Photo - child stalked by vulture

Jon wrote,

I find it inconsistent to make noise about one’s right to government protection of one’s rights, while simultaneously describing funding it as a “choice.”

It's a conditional choice, just like any other good or service. If you don't pay your phone bill, you don't get phone service, but it's still a choice. You don't have to subscribe to a phone company, if you think that what it's charging is too high a price for the service. But that's not the case with taxes. You can't refuse to pay your taxes, just because you think that they're too high a price to pay for the services you're receiving from the government. In that sense, they're not a choice. It's as if someone were to paint your house without your consent while you're away on vacation, and when you return home demand payment of an arbitrary sum at the point of a gun. You are not allowed to reject the service or refuse payment for it. That's a denial of freedom of choice.

How about this: The police don’t respond to your 911 calls unless you’ve paid your taxes?

At least that's voluntary. If you think your taxes are too high, you can refuse to pay them and take your chances. No one's forcing you.

Bill proposed withholding your right to vote unless you sign something promising to testify when asked to, so how about my proposal?

Your proposal is fine, but it needs to be something along those lines.

Both proposals preserve voluntarism (even if they look a lot like blackmail.)

Sure, and I don't think they even look like blackmail -- no more so than it looks like blackmail for the Gas and Electric Company to deny you service unless you pay your bill.

- Bill

Post 161

Saturday, August 11, 2007 - 10:22pm

I always shudder a little bit when we start talking about government with the power entrusted in them to protect man's rights as equivalent to some traded commodity. It seems to dangerously creep into anarcho-capitalism territory.

It's a conditional choice, just like any other good or service. If you don't pay your phone bill, you don't get phone service, but it's still a choice. You don't have to subscribe to a phone company, if you think that what it's charging is too high a price for the service. But that's not the case with taxes. You can't refuse to pay your taxes, just because you think that they're too high a price to pay for the services you're receiving from the government. In that sense, they're not a choice. It's as if someone were to paint your house without your consent while you're away on vacation, and when you return home demand payment of an arbitrary sum at the point of a gun. You are not allowed to reject the service or refuse payment for it. That's a denial of freedom of choice.

Bill, didn't the founding fathers had the notion that the people ultimately held the right to change their government through either vote or right of redress? So you say we don't have a choice right now but I'm not sure if that's entirely accurate. We certainly don't have a choice in the immediate sense as a traded commodity where a single individual could decline governmental services (I don't know why anyone in their right mind would as it would be like declaring yourself open season to any criminal that you are ready to become a victim without any threat of retribution), but we do have a choice to vote in candidates that conform more to our ideals of how government ought to be run. If someone wants to be free from their government and not pay taxes, would you say he has a right to turn around and start his own government? Do we also say you since individual don't have a right to someone's labor (in this context the labor of the government), means if someone who is poor and can't afford to pay taxes, means they are not afforded any justice?

(Edited by John Armaos on 8/11, 10:24pm)

Post 162

Saturday, August 11, 2007 - 10:57pm

To expound on this further as justice as a type of commodity, what if a poor person had not paid his taxes (or a wealthy person even) and they become a victim of a crime, would it be in the rational interests of other men to not intervene and find the criminal? After all that criminal is at large, and is still out there waiting to strike. It would be in the self-interest of other men to intervene regardless of the individual paying taxes because we are worried about a future victim at the hands of this criminal who got away with his crime. So in a sense what we really have is a free rider system. Why pay your taxes when you know it would mean others around you will give you protection anyways because to decline services for you, would mean certain destruction for others around you and allow criminals to be at large.

The whole problem is looking at justice as a traded commodity, it just can't be looked at the same way.

Post 163

Saturday, August 11, 2007 - 11:54pm

I wrote, “The Objectivist state is justified on the grounds that individuals have the right to government protection of their rights.”

Bill, responded, “No, they don't! Where did you get that idea?”

I got it from the Objectivist argument for government. That argument is that the only way to have one’s rights protected is to have one government. It follows that without government I wouldn’t have my rights protected, i.e., I wouldn’t have my rights. Therefore, I have the right to a government that protects my rights.

