Rent control isn't about self sabotage. It affects literally everyone, even the people who didn't vote for Mamdani. It is also very much a taking under the 4th amendment, and therefore unconstitutional.
Peter, Thanks for the response to Steve and to me below about the limits of democracy (I would also like to second SLGeorge below that you are spot on with regards to totalitarianism). But do you not think we need to distinguish between individual choices and collective choices? Individuals should learn from the consequences of their bad choices...but should individuals also "learn" from the bad choices of a majority at some given place or time? Collectives cannot learn from bad choices, only the individuals in the collective. We are often surrounded by idiots or the uneducated, or the ideologically possessed. Must we live in perpetual fear that a majority will choose to pursue suicidal paths? In doubling down below in your response to Steve you seem to suggest that majorities should rule the day, regardless of any claims of individual rights or limits on government power. According to this logic, not only does the Mamdani government have the right to impose price controls, but they could also implement a program of child sacrifice or euthanasia for individuals over 70, etc. Thanks, Jonathan
Peter: "I completely disagree. If the people of New York City want to elect a socialist who tanks their supermarket infrastructure and imposes price controls, that is their prerogative. That’s what democracy means. My only condition: No federal bailout afterward. You voted for it. You own the consequences."
Yeah, I can't go there. We have a *limited* govt. Some things, govt. doesn't get to do, no matter what percentage vote for it. Imposing price controls is a fundamental infringement on property rights, or (another way to put it) a fundamental infringement on my rights to alienate my labor.
Yeah, many can and will vote with their feet to flee, but the small businesses and the working poor who can't easily relocate simply get screwed. Despite it being a useful experiment for the rest of us, I can't in good faith defend socialism under any circumstance.
I'm in the Locke camp about the proper role of govt.....
Hopefully, I'm simply misunderstanding you, but you did start "I completely disagree....."
You are understanding me correctly. The way democratic societies should (note the moral word, “should”) proceed is to let citizens experience the full brunt of their voting decisions. Insulating or protecting them is absolutely the worst approach as it buttresses bad decisions from real world consequences. Note that *I*, who do not live in NYC, should not be responsible for the voting decisions of people who live there. A federal bailout would make me responsible for things for which I should (there’s that moral word, again) not be responsible.
I'm gonna quote somebody: "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch." Perhaps you're right, that's the way democracy should work. And I completely agree regarding not passing on the consequences to outsiders. But I still regard the fate of the lamb as a moral failing of democracy.
As you know, the Founders created the US as a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy, for they wanted to protect individual rights of those comprising a minority from the dictatorship of those comprising a majority. As Ayn Rand correctly observed, "The smallest minority on Earth is the individual."
One of the problems with democracy is that, due to its fundamental denial of legitimate individual rights, it socializes the Statist (Socialist, Communist, Fascist, Theocratic) policies that those comprising a majority support by their imposition upon those who comprise the minority, who either prefer Laissez-Faire Capitalism, or--foolishly--prefer one of the three other expressions of Statism over the expression that the majority prefer.
If the majority alone suffered all of the consequences of their preferred ideology on their own hides, with the minority unconditionally free to exempt themselves, their lives, and all of their money and other wealth from it, and go their own ways, that would be fine.
Then the following would be possible:
Those who comprise the majority, who shouted, begged, physically fought, and voted for Statism, could cut their own throats, and consume each other. They would live with the famine, enslavement, and slaughter that Statism always produces.
Those among the minority who are physically and mentally healthy could leave, for their own sakes, taking their brains, productive abilities, and wealth with them, destroying what they can't take with them for the parasites to enjoy. They'll be carrying with them all that they'll need to rebuild and recover it wherever they can live like human beings, in liberty.
Those among the minority who are mentally and/or physically incapacitated and/or indigent would have to rely on the charity of those able among them to help them escape, and if they're indigent but otherwise of sound mind and body, to receive charity, too, if offered, but to rely upon their own wits to escape. Millions of people in such circumstances throughout history have done so, and are doing so today in many places in the world, preferring to risk the hardships of reaching a potentially freer and safer place where they might survive and, perhaps, even thrive, to remaining in place and suffer the certainty of their destruction and death.
But that is not how democracies (mobocracies) and other expressions of dictatorship (Socialism Communism, Fascism, Theocracy) work in the real world.
They destroy everything, and consume everyone, including those who support them.
Do we have (and *should* we have) the right to self-sabotage as a society? I believe we have that right as individuals, but when we adversely impact others with our self sabotage, it’s often a crime, and we should probably be given a “time out” in prison.
