CDZ The Government of No Authority, Part 2: Delegation of Powers

[danielpalos]

No idea what you are babbling about

If it is wrong for you to do something, is it OK to ask someone else to do it?

If it is wrong for you to kill your neighbor’s dog, is it OK to ask your brother to kill the dog?

If it is wrong for you to claim a part of your neighbor’s income under threat of violence, is it OK to vote for someone else to do it?

can you be more specific? you have a fallacy composition that is unclear.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

Yes. But I know that life is not binary. We create exceptions & allowances as needed.

Are you that saying people have rights, but we can create exceptions to those rights “as needed”?

 

[Brian Blackwell]

No idea what you are babbling about

If it is wrong for you to do something, is it OK to ask someone else to do it?

If it is wrong for you to kill your neighbor’s dog, is it OK to ask your brother to kill the dog?

If it is wrong for you to claim a part of your neighbor’s income under threat of violence, is it OK to vote for someone else to do it?

can you be more specific? you have a fallacy composition that is unclear.

Right now, if you went to your neighbor’s house and said, “Every week, I will take 30% of your income. If you don’t give it to me, I will come here with a gun and drag you to a cage”, morally speaking, do you feel this action would be right or wrong?

 

[Mac1958]

Yes. But I know that life is not binary. We create exceptions & allowances as needed.

Are you that saying people have rights, but we can create exceptions to those rights “as needed”?

Yes. "Can", being the operative word.
.

 

[danielpalos]

No idea what you are babbling about

If it is wrong for you to do something, is it OK to ask someone else to do it?

If it is wrong for you to kill your neighbor’s dog, is it OK to ask your brother to kill the dog?

If it is wrong for you to claim a part of your neighbor’s income under threat of violence, is it OK to vote for someone else to do it?

can you be more specific? you have a fallacy composition that is unclear.

Right now, if you went to your neighbor’s house and said, “Every week, I will take 30% of your income. If you don’t give it to me, I will come here with a gun and drag you to a cage”, morally speaking, do you feel this action would be right or wrong?

And, this is relevant in what manner?

Any capital contract can cover this.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

the freedom of association to debate and ratify a social Contract such as a Constitution via a political process.

I’m going to humbly suggest - with all due respect - that there is nothing in this sentence that explains anything. It sounds like something a politician would say.

The freedom to debate and ratify a social contract via a political process... So basically, just an assertion that they have the freedom to do this, without citing any origin of that power.

I would like to assemble with my friends and ratify a social contract - is that equally valid?

 

[Brian Blackwell]

Yes. But I know that life is not binary. We create exceptions & allowances as needed.

Are you that saying people have rights, but we can create exceptions to those rights “as needed”?

Yes. "Can", being the operative word.
.

Ok, so are you highlighting this “can” to mean the sheer ability? A cannibal “can” eat my children if he overpowers me, but that doesn’t mean he has the right to do so. This thread is about legitimacy, not ability.

If you mean “can” as in “having the right to” then I would ask how this is valid, given the fact that if rights can be justly ignored, then they are not rights - they cease to exist and all, and morality is reduced to little more than whim.

 

[Mac1958]

Yes. But I know that life is not binary. We create exceptions & allowances as needed.

Are you that saying people have rights, but we can create exceptions to those rights “as needed”?

Yes. "Can", being the operative word.
.

Ok, so are you highlighting this “can” to mean the sheer ability? A cannibal “can” eat my children if he overpowers me, but that doesn’t mean he has the right to do so. This thread is about legitimacy, not ability.

If you mean “can” as in “having the right to” then I would ask how this is valid, given the fact that if rights can be justly ignored, then they are not rights - they cease to exist and all, and morality is reduced to little more than whim.

Rights are something a society creates and bestows upon itself. They are not necessarily permanent or impervious to being ignored.

Since no one, or no society, is perfect, all we can do is try to set and maintain rights.
.

 

[emilynghiem]

Thanks for a great post and descriptive choices, Brian.

I'd say Yes, if I am a child without the power to drive, I can choose which parent I want to drive for me. I can delegate that to others by my consent or dissent or preference. (If it's equally convenient for either parent, but if it's not, my consent does not override the consent of others involved.)