Your argument is more like the anarcho-capitalist line. They argue that “the only rights they have are the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,” just as you write. And they argue that individuals may secure these for themselves or they may “pay these organizations [police, courts and military] to provide it.”

I know you will not go for their line, you’ll say that anarcho-capitalism doesn’t work, only a solitary government does.

If that’s true, then my assertion is sound.

If the only thing that will protect my rights is a single government, then I have a right to that single government. Negating this assertion, saying that I have no right to government, suggests that I have no right to the only thing that will bring about the existential reality of my rights—which is saying that I have no right… to my rights!

Post 164

Sunday, August 12, 2007 - 12:57am

In an earlier post Ted Keer spoke of the fact that Objectivism didn't have any real political philosophy. Rand believed that political change could only come after there had been a cultural revolution, and due to that fact she believed that her time spent in this area was wasted. I agree that the culture must change before we will see significant political movement, but I now think it has been a great error of Objectivist outreach that no comprehensive political strategy has been developed. I do not think Objectivism will truly be taken seriously until it has some sound practical solutions to serious problems like the current debate over funding for courts, police and national security as well as many other practical problems. If a political philosophy could be translated into a set of practical proposals, I believe that it could be used as a tool to help educate the populace at large and aid in bringing about the necessary cultural shift. A rational discussion of topics such as rights, responsibilities, freedom and individual autonomy could only benefit the cause. But is it even possible to get consensus among Objectivists over these practical matters to a degree that would allow a political platform to even be defined? I would be curious to hear comments on this general issue as well as the specific question regarding funding.

Jon writes:

> I find it inconsistent to make noise about one's right to government protection of one's rights,while
> simultaneously describing funding it as a "choice."

and John writes:

> The whole problem is looking at justice as a traded commodity, it just can't be looked at the same way.

Does this mean that both of you disagree with Bill's analysis as well as Rand's statements that taxation is wrong in principle and that whatever government we do create must be funded voluntarily? Do you believe that taxation is the only way to reliably fund government activities?

Jon writes:

> If the only thing that will protect my rights is a single government, then I have a right to that single
> government. Negating this assertion, saying that I have no right to government, suggests that I have no
> right to the only thing that will bring about the existential reality of my rights - which is
> saying that I have no right... to my rights!.

Jon, I think you are confusing the source of your rights, which are inherent in your nature as a human being, with a need to defend those rights against hostile individuals who would transgress them. As individuals, we are responsible for providing for our own needs. If we are hungry or sick, we must take action to feed or mend ourselves or we die. In the same way, we are responsible for defending ourselves from those that would violate our rights. In none of these cases do we have a "right" to expect some other individual or group to feed, mend or protect us. In a civilized society, we find it convenient to operate with a division of labor and trade others for our food and medical needs. We no longer are directly involved with the production of the food or medical research, but we are still responsible for these things through the act of trading for them. What about our need for protection? Is this really something categorically different from any of our other human needs? There are many ways to attempt to organize and protect our rights, and an armed government empowered to use retaliatory force is one of them. It may be a great idea, but if we are not willing to bring it into being and maintain it, what gives us the "right" to expect or demand that it exist? If you argue that we do have such a right to government and that if the only way to ensure it is to forcibly tax people to fund it, then how can you argue that all people do not have a right to life-sustaining food or necessary medical care and that these should also be funded by taxation if necessary?

I believe that protection of our rights is just one of many things that we, as human beings, require for our successful survival. Protection is not a natural resource, it must be created, either by ourselves for our own use, or by others who then offer it for trade to us just as any other commodity, and we should be prepared to pay for it.

There is really no reason that governmental services cannot be offered in different packages, much like insurance, and individuals allowed to purchase the level of coverage they desire. There is a serious problem regarding the issue of free-riders which needs to be addressed in some way, but the existence of this problem is not an excuse to toss out the entire Objectivist concept of voluntary association among men and the imposition of enforce taxation. I have many thoughts on different ways government could be structured, but there is no point in pursuing these ideas if we don't first agree about such a fundamental issue as whether enforced taxation is moral and justified.