At what point do we say — since our education system fails to provide, even at the post secondary level, basic logical reasoning skills — that we lack the “capacity” to make decisions that affect the future lives of others? Is the US constitution suited to our current society? If only ~40% of the NYC electorate voted in the mayoral election, is it really fair to subject those who were too apathetic to cast a ballot to the whims of the more fanatical? (And yes, I fully understand that they had an equal opportunity to vote…but in my experience, people don’t seem to completely *get* the concept of abstention and what it really means.)
If you took the average young socialist voter of today, and put them in a time machine to the socialist state to which their policies would lead, and gave them the option to stay there or go back to our current system, how many of them would opt to stay?
Of course we have a right to self-sabotage. That is, to be blunt, a promise of democracy. We alone decide our fate. So vote well. Vote wisely. And if we fuck up, own it. Don’t run from poor decisions.
Peter: You write "I completely disagree. If the people of New York City want to elect a socialist who tanks their supermarket infrastructure and imposes price controls, that is their prerogative. That’s what democracy means. My only condition: No federal bailout afterward. You voted for it. You own the consequences." But the US is not a democracy. The word "democracy" doesn't appear in the Declaration or the Constitution. The US is a Constitutional Republic, and the (negative) rights enshrined in those documents should guard against the predations of the likes of Mamdani or any other politician or bureaucrat or private citizen. The problem is that we have run afoul of the safe guards to our rights and have elevated "Democracy" as some sort of good. Politicians should be able to do very little -- price controls, bail outs, welfare payments are all in violation of the Constitution and the basis of classical liberalism. Our founders new that "Democracy" put Socrates to death. Jonathan
I don't think those on the right understand first principles. Only Ayn Rand articulated the first premises of freedom. The political right is a feckless resistance to the insane left, because they don't go far enough in undermining the extant communism in this country. We have to get back to negative rights, and reject all positive rights, which are, innately, based upon need. Need is the enemy. It opens the door, and necessarily ends in communism. So the government should be the rule of law only; no medicare, no social security, no medicaid, no food stamps. no student loans, no housing subsidies. Only restoring American character with self-reliance, can save this country from European demise.
Rent control isn't about self sabotage. It affects literally everyone, even the people who didn't vote for Mamdani. It is also very much a taking under the 4th amendment, and therefore unconstitutional.
Then I take it it will go to court and advocates will lose. That did NOT happen where I grew up in Boston.
Is democracy more of our national spectator sport or meant to be a participatory process linking generations beyond single life-span times?
Hello...goodbye
does this mic work?
Tio Mitchito
TM
Peter, Thanks for the response to Steve and to me below about the limits of democracy (I would also like to second SLGeorge below that you are spot on with regards to totalitarianism). But do you not think we need to distinguish between individual choices and collective choices? Individuals should learn from the consequences of their bad choices...but should individuals also "learn" from the bad choices of a majority at some given place or time? Collectives cannot learn from bad choices, only the individuals in the collective. We are often surrounded by idiots or the uneducated, or the ideologically possessed. Must we live in perpetual fear that a majority will choose to pursue suicidal paths? In doubling down below in your response to Steve you seem to suggest that majorities should rule the day, regardless of any claims of individual rights or limits on government power. According to this logic, not only does the Mamdani government have the right to impose price controls, but they could also implement a program of child sacrifice or euthanasia for individuals over 70, etc. Thanks, Jonathan
"the impulse to protect people from their own choices is the engine of authoritarianism." and "reality has been devastating for socialism."
Two of the best quotes ever on totalitarian political systems. Great article; powerful and eloquent.
Thank you so much. I really appreciate that.
I was so impressed with these quotes that I added them to my Quotes section in my notes on my iPhone!
Peter: "I completely disagree. If the people of New York City want to elect a socialist who tanks their supermarket infrastructure and imposes price controls, that is their prerogative. That’s what democracy means. My only condition: No federal bailout afterward. You voted for it. You own the consequences."
Yeah, I can't go there. We have a *limited* govt. Some things, govt. doesn't get to do, no matter what percentage vote for it. Imposing price controls is a fundamental infringement on property rights, or (another way to put it) a fundamental infringement on my rights to alienate my labor.
Yeah, many can and will vote with their feet to flee, but the small businesses and the working poor who can't easily relocate simply get screwed. Despite it being a useful experiment for the rest of us, I can't in good faith defend socialism under any circumstance.
I'm in the Locke camp about the proper role of govt.....
Hopefully, I'm simply misunderstanding you, but you did start "I completely disagree....."
You are understanding me correctly. The way democratic societies should (note the moral word, “should”) proceed is to let citizens experience the full brunt of their voting decisions. Insulating or protecting them is absolutely the worst approach as it buttresses bad decisions from real world consequences. Note that *I*, who do not live in NYC, should not be responsible for the voting decisions of people who live there. A federal bailout would make me responsible for things for which I should (there’s that moral word, again) not be responsible.
