusive.

Saying that doesn't make it so.  Individual rights can only be violated by the initiation of force, threat to initiate force, fraud or theft.  And it is possible to have a constitutionally limited government that uses majority voting to select representatives of a government that does not engage in that kind of force, fraud or theft.

We use a vote to pick who is on a board or holds what position in a private organizations. It is a mechanism. It doesn't violate any rights. The violation of a right has to be an action that uses force (fraud, theft).  An action that is legal when it shouldn't be, or illegal as it should be.   

---------

In your reply, you consistently imply that, without a group of elected individuals having a monopoly power over certain functions, then the set of right rules will not prevail and many different sets of rules will compete. This makes no sense. It is merely a baseless prediction.

Are you serious? You think that if people could make up their own rules that no one would? You seriously think that if there was no enforced monopoly on the making of laws, that there wouldn't be a bunch of sets of laws?

----------

...you claim that the gang of rulers calling themselves "government", given the power of arbitration, will somehow not always rule in their own favor because there are many of them and they can counter-rule one another (disagree about the rules).

"calling themselves 'government'"  Give me a break, we all know what a government is. And, you put words into my mouth.  I did not make such a claim.  I did not say they would never rule in their own favor.  I said that we design the structures and processes of a government to make it more likely to stay true to its purpose of protecting individual rights.  That is the purpose and you don't seem to get that.

----------

Your main argument is a prediction: that without a group of power-lusters and their gunslingers ruling the rest of us, we will have chaos. All of history is a record of the sadistic chaos caused by such gunslinger-backed power-lusters. Telling me that there is a magic yet-to-be-attained-someday where power will not corrupt, is not a valid or convincing argument. Telling me that if only government was a gentleman's club of Objectivists, all would be good, makes me want to check my ammunition.

No, your main argument is a prediction: that without government a single set of right rules will come into being and that a chaotic fire-zone of warring gangs wouldn't become the norm. All of history is a record of the sadistic chaos caused by people who get away with using violence to get their way as crooks or bad governments and the best way to stop them is with a good government. Telling me that there is a magic yet-to-be-attained-someday where people will all accept this magical set of voluntarily adopted and self-enforcing rules, is not a valid or convincing argument. Telling me that if only we eliminated government that the nation's population would suddenly become a gentleman's club of Objectivists, and all would be good, makes me want to check my ammunition.

----------

A monopoly on power is utterly unnecessary and utterly evil - pure, stinking evil. All we need are good rules and legal equality (all rules applying equally to all individuals). Government is always and neccessarily a violation of both of those principles.

A monoply on the making of laws is absolutely necessary. To call for anarchy is utterly mistaken, and anarchy is totally evil. To say that we can get good rules - magically, out of thin air, or suddenly growing like friendly fruit on every bush is nonsense.  It is a bald assertion put forth with no substance, no history, no evidence and no logic.

-----------

You seem to believe that people can agree on anything except liberty and equality, but that they should agree on a benevolent tyranny. A gang holding a monopoly on power over others is a tyranny, no matter how they rule. And how they rule will progress, always, from bad to worse. That's my prediction.

I've never said that people can agree on anything except liberty and equality. Don't make up words and stick them in my mouth. There is no such thing as a benevolent tyranny.  If it is a tyranny it is so because if violates rights and there is nothing benevolent about that.  I believe that people can, and will disagree on almost everything - that's normal. But they shouldn't be allowed to violate rights - even if they believe it is okay.  They have to be stopped from violating rights.  I've been very clear in stating how I believe that government should be structured and why in order to make a political environment that is as friendly as possible to individual rights.

You haven't given us any explanation of the how and why of your imaginary government-free nation would work.  Anarchy is every bit as bad a political idea as communism, socialism, or facisim because it leads to the kind of political environment where individual rights are violated on a massive level.

@ Steve Wolfer (Post 27),

OK, the majority can come together to create a ruling elite, but not rules. They can peacefully choose enforcers and arbitrators by majority vote, but they can't enforce and arbitrate by majority vote. They can delegate decision making, but they can't decide. 