Regards,
--
Jeff

Post 165

Sunday, August 12, 2007 - 5:45am

You bring up very valid points, Jeff..... while the importance of Objectivism lies in its metaphysical, epistemological and ethical bases - the application of ethics, both from the personal standpoint [which is what aesthetics is really all about] and the social standpoint [which is what politics should be about] need to be addressed in much more detailing than has been.... for sure, she had considered the primaries of most important because without them, the applying would be inconsistent and thus futile... and this is because, as seen among Objectivist who should know better, there is still a great amount of tribal mindset being taken for granted - indeed, not even seen as tribal in nature, so 'given' are some of the premises..... further, as uncomfortable and 'inconvenient truth' as this may be, this needs be sifted in objectivity, the 'cold hand of reason' being applied, and explanations then given not just for the needed direction but for why the ordering in being then able to go from point A [the present] to point B [the objective end]....

Note that mention of politics as applying the ethics of individualism to the social standpoint as being what politics should be about - because for most, including most Objectivists, it is still notioned as being in effect 'the art and science of rule'... remember the two syndromes - the only truly human one is the mindset of trading, of voluntarily exchanging value for value.... the other is an attempt of tacking tribal mindset to human affairs... until one grasps fully the mindset of trading - in its full sense - figuring out the detailing will always end up as seeking to insert tribal mentality to various perceived problems, and as such creating a contradiction where there should not and need not be.....

(Edited by robert malcom on 8/12, 5:56am)

Post 166

Sunday, August 12, 2007 - 9:00am

Jeffery: "I do not think Objectivism will truly be taken seriously until it has some sound practical solutions to serious problems like the current debate over funding for courts, police and national security as well as many other practical problems."

I have just finished reading a lecture by Barbara Branden, "Objectivism and Rage" given at Chapman University, July 4, 2006, in which she identifies the sources of rage and how it injures the Objectivist cause. One paragraph states:

"It is true that many of our convictions may begin to seem almost self-evident to us. But we must recognize that this is not so, that we have learned the truth of them as a result of many complex and extended processes of observation and thought—which means that they are not self-evident to our opponents. Our opponents rarely disagree with us out of sheer perversity, willfully denying the evidence of their senses. We ought to treat them accordingly, to remember that we did not always know what is so clear to us today, and, very importantly, to remember the steps by which we came to know it." (emphasis mine)

Now, the posters on this thread aren't my opponents but what is self-evident to me in my post #157 may not be self-evident to others. It may be impractical or contrary to Objectivist principles but, if so, I would like to know why it doesn't address the problem of "funding for courts, police and national security", as Jeffery suggests. Therefore I will elaborate:

If we will agree that it is desirable for free men to band together to provide mutual protection from all forms of coercion and to protect the natural rights of the individual then it is appropriate to ask how an agency can be voluntarily funded in order to accomplish that goal. The answer is merely, "by voluntary contributions." But, you say, "Human nature is such that some people will sponge off others and not provide their fair share. Also, well-meaning citizens will have varying opinions on how much is necessary for funding, i.e. how much national defense do we need, how much do we have to spend on law enforcement?"

To this I answer that all that is necessary is that the contributions of individuals be of public record. This is not a violation of any "rights" of individuals, but what it does do is provide a basis for judging the civic worthiness of their neighbors and associates.

"But won't this lead to discrimination?"

"You bet it will — and those who are slackers will find that they won't prosper. They will find it hard to get employment, they will tend to be snubbed by their neighbors and, in general, those social and economic pressures will encourage them to contribute their fair share."

"But what is their fair share?"

"Social dynamics will determine that. No one would expect that those in modest circumstances need contribute as much as the wealthy, and in any case, the percentage of income required to support the agency would not be onerous. A kind of principle of supply and demand would determine how much funding is required. Citizens would be "voting" with their contributions, making individual decisions on how much protection they deemed necessary, and the agency reacting according to how much funding they receive. Of course, there would be democratic elections of political parties running the agency so that mismanagement could be contained — much as exists today."

"Still, there will still be people who refuse to contribute their fair share."