But No, I can't delegate the choice of driving on behalf of other people.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

Rights are something a society creates and bestows upon itself. They are not necessarily permanent or impervious to being ignored.

Since no one, or no society, is perfect, all we can do is try to set and maintain rights.

This is tangential, but you believe that people create rights? So there's no self-evident principle at play dictating that it's wrong to walk up to an old lady and split her head with an axe? That's just a neutral event, like sniffing a rose? The innocent have no right to be violently imposed upon? Remember that a right is not a guarantee...

In any case, whatever you cite as its origin, I assume you have some moral code that says we should not steal from innocent people, or attack and/or murder them just because we don't like them or their victimless habits, etc. You say we should try to set and maintain rights, and this thread is about that very thing...

Do you believe it is wrong, for you personally, to claim a portion of your neighbor's income under threat of violence, regardless of what you're going to use that money for?

In other words, do you believe it would be violation of your neighbor's rights, and that you have no right to do this yourself? If you do believe it is wrong for you to do this yourself, how do you justify asking someone else to do it (i.e. supporting a government agent's "right" to do this very thing)?

 

[Mac1958]

Rights are something a society creates and bestows upon itself. They are not necessarily permanent or impervious to being ignored.

Since no one, or no society, is perfect, all we can do is try to set and maintain rights.

This is tangential, but you believe that people create rights? So there's no self-evident principle at play dictating that it's wrong to walk up to an old lady and split her head with an axe? That's just a neutral event, like sniffing a rose? The innocent have no right to be violently imposed upon? Remember that a right is not a guarantee...

In any case, whatever you cite as its origin, I assume you have some moral code that says we should not steal from innocent people, or attack and/or murder them just because we don't like them or their victimless habits, etc. You say we should try to set and maintain rights, and this thread is about that very thing...

Do you believe it is wrong, for you personally, to claim a portion of your neighbor's income under threat of violence, regardless of what you're going to use that money for?

In other words, do you believe it would be violation of your neighbor's rights, and that you have no right to do this yourself? If you do believe it is wrong for you to do this yourself, how do you justify asking someone else to do it (i.e. supporting a government agent's "right" to do this very thing)?

I think that a society does its best to create rules that it can agree on, generally, and then we do our best to enforce them.

No, I believe that taxation is part of the price of a civilization. If we want lower taxes, we vote accordingly. If we want more services at a cost, we vote accordingly. If we lose, then we have to do a better job of convincing people of our position. And sometimes we have to admit to ourselves that ours is simply not the prevailing view.
.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

Thanks for a great post and descriptive choices, Brian.

I'd say Yes, if I am a child without the power to drive, I can choose which parent I want to drive for me. I can delegate that to others by my consent or dissent or preference. (If it's equally convenient for either parent, but if it's not, my consent does not override the consent of others involved.)

But No, I can't delegate the choice of driving on behalf of other people.

Hi Emily, thanks for checking in!

This requires a bit of clarification as to the language we're using... When we're speaking of "power" in this context, it is not intended to mean "ability", but rather the valid right to perform the action. A child does not have the ability to drive, perhaps, but they do have the natural right to do so, as it does not inherently infringe upon the rights of others. If a 10-year-old could be made to drive responsibly, there is no immorality in her doing so. The valid delegation of this right in rooted in the child's possession of the right in question.

This becomes clearer when we use obvious examples, such as blatantly immoral actions. I obviously do not have the right to murder my innocent neighbor just because I don't like his haircut. So in this case, is there anything I could do that would justify my delegation of this non-existent right to someone else (e.g. hiring a hitman)? Is there any ritual I can perform, or group action (such as taking a vote) that would change the fundamental moral nature of this action when it is delegated to another?

You example of the choice of driving is appropriate here, and you agree that you cannot validly delegate the right to someone else to force them to drive against their will, since you do not have that right to begin with.

You likely do not claim the right to forcibly confiscate a portion of your neighbor's income by threat of violence. So how can you validly delegate this "right" to another? Where in the process of delegation does the immoral act become moral, and how does it become so?

