RoR: Forum

Forum : Article Discussions : Free Riders versus Forced Riders

Wednesday
October 3, 2007

Free Riders versus Forced Riders by William Scott Dwyer

If voluntary government financing permits free riders -- those who refuse to pay for something they value at the price they are being charged -- then taxation requires forced riders -- those who are forced to pay for something they don't value at the price they are being charged. Are forced riders an acceptable solution to the problem of free riders? Read the article and find out! (Read more...)
Discuss this Article (45 messages)

Post 20

Friday, October 5, 2007 - 2:32pm

Link

Edit

Not with my wishes, but with a functioning government. According to the Objectivist politics, such a government is not just a wish, it’s a survival requirement. Not a luxury, but a necessity.

You tried this in the other thread, too. My wishes. You said I assume I will be the one in power. No, I assume only that I will have a vote. And I am willing to live with the decisions made by elected officials, with checks and balances and all that, as to how and with how much money our rights should be protected. What threat is there to my survival and flourishing if I think my government spends too much on patent protection and not enough on tanks? From where comes my right to refuse to pay anything at all until the tank deficit is rectified? There will always be someone who thinks something isn’t just right, but so what?

Post 21

Friday, October 5, 2007 - 5:03pm

Link

Edit

Jon, you do have a right to live your life free from the initiation of force, but a right is just an abstraction. What you don't have is the right to force other people to protect you, that would be slavery.

Post 22

Friday, October 5, 2007 - 5:25pm

Link

Edit

In terms of consistency, I think it's proper for those supporting taxation to not allow individuals to decide how to allocate their money. ...

Once you accept the premise that individuals aren't capable of doing the right thing, there's no room for giving them any choice in the matter. Once the premise that government knows best how to spend your money is accepted, it would be a contradiction to argue for individual choice.

Ker-Blam!

Ed
[very well put, Joe]

Post 23

Friday, October 5, 2007 - 5:41pm

Link

Edit

Jon,

Soon the Supreme Court may decide to take on the D.C. case where they would finally rule on whether the second amendment protects an individual right or a state right. Why do we need the Supreme Court, though? Can’t we trust the people to become experts in law and constitutional theory? Can’t we just put the question to a popular vote?

If and when centralized power is used in order to enforce the outcome of some thinking on a central matter such as the Bill of Rights; then that special, centrally-enforced outcome has to be -- on pain of becoming immoral -- objectively valuable. It is for those such things, things that are to be enforced centrally, that there needs to be some thinking beyond a popular vote or Gallup poll. A popular vote for a central enforcement is nothing other than mob rule -- which is immoral.

Can I "trust you" to see the logic in that?

;-)

Ed

Post 24

Friday, October 5, 2007 - 5:48pm

Link

Edit

Jon,

And of what real use are the houses of congress? Some say drug patents should last longer, some say shorter; some say let’s ditch them altogether. Can’t we trust the voters to decide this question? They’ll make themselves experts in the field before voting, surely. They wouldn’t allow their lust for cheap generics to bias their vote, either. Software patentable or only copyrightable or not to be protected at all? Trust the people.

But these are market matters (not central government matters, like the 2nd Amendment is). There are 2 kinds of matters: government & private sector -- and private matters are (supposed to be) handled by the market. When a matter involves what is to become of something someone has produced, then that's a private matter. The producer (morally) must set the terms on which she'll be trading her product.

Clear?

;-)

You seem to be suggesting that what is to become of things produced, shouldn't be dictated by the producers themselves -- but rather by a centralized power somewhere. It's become my impression that Hayek's arguments (in Road to Serfdom) blew this type of thinking out of the water forever (among those performing noncontradictory identification and integration regarding the issue). Am I right about that?

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 10/05, 5:53pm)

Post 25

Friday, October 5, 2007 - 5:56pm

Link

Edit

Ker-blam nothin’, Ed.

Joe grants the premise that government knows best what rights are and are not, and what—somehow I am making a giant leap in the premise that government can be trusted with spending money to bring those rights into existential reality?

What should the premise be? That government just plain can’t be trusted? Then why do we elect reps and all the other wastes of time? Why not just vote directly on what rights are and what the law should be?