"Certainly. There will always be the dregs of society and that is part and parcel of a free society. People are free to make mistakes and live the life-style they want unless they infringe on the rights of others. I think that there would be far fewer of those types in a society that doesn't provide welfare for the slackers."

So, I've described a system of funding minimal government, without infringing on the rights of anyone.

Sam

Post 167

Sunday, August 12, 2007 - 10:55am

Agree, Sam - remember, the 'free rider' is actually a mindset of the tribal/taking syndrome, not the trader......

Post 168

Sunday, August 12, 2007 - 11:10am

Sam I think you have some great ideas.

Ultimately it would just have to be tested in a real-world application. (The founding fathers had the same idea, the Articles of Confederation didn't work, they tried again) I could also imagine businesses voluntarily attaching sales taxes to their products and services to make sure government receives enough funding. But much of that is speculation and it would just have to be tried.

But I want to throw this idea at people. Let's not fall into the trap of imagining some kind of utopia or heaven on earth for men. It's a dangerous mindset that Marxists share. We can't pretend that evil men will one day no longer exist and all men will share the same rational values of peace, harmony and non-aggression. They will exist just as they have existed for 100,000 years, i.e. the entire existence of humanity. Any philosophy for living on Earth must be derived from reality, with reality as its measure for success. Maybe I am wrong, and one day all evil men will not play a part in our lives but I don't want to be naive about this. If certain principles that are derived from a philosophy are in contradiction, it's time to check the premises. The NIOF principle as I understood it to be was not an Objectivist principle but a Libertarian one. Perhaps I am wrong and it is an Objectivist principle. But my measure for success is not the label "Objectivism", it is my own rational self-interest that is my measure of success. Otherwise I don't understand how the accused can be presumed innocent until proven guilty yet be expected to be free from force? The problem here is the confusion over types of force, and I think we are morally equating all kinds of initiations of force as the same and make no effort to make intellectual distinctions. We shouldn't set ourselves up for false dichotomies and the use of force without context. That is the problem, not some tribalist mentality that others seem to think.

The founding fathers did an excellent job designing a constitution, they certainly made mistakes but I don't think they intended that constitution to last this long. We live today with a level of freedom unprecedented in the history of mankind thanks to the founding fathers. They weren't tribalists, they were enlightened, imperfect men that gave it their best. Yes some freedoms are being oppressed, we have gained some freedoms while losing others, and that is cause for change and a call for amending government. We should do what we can to attain the values that we share, but utopia is not a rational goal.

Post 169

Sunday, August 12, 2007 - 11:17am

And Robert, just as we live among criminals we also live among free riders. To think they will "poof" all magically disappear one day once we have a cultural revolution is naive. Or are we utopians now?

Post 170

Sunday, August 12, 2007 - 12:16pm

John wrote:

> But my measure for success is not the label "Objectivism", it is my own rational self-interest that is my measure of success.

John:

I believe I understand the point you are making, but in a country of 300 million or a world of 6.6 billion people, each of whom have their own "measure of success", what mediates between all of these these various personal views of self-interest? You need a philosophy which codifies a set of principles that can be applied in addressing questions of how to interact with others in a social setting. Objectivism is the best systematic philosophy developed so far that attempts to do this in a manner that respects and applies rights equally for all individuals. It is an attempt to codify a system where, under normal circumstances, there are no conflicts among men's rational self-interests. If you believe this is true, then you have to apply the principles consistently, otherwise they are not principles at all and the overall philosophy is useless.

Are you arguing here that the idea that it is proper that men should only associate voluntarily, free from the initiation of force, is an impractical idea that doesn't have universal applicability? You seem to be saying that this is a good idea in certain circumstances, but is inapplicable in the realm of, for example, local or national defense. In these cases, is no voluntary solution possible and is forced taxation consequently justified? What do you say to the person who argues the same for universal medical coverage?

We really have a basic choice to make in life: Either live by principle or operate pragmatically in the range of the moment and deal with each situation separately as it arises. I do not believe that the pragmatic approach is practical at all. If the principles we live by lead to bad results, then by all means, let's examine them, discover the underlying flaw and correct it, codifying a new principle that can guide us.

