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