 

[Brian Blackwell]

No idea what you are babbling about

If it is wrong for you to do something, is it OK to ask someone else to do it?

If it is wrong for you to kill your neighbor’s dog, is it OK to ask your brother to kill the dog?

If it is wrong for you to claim a part of your neighbor’s income under threat of violence, is it OK to vote for someone else to do it?

can you be more specific? you have a fallacy composition that is unclear.

Right now, if you went to your neighbor’s house and said, “Every week, I will take 30% of your income. If you don’t give it to me, I will come here with a gun and drag you to a cage”, morally speaking, do you feel this action would be right or wrong?

And, this is relevant in what manner?

Any capital contract can cover this.

This is relevant because if you believe it is wrong for YOU to do something, how do you suppose it is right for you to delegate that action to someone else? You clearly don't believe you have a right to do it, so by what power does your delegate acquire the right to do it? A delegate (or representative) only has the right to do things on behalf of another; if the person delegating doesn't have the right, the delegate cannot have it either. Wouldn't you agree?

 

[Brian Blackwell]

Rights are something a society creates and bestows upon itself. They are not necessarily permanent or impervious to being ignored.

Since no one, or no society, is perfect, all we can do is try to set and maintain rights.

This is tangential, but you believe that people create rights? So there's no self-evident principle at play dictating that it's wrong to walk up to an old lady and split her head with an axe? That's just a neutral event, like sniffing a rose? The innocent have no right to be violently imposed upon? Remember that a right is not a guarantee...

In any case, whatever you cite as its origin, I assume you have some moral code that says we should not steal from innocent people, or attack and/or murder them just because we don't like them or their victimless habits, etc. You say we should try to set and maintain rights, and this thread is about that very thing...

Do you believe it is wrong, for you personally, to claim a portion of your neighbor's income under threat of violence, regardless of what you're going to use that money for?

In other words, do you believe it would be violation of your neighbor's rights, and that you have no right to do this yourself? If you do believe it is wrong for you to do this yourself, how do you justify asking someone else to do it (i.e. supporting a government agent's "right" to do this very thing)?

I think that a society does its best to create rules that it can agree on, generally, and then we do our best to enforce them.

No, I believe that taxation is part of the price of a civilization. If we want lower taxes, we vote accordingly. If we want more services at a cost, we vote accordingly. If we lose, then we have to do a better job of convincing people of our position. And sometimes we have to admit to ourselves that ours is simply not the prevailing view.
.

We can talk about "the price of civilization" at another point, but this does not address the question being asked. I am asking whether you believe you have the right to personally tax your neighbor, and if not, how do you validly delegate this right to government agents?

 

[emilynghiem]

The franchise is that power; you have to vote them out of office.

I don't understand how this answers the questions posed. Please explain.

It is the simple answer regarding the power of the of People.

But the "power of the people" doesn't include taxing each other, or writing laws which the others must obey, so how do they validly grant these powers to their representatives?

Dear Brian Blackwell
if people set up the govt to be more like nonprofit with voluntary contributions,
then we could prevent "taxation" from forcing people to pay for things
that don't represent us or our consent or beliefs.

If we agree "voluntarily" to use the federal govt/irs/tax system and federal reserve to manage collective resources, we can exercise that as part of our "free exercise of religion or beliefs."

But where we disagree, no you are right, technically it is against Constitutional principles and natural laws to coerce people against their free will, especially if forcing people to comply or pay for programs or policies "against their beliefs."

No taxation without representation.

Unfortunately we've gotten into bad habits of agreeing
to pay under certain terms, and when those change, it's not so easy
to recall our right not to pay into that.

The easiest way I see to fix this mess is to
allow taxpayers equal choice of plans to fund or defund,
and start shifting control of resources and decisions
back to people and states, by using parties to organize and facilitate this change.

We can organize proportional representation by district
through voluntary participation by party. as long as it's all
voluntary people can have a free choice to participate in
problem solving, conflict resolution and policy reforms
on the district level. then feed any input on solutions
to the govt reps at each level of govt, and start reforming
both local and state levels of govt so this takes the
bureaucracy and burdens off federal govt.

We can facilitate this shift using public school districts,
party precincts, Electoral college districts and city councils.