We have lived so long with welfare and social security in this country that the majority of people have come to expect and rely upon it. It would now be impossible to simply discard these programs instantly without causing a great deal of pain to many people in the process. But would you then argue that these programs are therefore OK and must now be maintained, or would you argue that they are wrong and need to be eliminated, but through a process that does not cause undue suffering?

I would ask the same thing about taxed-based defense. We cannot just stop collecting taxes and immediately shift to a fully voluntary defense system. But, shouldn't we be proposing a way to transition to that result for the same reasons we do for welfare and social security?

Regards,
--
Jeff

Post 171

Sunday, August 12, 2007 - 12:46pm

Jeff:

I believe I understand the point you are making, but in a country of 300 million or a world of 6.6 billion people, each of whom have their own "measure of success", what mediates between all of these these various personal views of self-interest? You need a philosophy which codifies a set of principles that can be applied in addressing questions of how to interact with others in a social setting. Objectivism is the best systematic philosophy developed so far that attempts to do this in a manner that respects and applies rights equally for all individuals. It is an attempt to codify a system where, under normal circumstances, there are no conflicts among men's rational self-interests

Jeff I don't believe there are conflicts between men's rational self-interests. But the presumption here is that all men are rational. The fact that I own a gun, a burglar system, that my business has been a victim of theft too many times for me to count, leads me to the conclusion not all men I interact with are always rational. What do I and other rational men do about them? As you say, we codify a set of principles. Justice is a set of codified principles that take into account "forced-choice" situations. It is in the rational self-interests of men to come up with fair and equitable solutions to a forced-choice situation. It would be irrational to not address instances of aggression. The justice system is a means of attaining our rational self-interest. It is in your rational self-interest to want to live in a system of justice. The justice system is applied consistently (or at least designed to as a matter of practice). I am willing to put up with the risk of being accused of a crime with the ability to defend myself in a court of law with an objective and fair due process than live in a system where we pretend crime won't happen. It doesn't mean the end of the world for a civilized free society. It doesn't mean it is justification for the pandora's box to be open where all rights are dismissed and we live in some brutal totalitarian existence. We have to understand what does it mean to have rights and importantly according to this discussion how we can protect them.

Are you arguing here that the idea that it is proper that men should only associate voluntarily, free from the initiation of force, is an impractical idea that doesn't have universal applicability?

No Jeff I don't believe that's impractical, only that it can only be practical if other men choose the same. Most men do which is why most of the time I live in peace. When I interact with you and you with me, we do so voluntarily. There is no force used between us as there is simply no need. But what about the criminal Jeff? Is it practical to say aggression is wrong, but then dismiss out of hand that aggression, the very wrong we have identified, does not and will not occur? If we accept this reality, our principles must account for how we properly address this problem. Not pretend that all men all the time will live peacefully together. If we share the same values of voluntarily association then there is no conflict, but if another does not share that value? What then? We can't await our own self-destruction, we rational men must deal with evil men the best and most fair way that we can.

You seem to be saying that this is a good idea in certain circumstances, but is inapplicable in the realm of, for example, local or national defense. In these cases, is no voluntary solution possible and is forced taxation consequently justified?

I'd be willing to see Sam's idea put into practice, but until that happens I can't say it will work or not work. I have no idea but I certainly think it's worth a try and I am piqued with interest in his idea.

What do you say to the person who argues the same for universal medical coverage?

This is what I don't get. That when I and others say Justice is not a traded commodity, should mean that anything else should be regarded the same as not a traded commodity is a conclusion to which I don't see the argument for. The sick are not victims of a crime. They are not sick because someone robbed them, raped them, or murdered them. We can't be free from disease and micro-organisms, only free from other men that seek to oppress us.

We have lived so long with welfare and social security in this country that the majority of people have come to expect and rely upon it. It would now be impossible to simply discard these programs instantly without causing a great deal of pain to many people in the process. But would you then argue that these programs are therefore OK and must now be maintained, or would you argue that they are wrong and need to be eliminated, but through a process that does not cause undue suffering?

I would say it is better to have a slow and gradual process to eliminating the welfare state. But then again I don't know, maybe instant change is better, until I see either way implemented I can't know for sure.