I'm gonna quote somebody: "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch." Perhaps you're right, that's the way democracy should work. And I completely agree regarding not passing on the consequences to outsiders. But I still regard the fate of the lamb as a moral failing of democracy.
Greetings, Peter,
As you know, the Founders created the US as a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy, for they wanted to protect individual rights of those comprising a minority from the dictatorship of those comprising a majority. As Ayn Rand correctly observed, "The smallest minority on Earth is the individual."
One of the problems with democracy is that, due to its fundamental denial of legitimate individual rights, it socializes the Statist (Socialist, Communist, Fascist, Theocratic) policies that those comprising a majority support by their imposition upon those who comprise the minority, who either prefer Laissez-Faire Capitalism, or--foolishly--prefer one of the three other expressions of Statism over the expression that the majority prefer.
If the majority alone suffered all of the consequences of their preferred ideology on their own hides, with the minority unconditionally free to exempt themselves, their lives, and all of their money and other wealth from it, and go their own ways, that would be fine.
Then the following would be possible:
Those who comprise the majority, who shouted, begged, physically fought, and voted for Statism, could cut their own throats, and consume each other. They would live with the famine, enslavement, and slaughter that Statism always produces.
Those among the minority who are physically and mentally healthy could leave, for their own sakes, taking their brains, productive abilities, and wealth with them, destroying what they can't take with them for the parasites to enjoy. They'll be carrying with them all that they'll need to rebuild and recover it wherever they can live like human beings, in liberty.
Those among the minority who are mentally and/or physically incapacitated and/or indigent would have to rely on the charity of those able among them to help them escape, and if they're indigent but otherwise of sound mind and body, to receive charity, too, if offered, but to rely upon their own wits to escape. Millions of people in such circumstances throughout history have done so, and are doing so today in many places in the world, preferring to risk the hardships of reaching a potentially freer and safer place where they might survive and, perhaps, even thrive, to remaining in place and suffer the certainty of their destruction and death.
But that is not how democracies (mobocracies) and other expressions of dictatorship (Socialism Communism, Fascism, Theocracy) work in the real world.
They destroy everything, and consume everyone, including those who support them.
Do we have (and *should* we have) the right to self-sabotage as a society? I believe we have that right as individuals, but when we adversely impact others with our self sabotage, it’s often a crime, and we should probably be given a “time out” in prison.
At what point do we say — since our education system fails to provide, even at the post secondary level, basic logical reasoning skills — that we lack the “capacity” to make decisions that affect the future lives of others? Is the US constitution suited to our current society? If only ~40% of the NYC electorate voted in the mayoral election, is it really fair to subject those who were too apathetic to cast a ballot to the whims of the more fanatical? (And yes, I fully understand that they had an equal opportunity to vote…but in my experience, people don’t seem to completely *get* the concept of abstention and what it really means.)
If you took the average young socialist voter of today, and put them in a time machine to the socialist state to which their policies would lead, and gave them the option to stay there or go back to our current system, how many of them would opt to stay?
Of course we have a right to self-sabotage. That is, to be blunt, a promise of democracy. We alone decide our fate. So vote well. Vote wisely. And if we fuck up, own it. Don’t run from poor decisions.
Peter: You write "I completely disagree. If the people of New York City want to elect a socialist who tanks their supermarket infrastructure and imposes price controls, that is their prerogative. That’s what democracy means. My only condition: No federal bailout afterward. You voted for it. You own the consequences." But the US is not a democracy. The word "democracy" doesn't appear in the Declaration or the Constitution. The US is a Constitutional Republic, and the (negative) rights enshrined in those documents should guard against the predations of the likes of Mamdani or any other politician or bureaucrat or private citizen. The problem is that we have run afoul of the safe guards to our rights and have elevated "Democracy" as some sort of good. Politicians should be able to do very little -- price controls, bail outs, welfare payments are all in violation of the Constitution and the basis of classical liberalism. Our founders new that "Democracy" put Socrates to death. Jonathan
I responded to this above.
Mamdani is a very good for New York. What’s bad for America is electing a felon who touches children.
I don't think those on the right understand first principles. Only Ayn Rand articulated the first premises of freedom. The political right is a feckless resistance to the insane left, because they don't go far enough in undermining the extant communism in this country. We have to get back to negative rights, and reject all positive rights, which are, innately, based upon need. Need is the enemy. It opens the door, and necessarily ends in communism. So the government should be the rule of law only; no medicare, no social security, no medicaid, no food stamps. no student loans, no housing subsidies. Only restoring American character with self-reliance, can save this country from European demise.