Start locally, separate people's preferences of funding programs
and policies by party or by other organizations, and only reserve
public policy and govt jurisdiction to where all people agree
should be managed on that level. The rest we don't agree on
can be relegated back to local individuals or groups instead of
imposing "taxation" or policies on people collectively against anyone's
will belief or consent.
n

 

[Mac1958]

Rights are something a society creates and bestows upon itself. They are not necessarily permanent or impervious to being ignored.

Since no one, or no society, is perfect, all we can do is try to set and maintain rights.

This is tangential, but you believe that people create rights? So there's no self-evident principle at play dictating that it's wrong to walk up to an old lady and split her head with an axe? That's just a neutral event, like sniffing a rose? The innocent have no right to be violently imposed upon? Remember that a right is not a guarantee...

In any case, whatever you cite as its origin, I assume you have some moral code that says we should not steal from innocent people, or attack and/or murder them just because we don't like them or their victimless habits, etc. You say we should try to set and maintain rights, and this thread is about that very thing...

Do you believe it is wrong, for you personally, to claim a portion of your neighbor's income under threat of violence, regardless of what you're going to use that money for?

In other words, do you believe it would be violation of your neighbor's rights, and that you have no right to do this yourself? If you do believe it is wrong for you to do this yourself, how do you justify asking someone else to do it (i.e. supporting a government agent's "right" to do this very thing)?

I think that a society does its best to create rules that it can agree on, generally, and then we do our best to enforce them.

No, I believe that taxation is part of the price of a civilization. If we want lower taxes, we vote accordingly. If we want more services at a cost, we vote accordingly. If we lose, then we have to do a better job of convincing people of our position. And sometimes we have to admit to ourselves that ours is simply not the prevailing view.
.

We can talk about "the price of civilization" at another point, but this does not address the question being asked. I am asking whether you believe you have the right to personally tax your neighbor, and if not, how do you validly delegate this right to government agents?

I believe that I only have that right if there are enough people in my society who agree with me.

Since there clearly are, and since that will most likely never change, the question is not the right to tax, but to what degree.
.

 

[emilynghiem]

No idea what you are babbling about

If it is wrong for you to do something, is it OK to ask someone else to do it?

If it is wrong for you to kill your neighbor’s dog, is it OK to ask your brother to kill the dog?

If it is wrong for you to claim a part of your neighbor’s income under threat of violence, is it OK to vote for someone else to do it?

can you be more specific? you have a fallacy composition that is unclear.

Right now, if you went to your neighbor’s house and said, “Every week, I will take 30% of your income. If you don’t give it to me, I will come here with a gun and drag you to a cage”, morally speaking, do you feel this action would be right or wrong?

And, this is relevant in what manner?

Any capital contract can cover this.

This is relevant because if you believe it is wrong for YOU to do something, how do you suppose it is right for you to delegate that action to someone else? You clearly don't believe you have a right to do it, so by what power does your delegate acquire the right to do it? A delegate (or representative) only has the right to do things on behalf of another; if the person delegating doesn't have the right, the delegate cannot have it either. Wouldn't you agree?

Dear Brian Blackwell and danielpalos
It's only fair when both parties consent to it.
For example if both parties agree to solve a budget problem by
1. separating what party A and party B agree to fund and pay for themselves separately and not impose on each other
2. leave part C to a third party to decide for them,
then they both agree to have this "third party C"
to decide for both A and B although for the
part under Section 1 NEITHER A or B has the right
to decide or impose on each other.

the problem with danielpalos is not being consistent.
For Section 1, no it isn't fair to force B to pay for A and not force A to pay for B.
both have to agree not to force each other on these issues in Section 1.
For Section 2, if both A and B agree to relegate decisions to third party C
they can do this by agreement.

The problem Brian Blackwell
is when liberals do not make a distinction between issues
that are Section 1 type and people don't agree to have govt impose these
and issues that are Section 2 where people agree to delegate these to govt.

Yes it is possible that I as a civilian do not have the right to declare war
on a whole nation, but I agree to relegate to Congress the right to declare war.

