| | I asked Jon, “What kind of "control" does a vote give you when it is swallowed up in millions of other votes??” He replied, What kind of control does your designated contribution give you when it is swallowed up in millions of other contributions? You don't have control over how much money is allocated collectively to specific functions of government. I never said you did. So what, then, is your point? The issue that we were discussing concerned the control that you had over the disposition of your own money -- something which you can and should have control over. Being allowed to vote on how much of your money is taken from you in taxes or on which functions of government your tax money is used to finance does not constitute control over the disposition of your own money. 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? Because no constitution that is limited to the protection of rights has the authority to pass laws that violate rights. What part of this don't you understand?? Is it your contention that "a constitutionally limited representative government" can do whatever it wants to its citizens? And if not, then on what grounds do you claim that it has the right to rob them in order to fund its activities?
I wrote, “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.” Jon replied, 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 should have written, “The Objectivist position is that rights can be made useful, practicable, enhancing to one’s life, only through protection by government.” [My emphasis] But even that isn't true. They become useful, practicable, enhancing to one's life when they are respected voluntarily just as well as when they are protected by the police from would-be violators. Rand once made the point that if it weren't for the widespread acceptance of the morality of rights, the police would be powerless to control crime.
You quote Rand from her essay, "The Nature of Government":
“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.” (your emphasis) You then argue that the following is a contradiction in the Objectivist politics: 1) Man needs government.
2) Man needs to be free to exempt himself from the enterprise of government. The point you're not seeing is that man needs to be free to exempt himself from the enterprise of government, because the purpose of government is to protect his right to freedom, not violate it. If he weren't free to exempt himself from paying for its services -- if the government could force him to pay whatever it demanded -- then the government would not be fulfilling its basic task, which is to protect his rights; on the contrary, it would be violating them.
You could defend military conscription the same way you're defending taxation by arguing analogously that the following is a contradiction:
1) Man needs a military.
2) Man needs to be free to exempt himself from the military.
Do you really think that these two statements are mutually exclusive and that military conscription does not therefore violate rights?
Remember that, according to Objectivism, a need is not a claim. Suppose that in order to save my life, I need a kidney transplant. Since you don't need both of your kidneys, you could donate one to me. Do I have a right to one of your kidneys, because I need it to survive? And if not, then why do I have a right to your money, because I need it to defend myself?
Or how about this:
1) I need to stop smoking.
2) I need to be free to smoke.
Is this not also a contradiction, according to your reasoning? And if it is, then why wouldn't it justify a ban on cigarettes? One could multiply examples, but I think you get the point. If you don't get it by now, Jon, you're a lost cause! :-)
- Bill
|
|
