While I was at Cato University two subjects often came up: whether voting was a natural right, and democracy as mob-rule. I had a few thoughts about these this morning and hope to share them.#

Voting: A Natural Right?#

First, what are these terms "voting" and "natural right" that I am referring to? The definition of Natural Rights is fairly easy: "Rights that belong to people simply because they are human beings."#

But the definition of "voting" is more difficult. For the clarity of this argument I will use "A regular say in the government that you live under." But perhaps a clearer definition is "A regular in the government that you are citizen of." The importance of the second will become clear.#

So, I will now say that voting is not a natural right, defined as such. This is because the role of government is to protect natural rights, therefore a natural right cannot pertain to government, because it does not exist when natural rights are defined.#

This is more clear from the second definition, it implies that voting is contingent on being a citizen of a government, rather than a human being. Thus voting is a civil right that may, or may not, be granted by a government depending on how it defines 'citizen.' For example, we have seen the definition of citizen change in many ways from Athens, to Rome, to England, to the early United States, etc.#

For those screaming in the back that a human being must be allowed to choose how his government operates, I say no, he must allowed to choose his government. Because a government must protect natural rights this is not troublesome for a person may reject his government and choose another while retaining his life, liberty, and property--natural rights.#

This right to choose government is derived from natural rights. Basically, and I won't go into too much depth because it has been done before, the government exists to protect our natural rights on our behalf. We can protect these rights on our own but often times it is useful to help one another out, this free association is an early form of government. Refer to Locke, Bastiat, or Rand, for details of this argument.#

Democracy: Tyranny by the Majority?#

Democracy: A government controlled by the people governed through voting, either directly on decisions or on representatives. (Note: For the purpose of this section, government does not refer to a just limited government, but a government like those found in the "real world"--for example, the United States or Canada.)#

One argument against democracy is that it enables the majority to command the minority and harm the protection of their natural rights. The case goes from the extreme of all the whites voting that the blacks do not have rights worth protecting to the more mild case of the majority voting away a store keeper's freedom to not associate with certain individuals, i.e. not allow them in his store.#

It has recently occurred to me that in many cases democracy actually serves as a tool for one minority to command another minority or the majority. I do not look at specific examples but identify the desire for this end in the political agendas of certain groups.#

The argument: Take for instance, the call by certain groups to cease the sale of product X in market Y (cigarettes to children, for example.) These groups would like to command the government, through democracy, to make this illegal. However, they could do this without the government if they truly represented a majority of X purchasers* simply by boycotting and hurting the company's bottom line. By calling for government intervention they acknowledge that the majority does not agree with them and they are a minority with a special agenda.#

* A second thing to notice is that in the absence of government on those actually involved in market Y or the sale of X are concerned.

Democracy, it seems, is a tool that is most powerfully used by minority groups to meddle with the natural rights of other groups, minority or majority. The effectiveness of such a minority seems to stem primarily from the package deals offered by parties in most democracies.#

Notice, of course, if the government is sufficiently limited to be unable to ignore natural rights indefinitely then the problem is moot because the demands of the minority cannot be met by the government.#

However, even constitutional limited governments like the United States were vulnerable. I attribute this to an initial case of a majority voting away the rights of minority--either by an Amendment to the Constitution or a law that remains in place--thus setting a precedent for future abuses by smaller groups. This fits nicely with the theological principle that evil is only borne of evil.#

Conclusion#

I offer no resolution to these problems or interpretations. My point is simply to state an idea, not to say that a democratic government with universal suffrage** as a civil right is undesirable, merely that a practical limited government like the one described by the U.S. Constitution is not an iron-clad protector of liberty. Instead, liberty must be constantly re-won and defended against those Statists and dictators who would try to rob us of it.#

** Another short note on universal suffrage. When the Constitution states that human beings have some right that is to be protected and thus not infringed upon or some law that may not be based, does this essentially remove suffrage from the supporters of such a law? They may vote on the law, but they are ignored because the Constitution precludes its passing. (Of course, this is not the case in real life with Constitution Amendments and the ability of Congress to pass laws that are only later revealed to be un-Constitutional. But, is such a thought interesting?)#

I am looking to hire a translator who speaks and writes English and fluent Pashto/Pushtu, the language of Afghanistan [1], to work on an instruction module for a language learning curriculum. The school is the Intercontinental Foreign Language Program at Harvard Square [2] located in Boston, MA, USA. Being close to Boston is a plus, but we have done distance work before and will be able to accommodate.#

