cab21

if someone has a court sentence that says other's can't hire the person, that sounds like a employment law. the law is going to have to check on business and who the business hires, if this is to be enforced. it makes it easy to mandate business use e-varify, national id, or some other electronic tracking device on everyone if business are responsible to law for enforcing sentences. i think it's better for a business to choose it's own vetting process, and take the risk and the responsibility in a free market.

should the government decide who is legal to employ? i figure government deciding who is legal to employ creates a police state and is burdonsome economic regulation.

for some things, government pays more, for some less. i would think government paying less is something that helps prevent political pull. i think some of the areas i have seen government pay more are unions and when government employees had private investment in a company, so it's easy to pay more when you have private interest and you are not using your own money. a voluntary funded government would be working on a different system than current ones funded by taxes, so that would perhaps give less room for government to make conflict of interest purchases that give a windfall to a private business with people in and out of government.

so when it comes to access to resources, I am wondering how the government will be able to get the resources it needs to function? If part of the contract with government meant that government gets right of first refusal , priority on orders, and price options on all production and trade, is that fair enough, as there is no force, just voluntary acceptance of stipulations in a contact? I don’t think a government could get into a bidding war with private industry, so government must have price controls( price options) set in the contract. Since the government gets product and resources at a cheaper price than private industry, there can be rules on how the government could sell government property, so that government could not buy and trade for a windfall. A government also cannot wait to get orders and deliveries the way a private industry can, so a contract should include right to first refusal, and right to first priority on new orders. This would need to be balanced with a way to determine so the government does not order too much or too quickly. I do have a hard time figuring out how supply and demand works when government is involved, but I do think a government to serve its purpose would need advantages in contracts over private market forces.

how is a government going to prevent such misunderstanding? this situation can easily happen with or without government. all a government could do is make a judgement in the aftermath, not prevent these events from happening. a government does not neccicarily even need to give a different judgement than private companies providing the same services.

this is from the man's rights article property is economic as if free trade. a government that depends on the consent of the governed, will only have a geographic juristiction that is delegated to government by consenting property owners. property owners can't just vote by majority that someone who does not consent to the government be forced to join the government. if a government does not have enough funding, or enough people willing to work for , or enough people willing to consent, then it does not have the means to fullfill a purpose of defence of individual rights. the only way for no competition between governments is to have 1 world government that everyone consents to. at any point secessionis there for someone to take away consent to be goverened, that does not take away property rights or the right of free trade, or the right to go to another company to defend those rights.

i think i get confussed here on what she means or does not mean be the economy and economic activity. government is a economic actor by the services it provides as far as the meaning i have seen. the government has to have legal definition of what is covered and protected by government, what contracts are covered, and which contracts are not covered by government. by what does government have the right to do what private business does not have the right to do? law itself is regulation, so law about what is legal economic activity and what is not legal activity, is economic regulation. http://www.atlassociety.org/objectivist_politics this website does say capitalism is separation of economy and state. if someone is spending on what the person wants to spend money on, why must certain services only have 1 legitimate place to purchase them? is it not economic regulation to say private business cannot offer the same service as the government?

voluntary funding of government still makes government a economic player. it makes it just another business. the government would also have to provide better services than other companies to get voluntary funding, and providing better services does not just happen. i can only see people volunteering to fund government if it provides a better service than alturnatives. a government must have the best access to contracts to do so. if a private group has exclusive deals in the best technology, i think people would pool resources in that company rather than a government that has to work with worse technology. voluntary funding itself can be political and have to do with favorites getting positions. nongovernmental busines deals still have people doing deals with favorites and people have subjective preferences. a person that golfs could have a favorite brand that is not the best golf brand, but the person will still favor the favorite brand over objective data that the other brand is better for performance. this part of the book would have been more clear if galt said who to fire and why. the government providing a rational reason for each employee is a clearer directive than saying fire government employees without detail. i think the government that initiates force is ganglike, and there is never any gaurentee that government officials won't initiate force. outside world, unless everyone shares the same values, i figure it's easy for a government to fall again, which makes it risky to give the government the best deals in military force if by amendment the people in the government want to chance course again. with a amendable constitution, falling back into majority corruption with votes is always a posibility. i was also thinking about dagny and hanks negotiations. hank says he could charge whatever he wanted and dagny would pay, then dagny responds that he won't charge so high because it was the first use of hanks new metal. i think that would mean the government would have to always be the highest bidder for people to sell resources to the government. if someone else gives a better deal than the government, the government is going to lose funding and with lost funding it will spiral out of being efficiant.

how does the government choose who to buy from, and the terms of the deal, without playing a part in the economy? the government must have a process for deciding which motor to use, in the book john galt had the best moter, a government that purchases moters from galt is playing a role in the economy by doing so. if the government is protecting patents, and forming patent law, the government is involved in the economy. if the government has a law against murder, that is freedom of production and trade, and effects the economy. the government must than determine legal trade and ilegal trade.

how does this even happen? in atlas shrugged, rand calls military a proper funtion of government, but how does the military stay out of the economy, when a military needs resources? who is in control of the military and how are purchasing orders and bids dealth with in a way that politics is separate from economy? there is even a scene where galt says to fire government employees as part the the economic realm. you can't have a army with no empoyees. in the book rand also has a private army that saves galt, saves reardon, and recovers stolen loot at sea. court wise, her book has 1 judge that does not even have to make a judgement in 12 years. the judge also came across more as a private judge than a public judge in galt gultch. the gultch itself did not have any structure that seemed like a public, so it did not show a working government with separation of politics and economy. i would think that public and private are at a impass. public defense needs to be better than private defence, and private defence needs to be better than public defence her private armies in atlas shrugged were better in every way to government armies, from the technology, to the abilities, to the motivations, to intellegence. i imagine a public defence would be the first client of reardon, galt, mulligan and so and so for resources both technology and funding. the government is than expected to protect patent laws and be the best customer of the people they are protecting? each is a client of the other, so i think that makes it in each interest to charge less to one another, but rands books talk about people charging more and people willing to pay more even when there is mutual benefit.