Post 26

Friday, October 5, 2007 - 6:02pm

Link

Edit

Ed,

You wrote, “It is for those such things, things that are to be enforced centrally, that there needs to be some thinking beyond a popular vote or Gallup poll. A popular vote for a central enforcement is nothing other than mob rule -- which is immoral.

Can I "trust you" to see the logic in that?”

Yes, you can trust me. I believe I agree with the above. My argument all along against Bill and Joe has been that their position amounts to leaving for the market to decide whose rights will or will not be protected and which laws will or will not be enforced.

Post 27

Friday, October 5, 2007 - 6:07pm

Link

Edit

“But these are market matters (not central government matters, like the 2nd Amendment is). There are 2 kinds of matters: government & private sector -- and private matters are (supposed to be) handled by the market. When a matter involves what is to become of something someone has produced, then that's a private matter. The producer (morally) must set the terms on which she'll be trading her product.

Clear?”

No, not at all clear. These are not market matters (patents and copyrights,) but plain questions of property rights. How is Rearden supposed to “set the terms” as to his exclusive right to produce Rearden Metal? The knock-off cheats are violating his rights.

“You seem to be suggesting that what is to become of things produced, shouldn't be dictated by the producers themselves -- but rather by a centralized power somewhere.”

Yes. The government has to protect his patent rights.

Post 28

Friday, October 5, 2007 - 6:12pm

Link

Edit

What threat is there to my survival and flourishing if I think my government spends too much on patent protection and not enough on tanks?

Uhh, the threat of invasion? Here (in a hypothetical), I'm assuming that Mexico (backed by funds from every country on our current $#!^-list) has built up several battalions of tanks and going to invade and run amok among our towns. But, more importantly, fancified hypotheticals are not required to rebut the remarks you made above (see below).

From where comes my right to refuse to pay anything at all until the tank deficit is rectified?

"By what infernal evasion can they hope to justify the proposition that creatures who have no right to life [or to "tanks", which may be required to protect our right to life], have the right to a bank account [or to "patent protection", which is something not too terribly different than a "bank account"]?"--ARL, 128

Again, this is an issue dealing with a subtlety about what it is that ought to be centrally enforced or not -- which is actually a Red Herring to the argument at hand. The argument at hand is about free and forced ridership of the things known to be morally (or those known to be immorally) centrally enforced. Not one which conflates the moral enforcements with the immoral ones.

In fact, it seems that you are falling into the very mind-trap which Bill has outlined in the article -- of throwing clean babies out with the dirty bathwater. You can't mix markets and governments (it doesn't work, long-range). And, because we know this (rather than merely suspect it) we can blithely dismiss arguments resting on premises for mixed economies (such as yours, involving central control -- read: regulation -- of the products of producers).

Ed

Post 29

Friday, October 5, 2007 - 6:28pm

Link

Edit

Jon,

I'd "bet a dollar to a donut" ... wait, that colloquial doesn't work anymore ... donuts cost more than $1 now ... oh, well, anyway, I'd bet a bunch of loot that we're talking past each other.

I said that -- though not in so many words -- that patents & copyrights ought not be subject to arbitrary central power. I am remiss to fail to treat the subtleties subtle-ly, and therefore one might -- upon reading my typed words -- walk away with the conclusion that I think that patents & copyrights ought to be subject to a majority vote (majority votes -- in a dichotomy -- being the only other way to exercise central power).

Yet this is not how I truly feel about the matter.

Ed
[hehe ... Now that was a Greenspan answer if I've ever heard one!]

;-)

Post 30

Friday, October 5, 2007 - 6:38pm

Link

Edit

I wrote, “What Pete and Laure are saying is that allowing you, the taxpayer, to determine where your money goes would at least give you some control over its disposition.” Jon Letendre replied,

The vote does give me some control over the money’s disposition.

Are you serious?! You consider that "control"?? What kind of "control" does a vote give you when it is swallowed up in millions of other votes?? When has your vote decided any election or any decision that was made by the government? The answer is: NEVER! "Control" in this context means that with respect to the disposition of your property, you have the final say -- which, in turn, means that no one else, neither a minority nor a majority, can contravene it!