I would ask the same thing about taxed-based defense. We cannot just stop collecting taxes and immediately shift to a fully voluntary defense system. But, shouldn't we be proposing a way to transition to that result for the same reasons we do for welfare and social security?

Sure I'm not an unreasonable guy. I think it's certainly worth a try.

(Edited by John Armaos on 8/12, 12:52pm)

Post 172

Sunday, August 12, 2007 - 8:59pm

Misquoting out of Context

"In an earlier post Ted Keer spoke of the fact that Objectivism didn't have any real political philosophy. Rand believed that political change could only come after there had been a cultural revolution, and due to that fact she believed that her time spent in this area was wasted."

What?

Jeffery, I assume this misrepresentation was due to wishful thinking, not intentional obfuscation?*

I never said that Rand had no real political philosophy. She stood for a limited state, a republican form of government, objective law, and the right of consenting adults to do what they wished without initiating force or fraud, except to take the law into their own hands. She accepted common law and the Constitution, and she suggested a return to the state which we had for a brief period between the end of the Civil War and the beginning of the Progressive era, before Antitrust and the Income Tax. She advocated two things - a few additional protections of free trade such as denying the government any power of regulation of interstate commerce, and the exposition of a fully explicit philosophical defense of free trade on explicitly moral grounds.

What I did say was that she did not have a fully worked out theory of jurisprudence. If you can't properly quote my posts, you can look this word up in the dictionary. She did say that working for such things as a fully voluntary system of taxation was the last step, and not the first step. She castigated so called libertarians for putting the cart before the horse, for advocating pacifism and other nonsense in the name of an out-of-context fetishism of the principle of the non-initiation of force.

Let me quote G.K. Chesterton from one of the greatest works of short fiction of the 20th Century The Man Who was Thursday:

"They [anarchists] believe that all the evil results of human crime are the results of the system that has called it crime. They do not believe that crime creates the punishment. They believe that the punishment has created the crime."

Within the context of a polity (again, I refer you to the dictionary) we are subject to the unpleasant fact of jury duty, subpoenas, police searches with warrants, having to pay taxes to support the courts and the police. None of this constitutes an initiation of force against the individual by the state, it is the result of the initiation of force by criminals against their victims, and the necessities within a polity of reacting to the criminal's aggression. To paraphrase Chesterton, some think that the subpoena creates the crime, not the crime the subpoena.

Yes, how the state regulates its monopoly of force in order to enforce the law without unduly inconveniencing the innocent, and without allowing corrupt individuals to abuse those powers for their own criminal purposes is a proper matter for discussion. But this is not a discussion without facts, without context, without precedent, and without a need for a knowledge of a noble system of self rule that dates back to England and compares to Republican Rome.

In a technically correct post, Bill Dwyer criticized Jon Letendre's phraseology for suggesting that individuals have a "right" to government protection. Perhaps Jon should have said that governments are instituted to protect our rights - Jon can speak for himself. But I think Jon's underlying point and the conclusions he wanted to draw have been largely orthodox and correct. Earlier, Jeffery quoted me out of context to agree with me that "Just as property is not theft, so justice is not the initiation of force" but from what I gather of his arguments and those here who who bewail the minor inconveniences of the minimal state, they take that sentence to mean that justice cannot use force in response to criminal acts if that force somehow affects third parties. This is not the meaning of the initiation of force, but of the response to the initiation of force. And those who expect the government monopoly of force to mean the unilateral disarmament of the the subpoena power and other such established tools of objective law do not understand the real (and well expounded) political philosophy of Ayn Rand.

Ted Keer

*Jeff has graciously assured me that this was unintentional and I am happy to believe him.

(Edited by Ted Keer on 8/12, 9:53pm)

Post 173

Sunday, August 12, 2007 - 9:33pm

Sorry Ted. I didn't intend to misquote you. Your earlier comment which I was thinking of was just a jumping off point for my thoughts.

Regards,
--
Jeff

(Edited by C. Jeffery Small on 8/12, 9:59pm)

Post 174

Sunday, August 12, 2007 - 9:34pm

Yeah, and I even gave a pass to Bill’s inconsistency on taxes.

