. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Nap Time!!!

Sunday, December 02, 2007
More lefts

For those of you following world news, a Hugo Chavez-controlled government is holding a Chavez-controlled election about whether or not Chavez should have dictatorial power or some such in Venezuela. And it doesn't even look like he's going to win by a blowout.

I mention this because I know there are a lot of democracy worshipers out there who think that, if something is democratically passed, it's somehow okay and moral. Yes, this includes the TGIF folks who think that taking other people's money for your cause is fine as long as you can get some people to agree with you. This includes the supporters of the open theft of Berkeley Iceland by the government, insisting that it was okay because the democratically elected government okayed it, and anyone who doesn't like it should just get out of town. This includes those who push for taxes on the top x% of incomes (where x is less than 50) through direct election, pointing to the fact that it's only rich people who suffer, so it's pretty much free to enough people to get it passed.

If people vote for a dictatorship, does that make the loss of rights for everyone, even those who didn't vote for it, okay? Let's hear it, democracy-lovers. If not, what's the difference? Is it anything more meaningful than "well, those rights benefit the wrong people, so I don't care about them"?

posted by Beetle Aurora Drake 12/02/2007 09:08:00 PM #
Comments (4)
. . .
I completely agree with you. A majority of votes consenting to a change in governance does not give that change any special moral status.

But it sounds like you started out with the assumption that Chavez having these powers is immoral. Maybe you were being facetious, but if not, what's the reasoning behind a loss of legal rights being a violation of moral principles?

As any good anarchist will tell you, democracies and dictatorships have the same moral status. Whether laws are created by several people or most of the country, *someones* autonomy is being violated.
Nothing like a good ol boring straw man rant. The Chavez rule failed, by the way.
progressive taxation, from a completely practical point of view, is necessary because the bottom 50% (or even 80%) do not have enough money to even provide the necessary public goods which are required for our present state of economic activity. Basically, it's necessary to tax the people with money, because taxing someone with practically no excess money does not do much good.

Also, in terms of stimulating the economy, leaving more money in the hands of the lower-classes allows for the creation of more spending power. Simple utility stuff, right?

Individual rights often must be curtailed for the public good, both in the sense of the health of the community and the community's economic viability, and also for the infrastructure on which we rely for our present economic system. To change that would be an atrocity.

welcome to the world after 1932 - catch up.
There's a difference between progressive taxation, and partial taxation by initiative. Please pay attention to the topic.
Post a Comment

. . .