Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site unmvax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!lanl-a!unm-cvax!unmvax!cliff
From: cliff@unmvax.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: "Majority" rule
Message-ID: <461@unmvax.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 11-Oct-84 16:45:12 EDT
Article-I.D.: unmvax.461
Posted: Thu Oct 11 16:45:12 1984
Date-Received: Sat, 13-Oct-84 03:50:15 EDT
References: <2722@ucbcad.UUCP> <459@unmvax.UUCP> <2726@ucbcad.UUCP>
Organization: Univ. of New Mexico, Albuquerque
Lines: 50

Our news feed has been very unreliable, so I have missed most (if there were
any) comments on my letter.  Luckily, someone reproduced some of Waynes letter
in a followup, so I can reply:

>> It's the rule of the majority, and there's nothing you can do about that.

     I accept neither of the two points made.  The 16th amendment was ratified
by a Congress consisting of *appointed* Senators and elected Representatives.
The extra indirection in choosing Senators (appointed by the elected state
legislature) prevented the average voter from having much say about who would
be appointed, much less which way the senator would vote on key issues.  But
then again, the average citizen wasn't allowed to vote (at least more than 50%
weren't; I don't really believe in an *average* citizen).  I find it very hard
to call the ratification of article XVI majority rule.  In addition to the
denial of voting rights to the majority of citizens and all the extra levels of
indirection (one for Representatives and two for Senators) involved in voting
on the bill, the amendment wasn't ratified by six states.  Majority?  I am
willing to bet that the percentage of American citizens that took 30 minutes
out of their week to watch Laverne and Shirley* on a regular basis is greater
than the percentage of American citizens that wanted income tax in 1913.

*When it was a prime time show.  I haven't followed the ratings in a while.

     Of course there are things I can do about it.  Right now I am willing
to settle for campaigning and voting for David Bergland, the Libertarian
(third largest political party in the U.S.) candidate for President and other
libertarian candidates for other positions.  I may do more in the future,
such as running for an elective office and/or deliberately not paying income
taxes.

>> 
>> Now, aside from these vague ideas, there are many details that can be debated.
>> How much money should be spent on social programs, how much should government
>> regulate the economy, etc... But first you have to agree that it is basically
>> ok for the government to collect taxes and spend them for these things.
>> 
>> 	Wayne

     I don't think there is any reason that I (or anyone else) has to agree that
it is basically ok for the government to collect taxes before debating how much
money can be spent on social programs or how much the government should
regulate the economy.  Being against income tax does not necesarrily imply
adversion to social security.  For the record 'though:  I am opposed to social
security and most of the regulation of the economy (I would be amenable to
going back on the gold standard).

	--Cliff [Matthews]
	{lbl-csam, purdue, cmcl2}!lanl-a!unm-cvax!unmvax!cliff
	{csu-cs, pur-ee, convex, gatech, ucbvax}!unmvax!cliff
	4744 Trumbull S.E. - Albuquerque  NM  87108 - (505) 265-9143