He started by insisting they be voluntary, then turned around and said (159) the individual has no right to government functions unless he has paid for them—which is more like my position—I have a right to government, and I have to pay for it!

(Edited by Jon Letendre on 8/12, 9:38pm)

(Edited by Jon Letendre on 8/12, 10:01pm)

Post 175

Sunday, August 12, 2007 - 9:56pm

Jeff, I appreciate the acknowledgement, you may be a kind-hearted misguided anarchist,

but you are a gentleman, and I do usually agree with you on other threads, and unlike my opinion of others, enjoy your presence.

Ted

(This is just a friendly dig, Jeff, although I think some of your arguments on this thread have anarchical implications, I didn't think you considered yourself a literal anarchist.)

(Edited by Ted Keer on 8/12, 10:34pm)

Post 176

Sunday, August 12, 2007 - 10:09pm

I'm at a loss to figure out how I've been categorized as an anarchist, albeit a kind-hearted misguided one. Honestly, I try to follow these threads but its often like having fallen down the rabbit hole. I guess maybe most of my comments appear like a conversation with the Cheshire Cat to others. They certainly seem to confuse and inflame rather than cast light. :-(

Regards,
--
Jeff

Post 177

Sunday, August 12, 2007 - 11:48pm

Jeffery, Post 164,

“Jon, I think you are confusing the source of your rights, which are inherent in your nature as a human being, with a need to defend those rights against hostile individuals who would transgress them. As individuals, we are responsible for providing for our own needs. If we are hungry or sick, we must take action to feed or mend ourselves or we die. In the same way, WE are responsible for defending ourselves from those that would violate our rights […] What about our need for protection? Is this really something CATEGORICALLY DIFFERENT from any of our other human needs? There are MANY WAYS TO ATTEMPT TO ORGANIZE AND PROTECT OUR RIGHTS, and an armed government empowered to use retaliatory force is ONE OF THEM […] PROTECTION IS not a natural resource, it must be created, either by ourselves for our own use, or by others who then offer it for trade to us just as ANY OTHER COMMODITY […] There is really no reason that governmental services cannot be offered in different packages, much like insurance, and individuals allowed to purchase the level of coverage they desire.” [caps Jon]

Ayn Rand, The Nature of Government,

“A recent variant of anarchistic theory, which is befuddling some of the younger advocates of freedom, is a weird absurdity called “competing governments.” Accepting the basic premise of the modern statists—who see no DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE FUNCTIONS OF GOVERNMENT AND THE FUNCTIONS OF INDUSTRY, BETWEEN FORCE AND PRODUCTION, and who advocate government ownership of business—the proponents of “competing governments” take the other side of the same coin and declare that since competition is so beneficial to business, it should also be applied to government. Instead of a single monopolistic government, they declare, there should be a number of different governments in the same geographical area, competing for the allegiance of individual citizens, with every citizen free to “shop” and to patronize whatever government he chooses.” [Caps Jon]

(Edited by Jon Letendre on 8/13, 7:25am)

(Edited by Jon Letendre on 8/13, 7:26am)

Post 178

Monday, August 13, 2007 - 6:15am

First, I don't propose that non-payment of taxes be a criminal offense, but a civil one, like not paying a contract. This does not eliminate NIOF, but it does mean that we are not hauling people off to jail for tax issues like we do now.

Secondly, since the police, courts, fire, and national defense protect property and provide a secure society in which to do business, I think a payment for those basic services necessary to the existance of a society is reasonable, in line with the level of wealth/income, in some fashion. I have not seen any plans that I think are workable that propose purely voluntary funding of the basic government services.

I think purely voluntary funding is basically the same idea as anarcho-capitalism.

...and as I said, once we achieve this level of society, we can maybe think about the next. For instance, if the world overall is a safer place, and national defense requirements become more minimal, we have a better opportunity. National defense is the hardest area to fund voluntarily because it is remote from your general concern and the chances of something happening are small, but it is something that by the time the danger arises it may be far too late to change.

Post 179

Monday, August 13, 2007 - 7:15am