Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 8/23/84; site ucbcad.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!ucbvax!ucbcad!faustus
From: faustus@ucbcad.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: "Majority" rule
Message-ID: <2739@ucbcad.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 13-Oct-84 12:17:39 EDT
Article-I.D.: ucbcad.2739
Posted: Sat Oct 13 12:17:39 1984
Date-Received: Tue, 16-Oct-84 07:35:33 EDT
References: <2722@ucbcad.UUCP> <459@unmvax.UUCP> <2726@ucbcad.UUCP> <461@unmvax.UUCP>
Organization: UC Berkeley CAD Group, Berkeley, CA
Lines: 51

> 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).  

Well, at least now the average citizen is allowed to vote -- not that many
do... The fact that the US is a republic, and not a direct democracy, is
not that important. The power has its basis in the will of the majority.
Having representatives is just a means of making sure that the people who
make the day-to-day decisions will take the time to think about what they're
doing. (Think what would happen if the Usenet were the governing body of
the United 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.

If the majority of voters reall didn't want income tax, why didn't they
immediately elect congressmen who were pledged to repeal it?

>      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.

I think there is a basic point that needs to be made here -- we need to have
a government that has certain powers (to tax the people, to raise an army,
etc). In a situation where there is no government, or a weak
one, there is a vacuum of power, and you need only look at Lebanon, El
Salvador, etc to see what happens when nobody has a predominance of power.
You get a situation where everybody is struggling to get power over everybody
else, and the one who wins will be the strongest, nastiest, and most 
oppressive. One of the points of having a government is to make sure
that there is enough power concentrated in one body that other groups who
want to gain power over people will be prevented from succeeding. Of course,
it is important to make sure that the government isn't capable of using
its power in ways that are too oppressive, and the best way to do this is
to base the power of the government in the will of the people.

Now, if you deny the government's power to collect taxes from you, you
are denying the importance of this function of government. If a government
cannot tax the people to carry out its functions, it loses all of its
power. Before you can justify not paying taxes, you should try to first 
argue that we could get along without any form of government, and I don't
think you will have much success.

	Wayne