Re: Individual rights (Re: `capitalist' character values)

From: Mike Lorrey (
Date: Thu Jul 26 2001 - 08:38:31 MDT

Felix Ungman wrote:
> On onsdag 25 juli 2001 20.32, Mike Lorrey <> wrote:
> >Unh Unh. So solly. A group entity has no right to be the equal of a
> >'citizen', because this gives the members of a group more power (i.e.
> >more than 'one man one vote') than non-group-members. States are not
> >people, they are merely servant automatons, agents if you will, of
> >actual beings that are citizens of the state. This is inherent in the
> >principle that the state is only delegated some rights of the
> >individual, not all. Without all rights, it is not an individual, and
> >some entity cannot claim individuality by fraction rights derivation
> >from other individuals. Because derived entities are always agents for
> >individuals, giving the derived entity status as an individual causes a
> >violation of 'equal protection'.
> So you're a damn humanizt :-)
> What's your definition of 'individual'? Does it include:
> -living human being? (or do you have a better definition)
> -modified human being? (e.g. brain-dead person)
> -human in biostasis?
> -uploaded person?
> -artificial being?

These are all fine with me, though I'm not sure if a person in biostasis
should be able to exert their franchise while taking time out from
reality. It's a valid point to debate.

> Why not recognize any entity with individualistic traits and aims
> as an individual? Corporations may consist of human members but
> thats irrelevant. They are all replacable. (I start to sound like
> a borg drone. However, thats irrelevant.)

That is entirely relevant, sorry, seven. Any individual belonging to a
corporation that has human status thus exerts more than one vote in the
polity. I.E. if there are ten partners in an enterprise ruled by
majority rule of partners, then each partner exerts 1.16 votes upon the
greater polity if the enterprise itself exerts one vote in the polity.
Similarly with campaign contributions, if you believe in their
limitation, putting, say, a $1000 limit on individual and corporate
donations allows partners in the above enterprise to donate $1,160 to a
campaign where an individual not in such an enteprise can only donate
$1,000. Again, this is a violation of equal protection.

The proper way to impliment individual rights in a group entity is to
demand either that the individuals in the group delegate either all, or
a proportionate fraction of their power to the group, which the group
can then exercise in the polity as it wishes, determined by its own
internal operating rules. Thus, the corporation gets to vote in place of
all shareholder/employees, or you'd need to delegate a fraction of a
vote (not sure if this is possible politically, but numerically it could
be done) to the corporation.

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:39:57 MDT