| | Objectivism is a Philosophy for Living on Earth
One can talk about ending all non-voluntary taxation as much as one likes, and one can even advocate instituting voluntary means of government revenue now such as lotteries which do already exist. Lotteries are at best a marginal form of voluntary government financing; far better methods exist, such as the one that Rand proposed in her article "Government Financing in a Free Society." But I am not interested in discussing this matter as one that is more important than ending improper spending activities by the government. Right. As a political strategy for reducing the size of government spending, one has a better chance of reducing public assistance and other forms of welfare entitlements than of eliminating taxation. The point I was making is simply that taxation is a self-contradictory violation of individual rights and, therefore, of the Objectivist politics, even if it's elimination is the last step on the way to a fully free society. Others here have argued that taxation is justified, because voluntary financing is impractical and would never work. It is that particular view that I was challenging as inconsistent with Objectivism and as self-contradictory nonsense. Doing so is at best, putting the horse before the cart...Which is exactly where the horse belongs -- before the cart! ;-) ...and at worst ends up as a form of Libertarian party anarcho-capitalist mental self-abuse best left to non-objectivist fora. Well, if one is an advocate of Objectivism, then since voluntary government financing is one of its principles, it behooves one to have a sound defense of that principle -- if, that is, one expects to be taken seriously. Rand was no idiot. Had she seen totally voluntary taxation as such an important or imminent development, she could have studied the idea and contributed a lot more on the notion than she did. The reason that she didn't contribute more to the subject is that she felt that other aspects of Objectivism, like its epistemology, deserved greater attention. However, she did address the issue by writing an essay on one possible method of voluntary financing, and she did clearly state that voluntary financing was required by a respect for individual rights. On a radio program back in 1969, she was asked, "Do you consider the government a thief?", she replied, "In one sense, yes. To the question, 'Should the government have the power to tax?," I'd answer, 'No, all taxation should be voluntary.'" However, she felt that a more detailed treatment of the issue was best left to the specialized discipline of legal philosophy. Rand was essentially a free-market minimalist... "A free-market minimalist" does not adequately describe her political theory; it's too vague a description. Conservatives would describe themselves in similar terms. ...and she expressed her contempt repeatedly for those who advocate private governments... Yes, but that's because private governments are not part of the Objectivist political theory. ...or utopian tax reforms or protests... Where did she inveigh against utopian tax reforms or protests? As far as I'm aware, she said nothing on the issue. and the non-initiation of force as if they were contextless absolutes or the be-all and end-all of politics. On the contrary, she was very clear that the principle of individual rights stood as an absolute and inviolable bulwark against the initiation of force by the government against its own citizens. Give me a 10% flat tax or the equivalent and restrict all government spending to its proper functions, and we'll have decades of boom and prosperity in which to find ways to deal with other priorities. Well, you'd have to get rid of central banking as well, and adopt a privately based commodity money to avoid the repeated bouts of inflation and recession that characterize the business cycle. Objectivism is a philosophy for living on earth, and humans have priorities, and certain reforms require that other reforms precede them. I agree. There is no draft. The press is free. Emigration is possible. Let's worry about defending ourselves, lowering taxes, holding back the tides of statism, and teaching Objectivism. Again, I agree. Then we'll be in a fine position to go from a sterile Platonic esoteric discussion of the perfect state (which only makes us look like ivory-tower nutjobs with crazy priorities) to explain in Objectivist terms to an educated populace how to move forward. I wouldn't describe a discussion or presentation of the Objectivist political theory as "ivory tower" or as involving "crazy priorities." You have to know where you're going, if you're ever going to get there. And your ultimate political goals have to make sense, if you want to attract people to your philosophy.
- Bill
|
|