�

I get it.

If it is criticallyimportant to us how government decides anything, then that government is empowered to do too much.

Freedom has already lost if government is unconstrained in what it can decide upon, and what it can't decide upon.

regards,

Fred

@ Fred Bartlett,

"If it is critically important to us how government decides anything, then that government is empowered to do too much.

Freedom has already been lost if government is unconstrained in what it can decide upon, and what it can't decide upon."

Absolutly right!  But, to me at least, it also follows that it doesn't matter who does what as long as important functions are done right.   I see no reason to give anyone a monopoly over any function.

John:

And then the camel's nose enters the tent:  "But if we permitted just a little forced association, we could make real Progress with Jesus' Mission Here On Earth.   We could end poverty, ignorance, disease, and homelessness.  We could be Progressive..."

Scott Nearing Christian becoming Scott Nearing activist Socialist.   "Social Religion" published twice by Scott Nearing in early 1900s.   Once as a frustrated Christian.  (Why aren't we using the power of the state to more quickly advance Jesus Mission on Earth?)  and just a few years later, same book published as a newly energized Socialist.   Same book.  Same religion.

We need a Nancy Reagan for Forced Association:  "Just say No to Forced Association."

In freedom, here is the reasonable non-freedom eating alternitive for Scott Nearing, other than eating all of our freedom for his really, really good ideas:

Hire his own plumbers.  Establish his commune of utopic perfection in the woods of Vermont, and watch all the free association feet vote willingly towards or away from.    And when the frustration of 'not enough towards and too much away" under the rules of free association results in an urge to take over the plumbing of state to implement 'just a little forced association for My Latest Really Good Idea and Who Wouldn't Want to Make Baby Jesus Smile Down On Us From Heaven If Impementing My Latest Really Good Ideas Would Do That?' ...

a sane nation of free people smiles and says "Good luck with your next experiment in the woods of Vermont" instead of sleeping at the wheel while a stealth religion sends termites into the foundation of all our freedoms, including, religious freedom.

regards,

Fred

John:

Reasons to be optimistic.  (And those who have read my rantings are no doubt laughing at that...)

A political context devoted to the concept of free association, which defends against forced association, has a primary mission of 'defence' in a world over-run with totalitarian leanings.

For the first 150 years of America, national defence was the number one priority(and expense)of our federal government.

Since the 70s, this primary function of national government(can hardly call it 'federal' at this point unless 'federal' has no meaning)has been manned not by 'forced association' but by a 100% volunteer force.

If we cannot justify 'a draft' -- forced association -- for the number one priority of national government in the context of freedom, then ... what mission of our federal government can we justify 'forced association' for?

Apparently that includes MEDICARE, SOCIAL SECURITY, and now ACA.

So how is 'forced association' justified for those programs?

With lies, deceit, and prevarications.   Because the definition of politics(to me) is: the art and science of getting what you want from others using any means short of actual violence.

The existentially terrified among us want what they want, and in this universe, on this smooth damp rock that is proportionally smoother and more spherical than a regulation billiard ball, with nothing but a thin whispy atmosphere that at the scale of a billiard ball would be 0.001 inches thick as the only thing separating us from the inhospitable void of space, that includes a risk free guaranteed safe long and comfortable life free from want, even if that is guaranteed by riding the backs of others who take risk and run up hills while we claim our right to stand still without effort.   In a universe that is predominantly mostly Hydrogen, where every single atom heavier than H was forged inside the furnaces of stars long dead, where self aware arrangments of heavy molecules are a long shot miracle of epic proportion, that still yet are governed by this harsh universe and its laws and its gradients and its entropic traffic cop,  that the existentially terrified among us exist is not a surprise.   What is a surprise is that they rule the day.

Why do those who take on risk and run up hills tolerate the parasitic flailings of the existentially terrified, when those flailings, as part of an out of all control mob, eat the freedom of all of us?

