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

[Brian Blackwell]

This thread explores an argument that runs parallel to the one discussed in CDZ - The Government of No Authority, Part 1: Law and Morality. You needn't have read that thread to participate here, as the two threads discuss different arguments.

It is commonly accepted that the origin of governmental authority resides with "the people". The idea being that the people elect representatives to act on their behalf. Since so much of the discussion on these boards is founded upon the belief in the legitimacy of governmental authority, it behooves us to explore the core principles at play within this system. First, a few "Yes or No" questions to establish a basis for discussion, beginning with the poll question:


1. Can a person validly delegate rights/powers that they don't have to someone else?
(e.g. can I delegate the right to paint my neighbor's house a different color to my brother, when I do not have that right to begin with?)

2. Can any number of people validly delegate rights/powers that none of them have individually?
(i.e. does the number of people involved change the scenario?)

3. Can governmental representatives have rights/powers that none of the people they represent have?


Considering the assertion that "Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes...", and that representatives write laws which the people are expected to obey under threat of punishment, how can it be that no individual who elects said representatives may claim the same powers? Better said, how did representatives get these rights and powers when none of the people they represent had them in the first place?

-If you answered "Yes" to any of the above questions, please explain how this is so.
-If you answered "No" to any of the above questions, but still support governmental authority in this country, please explain how you resolve the apparent contradiction.


"...Thus the principle of collective right — its reason for existing, its lawfulness — is based on individual right. And the common force that protects this collective right cannot logically have any other purpose or any other mission than that for which it acts as a substitute." - Frederic Bastiat, "The Law"

 

[danielpalos]

This thread explores an argument that runs parallel to the one discussed in CDZ - The Government of No Authority, Part 1: Law and Morality. You needn't have read that thread to participate here, as the two threads discuss different arguments.

It is commonly accepted that the origin of governmental authority resides with "the people". The idea being that the people elect representatives to act on their behalf. Since so much of the discussion on these boards is founded upon the belief in the legitimacy of governmental authority, it behooves us to explore the core principles at play within this system. First, a few "Yes or No" questions to establish a basis for discussion, beginning with the poll question:


1. Can a person validly delegate rights/powers that they don't have to someone else?
(e.g. can I delegate the right to paint my neighbor's house a different color to my brother, when I do not have that right to begin with?)

2. Can any number of people validly delegate rights/powers that none of them have individually?
(i.e. does the number of people involved change the scenario?)

3. Can governmental representatives have rights/powers that none of the people they represent have?


Considering the assertion that "Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes...", and that representatives write laws which the people are expected to obey under threat of punishment, how can it be that no individual who elects said representatives may claim the same powers? Better said, how did representatives get these rights and powers when none of the people they represent had them in the first place?

-If you answered "Yes" to any of the above questions, please explain how this is so.
-If you answered "No" to any of the above questions, but still support governmental authority in this country, please explain how you resolve the apparent contradiction.


"...Thus the principle of collective right — its reason for existing, its lawfulness — is based on individual right. And the common force that protects this collective right cannot logically have any other purpose or any other mission than that for which it acts as a substitute." - Frederic Bastiat, "The Law"

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

 

[Brian Blackwell]

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.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

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?

 

[danielpalos]

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?

That is what was agreed upon, in our Constitution.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

That is what was agreed upon, in our Constitution.

Ok, but agreeing upon something doesn't make it rational or valid (never mind the fact that all the people who agreed are long since dead). This post is about investigating the principles at the foundation of that agreement. Do you have answers to the three questions posed?

 

[usmbguest5318]

1. Can a person validly delegate rights/powers that they don't have to someone else?
(e.g. can I delegate the right to paint my neighbor's house a different color to my brother, when I do not have that right to begin with?)

2. Can any number of people validly delegate rights/powers that none of them have individually?
(i.e. does the number of people involved change the scenario?)

3. Can governmental representatives have rights/powers that none of the people they represent have?

1. No.
2. Yes.
3. Yes.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

1. Can a person validly delegate rights/powers that they don't have to someone else?
(e.g. can I delegate the right to paint my neighbor's house a different color to my brother, when I do not have that right to begin with?)

2. Can any number of people validly delegate rights/powers that none of them have individually?
(i.e. does the number of people involved change the scenario?)

3. Can governmental representatives have rights/powers that none of the people they represent have?

1. No.
2. Yes.
3. Yes.

Hi Xelor. So you’d like to make the case that a single person cannot delegate rights they don’t have, but a group can? Could you explain how this is so (what’s the difference when more people are involved, and some details like how many people are required, are there any limits to this group ability or can they create any right they can imagine, etc.)?

 

[usmbguest5318]

1. Can a person validly delegate rights/powers that they don't have to someone else?
(e.g. can I delegate the right to paint my neighbor's house a different color to my brother, when I do not have that right to begin with?)

2. Can any number of people validly delegate rights/powers that none of them have individually?
(i.e. does the number of people involved change the scenario?)

3. Can governmental representatives have rights/powers that none of the people they represent have?

1. No.
2. Yes.
3. Yes.

Hi Xelor. So you’d like to make the case that a single person cannot delegate rights they don’t have, but a group can? Could you explain how this is so (what’s the difference when more people are involved, and some details like how many people are required, are there any limits to this group ability or can they create any right they can imagine, etc.)?

So you’d like to make the case that a single person cannot delegate rights they don’t have, but a group can?

Hi.