Suppose that your neighbors decide that you should no longer have the right to determine the disposition of your property -- that a majority of the residents in your neighborhood should have that right. Of course, since you are a member of that neighborhood, you also have a vote in the matter. If the majority decides to sell your house and distribute the proceeds of the sale equally among its members, would you say that you are "controlling" the disposition of your property, because you had a right to vote against that decision? Seriously.

I wrote, “It's bad enough that society should determine how much of your money is given to the government. What's even worse is that society should, in addition, determine how your money is to be spent.” Jon replied,

It’s not quite true that "society" determines how much or how to spend. Elected representatives; governors, presidents, etc. do that.

Oh, so now you're saying that your vote (along with a majority of others) doesn't determine what is done with your money; instead, it's the "elected representatives, governors, presidents, etc." Amazing.

Jon, do you understand what the concept of property rights actually means? It means that you, not the majority and not the majority's representatives, has the right to control the disposition of your property.

- Bill

Post 31

Friday, October 5, 2007 - 6:38pm

Link

Edit

Ed,

I wrote, “What threat is there to my survival and flourishing if I think my government spends too much on patent protection and not enough on tanks?”

You responded, “Uhh, the threat of invasion?”

I wasn’t clear. What I mean is that if government were properly limited to rights protection and had the power to tax in order to fund that task (this is what I support,) and it was answerable to voters…then what’s the big deal if a citizen thinks the money should be spent a little differently than it is? In other words, I might think, ‘oh, this is just so repugnant that some of my tax money goes to patent protection and not enough for what I want it to go to.’ I could give more for that which I think should get more, but Bill and Joe are saying that’s not good enough. They’re saying it’s just too repugnant that some of my money is going to that which I think already gets too much, and this must stop or my rights are being violated. I must, they say, have the right to pay nothing at all, or to pay only for what I like. So my rhetorical question is: What threat is there to my survival and flourishing if I think my government spends money not quite like I personally think it should be spent? I have some control over the matter: I have a vote. I have free speech.

I don’t know what you are getting at with the rest of your post. I am arguing exactly that we mustn’t mix markets and governments.

Post 32

Friday, October 5, 2007 - 6:52pm

Link

Edit

Jonathan,

“Jon, you do have a right to live your life free from the initiation of force, but a right is just an abstraction. What you don't have is the right to force other people to protect you, that would be slavery.”

The Objectivist politics holds that government is the means, and the only possible means, of putting retaliatory force under objective law and protecting individual rights. What specific means does it advocate? That government is to be the exclusive agent of force, it is to have “a monopoly on the use of force.”

You are correct that rights are abstractions. The Objectivist position is that they gain their concrete reality through protection by government. So taxation in support of a proper government, one limited to the protection of rights, is neither slavery nor “forcing other people to protect [me.]” Rather, it is the means of bringing rights from the abstract to the real. Not just my rights, but every citizen’s rights.

Post 33

Friday, October 5, 2007 - 6:58pm

Link

Edit

Jon,

What threat is there to my survival and flourishing if I think my government spends money not quite like I personally think it should be spent? I have some control over the matter: I have a vote. I have free speech.

"A power of the individuals who compose legislatures, to fish up wealth from the people, by nets of their own weaving ... will corrupt legislative, executive, and judicial public servants."--John Adams, U.S. President, 1811

Ed

Post 34

Friday, October 5, 2007 - 9:05pm

Link

Edit

Ed,

I am not up on my Adams. Is that the same paper where it is argued that taxation is wrong when it is men who are taxed but it’s OK to tax agriculture because agriculture is a gift from God or the sun or somesuch?

Post 35

Friday, October 5, 2007 - 9:15pm

Link

Edit

In replying to Ed Thompson, Jon Letendre wrote,

You are correct that rights are abstractions. The Objectivist position is that they gain their concrete reality through protection by government.

This is not the Objectivist position. Rights do not gain their reality through protection by government. They must first exist before they can be protected. Protection of rights presupposes their existence; their existence does not presuppose their protection. Under a tyrannical government, rights are not being protected, but they still exist. If they didn't exist, then one couldn't say the government is violating them.