On a lifeboat being swamped by their irrationality, if they couldn't be subdued, they'd be shot and thrown over the side before they ended us all, resulting in a half filled lifeboat moving on.

Or vice versa, ultimately leading to an empty lifeboat seeking out the bottom of the sea.

regards,

Fred

(Edited by Fred Bartlett on 10/18, 9:39am)

Fred,

You provided Mr. Howard with the metaphor of the plumbers.  And he said he appreciated it, but stated that no plumbing service requires a coercive monopoly (post 32). And in post 33 he stated, "I see no reason to give anyone a monopoly over any function."

In post 34 you explained that the state plumbers would be constrained to doing nothing but protecting freedom, and not able to violate anyones freedom. And that anyone could hire all the plumbers they want, and those plumbers would only be constrained in not being able to engage in forced association. So it wouldn't be much of a coerced monopoly.

But Mr. Howard remained focused on what he damns as a coercive monopoly.

You were very explicit in post 38: "Empowered with only one primary power as the underlying axiom foundation for all of its permitted actions: the inhibition of forced association, including, by itself, but not limited to itself.

That would not prohibit you from forming your own plumbers to prohibit forced association or encourage free association. (So where is the monopoly?)"

Following the essentials of those posts it is clear that it is not the plumbers, private or state, that are the real problem from Mr. Howard's perspective.  He says it is, but logic says otherwise.  It is the rules.  It is a monopoly of rules that is the issue.  You can't call something a rule in a political context unless it is intended to be enforceable.  If you imagine some fantasy system where there are no people to enforce any rule, then rules won't matter, because chaos will reign. (An uneforceable rule is not a rule.)  If you imagine a fantasy system where there are enforcers but no rules, it is an evil system because the whim of the moment would be enforced and gangs would prey on everyone.  Enforcers without rules is just the jungle.  Conflicting sets of rule bring enforcement that is war - a competition in the use of violence.

There will always be enforcers (people and/or organization who use force against others) and like fire, it is best seen as a force we can control and use to improve our lives rather than to have it burn down our houses.

You have a rule that you propose be adopted as the primary, fundamental rule governing all else.  No forced association.  You mentioned that everyone should agree to it... like a contract.  I say that no one needs to agree to it, because one has to step totally outside of morality to violate it. For example, I don't need to get everyone, or anyone,  to agree to not steal my stuff.  But the important point here is that you are proposing that this rule hold a monopoly status - that is, no one can act according to any other rule that is contrary to this rule.

And that is proper.

The old saying is that freedom ends just before your fist reaches my nose.  Just another way of saying that you have the right to do anything that doesn't violate my rights. Or, as Rand said, "There is no right to violate a right." This is the foundation for a set of laws that hold a monopoly over a jurisdiction. It is the fact that some rules are bad and some are good that requires that we choose between rules. And it is the nature of rules that they must be enforced or they are not rules. Good rules are like those that would logically arise out of, and be fully consistent with your free association axiom. Or, Rand's definition of individual rights. Good enforcement is enforcement that lives within the rules, is applied consistently, equally, openly, objectively. If we want to live a life where we are free to pursue our own goals, we need to ensure that others live within good rules, and that means we must live within good rules, and we must have the rules enforced or they are useless, and it must be good enforcement.

Our purpose is to have a good life.  In a social context this requires freedom and freedom is the absence of initiated force.  To achieve our purpose we take that basic rule and enforce it.  We want that rule to be a monopoly.  We want it to be well enforced.  This is purpose of a proper government - proper enforcement of good rules.  Anarchists will never accept those simple facts.  They will obsess on some  side issue that is taken out of context - like objecting to a monopoly of rules, or a monopoly of enforcement of those rules, when that is a misuse of the term monopoly and a position that will forever be based upon a fantasy of some sort - like everyone will agree to the same rules, or like it is possible to have free competition provide the functions of justice even though the marketplace isn't free (the use of violence hasn't been removed as a tool of competition because there is no such rule that applies to all and is enforced).