No. I just wanted to provide my answers to your questions. It's not that I cannot make the case for my answers. I simply have no interest in doing so. While I was content to answer your OP questions, I have no desire to engage in a discussion on the topic. Had your questions not been binarily answerable, I wouldn't have answered them.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

No. I just wanted to provide my answers to your questions. It's not that I cannot make the case for my answers. I simply have no interest in doing so. While I was content to answer your OP questions, I have no desire to engage in a discussion on the topic. Had your questions not been binarily answerable, I wouldn't have answered them.

Ah, very well. That’s too bad. I think many agree with you, but I’ve yet to hear a logical explanation and if anyone could provide it, I think it would be you.

Well, if you change your mind, we’ll be here. In any case, thanks for checking in!

 

[danielpalos]

That is what was agreed upon, in our Constitution.

Ok, but agreeing upon something doesn't make it rational or valid (never mind the fact that all the people who agreed are long since dead). This post is about investigating the principles at the foundation of that agreement. Do you have answers to the three questions posed?

They established our form of Government via our federal Constitution.

The People delegated those Powers to our elected representatives.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

That is what was agreed upon, in our Constitution.

Ok, but agreeing upon something doesn't make it rational or valid (never mind the fact that all the people who agreed are long since dead). This post is about investigating the principles at the foundation of that agreement. Do you have answers to the three questions posed?

They established our form of Government via our federal Constitution.

The People delegated those Powers to our elected representatives.

But how does one delegate a power they don’t have? Can I delegate the power to demolish your home and build a tennis court? No, because I do not have the power to make that decision; it’s not my property The property owner may delegate that power to a construction company, because he has that power.

So how did people delegate rights to Congress that none of those people had in the first place? I know they did it by writing it down on a piece of parchment and calling it the Constitution, but by what rationale is this valid?

 

[rightwinger]

This thread explores an argument that runs parallel to the one discussed in CDZ - The Government of No Authority, Part 1: Law and Morality. You needn't have read that thread to participate here, as the two threads discuss different arguments.

It is commonly accepted that the origin of governmental authority resides with "the people". The idea being that the people elect representatives to act on their behalf. Since so much of the discussion on these boards is founded upon the belief in the legitimacy of governmental authority, it behooves us to explore the core principles at play within this system. First, a few "Yes or No" questions to establish a basis for discussion, beginning with the poll question:


1. Can a person validly delegate rights/powers that they don't have to someone else?
(e.g. can I delegate the right to paint my neighbor's house a different color to my brother, when I do not have that right to begin with?)

2. Can any number of people validly delegate rights/powers that none of them have individually?
(i.e. does the number of people involved change the scenario?)

3. Can governmental representatives have rights/powers that none of the people they represent have?


Considering the assertion that "Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes...", and that representatives write laws which the people are expected to obey under threat of punishment, how can it be that no individual who elects said representatives may claim the same powers? Better said, how did representatives get these rights and powers when none of the people they represent had them in the first place?

-If you answered "Yes" to any of the above questions, please explain how this is so.
-If you answered "No" to any of the above questions, but still support governmental authority in this country, please explain how you resolve the apparent contradiction.


"...Thus the principle of collective right — its reason for existing, its lawfulness — is based on individual right. And the common force that protects this collective right cannot logically have any other purpose or any other mission than that for which it acts as a substitute." - Frederic Bastiat, "The Law"

No idea what you are babbling about

 

[danielpalos]

That is what was agreed upon, in our Constitution.

Ok, but agreeing upon something doesn't make it rational or valid (never mind the fact that all the people who agreed are long since dead). This post is about investigating the principles at the foundation of that agreement. Do you have answers to the three questions posed?

They established our form of Government via our federal Constitution.

The People delegated those Powers to our elected representatives.

But how does one delegate a power they don’t have?

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

 

[Mac1958]

1. Can a person validly delegate rights/powers that they don't have to someone else?
2. Can any number of people validly delegate rights/powers that none of them have individually?
3. Can governmental representatives have rights/powers that none of the people they represent have?

In general, with exceptions here and there (as with most things), yes.

A term for this kind of symbiotic, cooperative, collaborative, trust-based relationship might be "civilization".
.

 

[danielpalos]

1. Can a person validly delegate rights/powers that they don't have to someone else?
2. Can any number of people validly delegate rights/powers that none of them have individually?
3. Can governmental representatives have rights/powers that none of the people they represent have?

In general, with exceptions here and there (as with most things), yes.

A term for this kind of symbiotic, cooperative, collaborative relationship might be "civilization".
.

Do you not believe in natural and individual rights?

 

[Mac1958]

1. Can a person validly delegate rights/powers that they don't have to someone else?
2. Can any number of people validly delegate rights/powers that none of them have individually?
3. Can governmental representatives have rights/powers that none of the people they represent have?

In general, with exceptions here and there (as with most things), yes.

A term for this kind of symbiotic, cooperative, collaborative relationship might be "civilization".
.

Do you not believe in natural and individual rights?

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

 

[danielpalos]

1. Can a person validly delegate rights/powers that they don't have to someone else?
2. Can any number of people validly delegate rights/powers that none of them have individually?
3. Can governmental representatives have rights/powers that none of the people they represent have?

In general, with exceptions here and there (as with most things), yes.

A term for this kind of symbiotic, cooperative, collaborative relationship might be "civilization".
.

Do you not believe in natural and individual rights?

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

Freedom of association and Contract, solves that dilemma.

 

[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?