If you are interested in more information, please email me, Jay McCarthy, at JAY@KENYAMOUNTAIN.COM with a resume and contact information. Also, if you know someone who might be interested, please email this message to them. Furthermore, if you can think of someone who may be closer to a speaker than you, it would be greatly appreciated to get the request out.#

- Jay McCarthy#

1. For more information about this language, you may be interested in an article from UCLA: http://www.lmp.ucla.edu/profiles/profp03.htm#

2. http://www.tonguesinteractive.com/#

The permanent link for this message is: http://www.makeoutcity.com/Archives/2004/08/04/112011#

CIA Asks Bush To Discontinue Blog#

WASHINGTON, DC—In the interest of national security, President Bush has been asked to stop posting entries on his three-month-old personal web log, acting CIA director John E. McLaughlin said Monday.

According to McLaughlin, several recent entries on PrezGeorgeW.typepad.com have compromised military operations, while other posts may have seriously undercut the PR efforts of White House press secretary Scott McClellan.

Damn#

Chris Coyne links to Julian Simon's Bet With Paul Ehrlich, a great story.#

In 1980, economist |Julian Simon| and biologist Paul Ehrlich decided to put their money where their predictions were. Ehrlich had been predicting massive shortages in various natural resources for decades, while Simon claimed natural resources were infinite.

Simon offered Ehrlich a bet centered on the market price of metals. Ehrlich would pick a quantity of any five metals he liked worth $1,000 in 1980. If the 1990 price of the metals, after adjusting for inflation, was more than $1,000 (i.e. the metals became more scarce), Ehrlich would win. If, however, the value of the metals after inflation was less than $1,000 (i.e. the metals became less scare), Simon would win. The loser would mail the winner a check for the change in price.

Ehrlich agreed to the bet, and chose copper, chrome, nickel, tin and tungsten.

By 1990, all five metal were below their inflation-adjusted price level in 1980. Ehrlich lost the bet and sent Simon a check for $576.07. Prices of the metals chosen by Ehrlich fell so much that Simon would have won the bet even if the prices hadn't been adjusted for inflation.

And I recommend reading the whole thing.

Andrew Moroz quotes Albert Einstein from The Philosophy of Betrand Russell for the essay's description of his opinion of metaphysics.#

As soon as one is at home in Hume's critique one is easily led to believe that all those concepts and propositions which cannot be deduced from the sensory raw material are, on account of their "metaphysical" character, to be removed from thinking. For all thought acquires material content only through its relationship with that sensory material. This latter proposition I take to be entirely true; but I hold the prescription for thinking which is grounded on this proposition to be false. For this claim -- if only carried through consistently -- absolutely excludes thinking of any kind as "metaphysical."

In order that thinking might not degenerate into "metaphysics," or into empty talk, it is only necessary that enough propositions of the conceptual system be firmly enough connected with sensory experiences and that the conceptional system, in view of its task of ordering and surveying sense experience, should show as much unity and parsimony as possible. Beyond that, however, the "system" is (as regards logic) a free play with symbols according to (logically) arbitrarily given rules of the game. All this applies as much (and in the same manner) to the thinking in daily life as to the more consciously and systematically constructed thinking of the sciences.

Michael Williams on plans to "Change-Election-Laws-In-Our-Favour."#

Limits on monetary expenditures are limits on speech. Pure and simple. Spin it any way you like, but by prohibiting a person from spending money to support a candidate you are severely limiting their ability to speak on behalf of their candidate -- speech requires spending money -- and no speech is more important than political speech.

William Butterfield analyzes the war on terror.#

I have also recently heard the argument repeated that we are much less safe now thanks to President Bush and his anti-terror campaign. The evidence? More terrorist strikes overseas. The rate of terrorism worldwide has actually increased in response to the President's measures they say!

But conjuring up my toilet training in economics... isn't increased terrorism worldwide exactly what we should expect to happen if the US anti-terror campaign is in fact working?? The war on terrorism, the Patriot Act, etc. have all been aimed at increasing the relative price of attacking the U.S. on its home soil. What happens when the relative price of something increases? A switch to less highly valued substitutes occurs. Attacks in Spain, Morocco, Russia, etc. are less highly valued targets for terrorists than U.S. targets. This diversion of scarce terrorist resources away from the USA is exactly what we want. If other nations wish to increase their relative prices, let them pay for it.

I like the fact that there is less of a free-rider problem in this war vis-à-vis the Cold War. This is exactly why most of continental Europe has been opposed to U.S. anti-terror efforts; it forces them to divert more of their own resources to fighting terrorism lest they become a low priced target for terror.