A right is a moral principle defining and sanctioning one's freedom of action in a social context. To say that I have a right to freedom of action simply means that others are morally obligated not to interfere with my freedom. That moral obligation is both a necessary and a sufficient condition for the existence of rights.

So taxation in support of a proper government, one limited to the protection of rights, is neither slavery nor “forcing other people to protect [me.]” Rather, it is the means of bringing rights from the abstract to the real. Not just my rights, but every citizen’s rights.

This is fuzzy thinking at its finest. How can taxation support a proper government, one limited to the protection of rights, if taxation itself violates rights?! And how can taxation to protect rights bring them into existence? If they don't already exist to be protected, then they can't be protected in order to bring them into existence. The mind boggles.

It gets even worse: To say that rights exist only when they're being protected gives the government carte blanche to violate them, for under that premise, if they're not being protected, then they don't exist, and if they don't exist, they can't be violated. I'm sure that Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Khmer Rouge, Chairman Mao, et al would love to have that theory in support of their murderous regimes.

Be careful what you argue for: you just may get it!

- Bill

Post 36

Friday, October 5, 2007 - 9:15pm

Link

Edit

Bill,

You ask, “What kind of "control" does a vote give you when it is swallowed up in millions of other votes??”

What kind of control does your designated contribution give you when it is swallowed up in millions of other contributions? Your designating zero for the war on drugs will not prevent others from donating for the cause of the war on drugs. Your designating all your contribution for the army will not get you an army if total contributions are insufficient to fund an army. Your preferences will be swallowed up in the averages, just like your vote.

Would you answer my question from earlier: If constitutionally limited representative government is acceptable for the task of defining rights and deciding on laws to protect them, then why is it such an abominable stretch on my part to say that it is also acceptable for the task of deciding when, where, how and with how much money those rights and laws should be protected/enforced?

Post 37

Friday, October 5, 2007 - 9:36pm

Link

Edit

Bill,

“Rights do not gain their reality through protection by government. They must first exist before they can be protected. Protection of rights presupposes their existence; their existence does not presuppose their protection. Under a tyrannical government, rights are not being protected, but they still exist. If they didn't exist, then one couldn't say the government is violating them.”

I agree. It was sloppy of me to write, “The Objectivist position is that they gain their concrete reality through protection by government.”

What I mean is that rights become useful, practicable, enhancing to one’s life, only when they are protected. I agree that they exist even when not protected.

I should have written, “The Objectivist position is that rights can be made useful, practicable, enhancing to one’s life, only through protection by government.”

From The Nature of Government (Bolds my emphasis):

“If physical force is to be barred from social relationships, men NEED an institution charged with the task of protecting their rights under an objective code of rules.

This is the task of a government—of a proper government—its basic task, its only moral justification and the reason why men do NEED a government.”

Post 38

Friday, October 5, 2007 - 10:13pm

Link

Edit

I know that none of this is persuading you, Bill, and I blame myself for that. I wish I were a smarter person or better at explaining. I have detected this contradiction in the Objectivist politics for many years and was not surprised to see that Greenspan writes about it in his book.

1) Man needs government.

2) Man needs to be free to exempt himself from the enterprise of government.

Post 39

Saturday, October 6, 2007 - 4:58am

Link

Edit

Jon, here's how I see it ...

1) Man needs (a solely rights-protecting) government.

2) Man needs to be free to exempt himself from the enterprise of government (that spends even one dime more -- let alone several hundreds of billions of dollars -- than is needed to protect rights).

Our need of proper governing never goes away. Our need to (be able to) secede rises and falls, depending on the level of statism. This is the key message of Atlas Shrugged. It's only an apparent contradiction, or false paradox, if you will. Actually, what we really need is a logically-perfected Constitution (and folks who "get it") -- which is possible -- in order to make sure that we get the governing we need; but not more than that.

;-)

We currently have much more government than we need. Even studies from Cato, Heritage Foundation, and other key players and independent researchers prove that successful government is financed at less than a third of current per capita spending. Our government is at least 3 times too large -- so we, now, need to be able to "be free to exempt" ourselves from it. Our current leadership is "immoral" -- and something should be done about that (rather than to accept the status quo).

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 10/06, 5:03am)