 

[emilynghiem]

You likely do not claim the right to forcibly confiscate a portion of your neighbor's income by threat of violence. So how can you validly delegate this "right" to another? Where in the process of delegation does the immoral act become moral, and how does it become so?

Any such deprivation of liberty or property requires due process.
Any such unreasonable search or seizures requires probable cause and lawful process as well.
Any "compelling interest" is based on least restrictive measures and not "excessive" use of force.

If someone is abusing their own property such as a gun to commit crimes or their car to go drive drunk and risk life and safety, then yes, we can use the proportionate among of force they are using, and the same degree of coercion they are using to prevent this dangerous act while defending laws, life and liberty to get them help to fix whatever problem is causing this dangerous behavior.

We certainly don't want make the problem worse, but seek to de escalate it.

the most effective approach I know to prevent and correct abuses
is to respect consent of the governed and voluntary compliance with better solutions.
If we respect free will, then this teaches and enforces the same respect of others.
And if we all do this, then no crimes or abuses would happen but we would communicate, correct conflicts or agree to separate, and not violate or impose on anyone's rights or freedom.

We do this among friends with whom we have transparent relations.
Multiple that by a whole community and we can have cities run by democratic
decision making where people agree to follow policies or agree to resolve conflicts civilly.

then we can build states and nations based on localized democratically self-managed districts and towns.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

Dear Brian Blackwell
if people set up the govt to be more like nonprofit with voluntary contributions,
then we could prevent "taxation" from forcing people to pay for things
that don't represent us or our consent or beliefs.

If we agree "voluntarily" to use the federal govt/irs/tax system and federal reserve to manage collective resources, we can exercise that as part of our "free exercise of religion or beliefs."

But where we disagree, no you are right, technically it is against Constitutional principles and natural laws to coerce people against their free will, especially if forcing people to comply or pay for programs or policies "against their beliefs."

No taxation without representation.

Unfortunately we've gotten into bad habits of agreeing
to pay under certain terms, and when those change, it's not so easy
to recall our right not to pay into that.

The easiest way I see to fix this mess is to
allow taxpayers equal choice of plans to fund or defund,
and start shifting control of resources and decisions
back to people and states, by using parties to organize and facilitate this change.

We can organize proportional representation by district
through voluntary participation by party. as long as it's all
voluntary people can have a free choice to participate in
problem solving, conflict resolution and policy reforms
on the district level. then feed any input on solutions
to the govt reps at each level of govt, and start reforming
both local and state levels of govt so this takes the
bureaucracy and burdens off federal govt.

We can facilitate this shift using public school districts,
party precincts, Electoral college districts and city councils.

Start locally, separate people's preferences of funding programs
and policies by party or by other organizations, and only reserve
public policy and govt jurisdiction to where all people agree
should be managed on that level. The rest we don't agree on
can be relegated back to local individuals or groups instead of
imposing "taxation" or policies on people collectively against anyone's
will belief or consent.

A step in the right direction would be to give people more choice about where their money goes, but even that is just "slavery light". Your plan has merit, no doubt, but I am focused solely on helping people realize that they have no obligation to obey man's law, and that to support a system that imposes governmental authority upon their neighbors is inherently immoral. Once a significant minority of people recognize this immutable truth, they can simply turn their backs on government, and it will fade away by sheer lack of support. As we approach that critical juncture in humanity's progress, we can begin discussing how to solve problems in a free society. And these solutions will vary widely, as there will be no centralized solution to which all must conform.

People must come to recognize their inherent self-ownership if a peaceful, prosperous society is ever to exist upon this (or any other) world. Self-regulation is the only solution that actually solves, and no matter how implausible a society built upon this notion may seem, it is the only path that even has a chance of getting us where we hope to go. Freedom does not have degrees; only slavery does. When this recognition becomes prevalent in the broader culture, man will usher in a new age of previously-unimaginable success... and not a moment before.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

I believe that I only have that right if there are enough people in my society who agree with me.

Since there clearly are, and since that will most likely never change, the question is not the right to tax, but to what degree.
.

So how many people have to agree with you? A majority?

So if a majority of people delegate to a cannibal the "right" to eat you and your family, that delegation is valid and just?