StrictlyLogical

They are not reaping a windfall... far from it. In order to choose not to get the full benefit of active gov't services ... settling only for the side effects of government's inability to accidentally benefit them... they would be living without the full benefit of a full moral political society. Far from windfall, the only people who would likely choose not to pay are those who also would be unable to buy medical insurance, own a car, etc. They would likely only be mentally challenged folks who could not hold any job (which would be a rarity in a society with no minimum wage), and would likely be taken care of by voluntary charity by those whose sense of generosity extends almost into the irrational. But then ... if taken care of by charity...their gov't services would likely be paid first... along with food and shelter, by those taking care of them. So ... I still cant see who exactly would be those who end up living without paying for govt services except perhaps wanted criminals on the run.... I think even everyday idiots would have govt services as at the same level importance of food and shelter much earlier in the budget than say life insurance, car insurance or medical insurance... and they are not exactly going out of business now are they? Please tell me the kind of people who would choose not to participate in society, forego active government services in justice, police and military ... what would be their population? do you think Doctors and Engineers would be so stupid.. or maybe its the carpenters and bakers... or grocers.... then again grocers are often the victim of hold-ups... Lets try to put your worry in perspective... can you do that for me?

Crow: The government is the sole delegatee of the proper use of retaliatory force which the citizen, had the right to use in the first place. You cannot "delegate" as a citizen the desire to murder someone to the government, it is not delegatable, it simply is not your right. Anything that can be delegatable to a proper government must arise as a proper moral right to be begin with. One cannot delegate acting on rights which do not exist... there would then be nothing proper to delegate. In a civil society where the citizens have delegated the power to use retaliatory force they have done so irrevocably for all circumstances except during times of emergency when that force must be used in self-defence, i.e. police cannot get there in time etc.. If you as a citizen attacks ANYONE, you are initiating force, you are acting outside of their delegatable rights, and in fact you are becoming a criminal. There is no open season. When the police stop you they are not rescuing the victim, they are rescuing civilized society and putting you away for their safety and for deterrence.

Well now.. I would not say deer season. I mean we wont protect the dear and the wolves from each other ... at least not on behalf of the free riding victim. But govt would still ensure non initiation of force by gov't and by participants in the society. e.g. anarchist attacks citizen... police step in. Citizen attacks anarchist ... police step in. anarchist attacks anarchist... police step in if victim asks for intervention (is sent a bill later) or simply don't step in if anarchist victim does not ask for intervention. After all one of them (the victim fighting back) is simply exercising his non-delegated right to self-defence. now it may be that the criminal (the perpetrator) will be punished afterward not for the benefit of the victim but to protect society and deter other criminals. In any case free-riding could be kept to a minimum. When you say "Contriving a system"... I assume you mean planning and deploying one? If so yes... systems are contrived.... hopefully with great detail of forethought.

Honestly Crow: Govt services would be package deal. Police, justice, and military. You can't pay for domestic bits... and somehow "opt out" of the military bit. The number of freeloaders would be very small. Who would want to forego police and justice services ... due to an ill advised desire not to pay for military services? So the freeloaders would be minimally freeloading... using Geography as a shield from foreigners, but having no guarantees against theft murder etc. They would not participate nor enjoy government in the to the same degree animals (sorry DA ) also would not participate or enjoy the benefits of a proper government. Accidental freeloaders with regard to foreign invasion.

Jaskn: I just read this over and it rambles on a bit. I hope it is useful. My main point is coming to terms with death does not require any diminishment of life or your love of it. Learn also to accept and fight for every moment... As a human being whose standard is life, all your planning, energies, efforts, etc. are aimed at continual flourishing, in the long-term. This is perfectly natural in fact it is morally virtuous. You are lucky to have discovered morality and reality. Accept your love of life. Comments above are completely perfectly valid, inevitability of death and the very real souring and tainting of life that morbidity, anxiety, fear, and obsessing on death can bring about. I have not thought of this to any real deep degree but perhaps the customary stages of grief for a loved one's death are somehow applicable for the DEATH OF THE IDEA OF IMMORTALITY you may have experienced so long ago when you became (assuming you were raised religious) a full fledged atheist. You may be thinking now that you have gone though all the stages, are at the rational acceptance stage you should be done with it. Here are a few thoughts, not fully integrated but which may be useful. 1. Cherishing life and wanting to continue another second, day, year decade, from now is natural and virtuous. 2. Accepting death as your ultimate fate is rational... it is inescapable reality. 3. Notice that any tension between the 2 above can arise from some misdirected thoughts: The ultimate "end" or "purpose" of your life is not temporally speaking the end/final moments of your life. The fact that the conclusion of your life is a death does not mean it was all for nothing. It is not the same as working toward an end goal in mind, like building a tower, where if the tower crumbles before you finish you fail. Every moment of your life IS in a sense the goal of the act of LIVING. It spans every second, every decade, you have alive. It's all you have. The goal is to live it to the fullest (and make it last at the fullest). So in some sense cherishing every moment you have is independent from the fact that they are finite. Someday death may be your immediate concern and with effort (and perhaps chance) you may escape to live another day, but right now death is not your immediate concern, and being concerned with it can only lessen life. Part of living means loving life, so while you are coming to terms with death and accepting its reality, you must also come to terms with your love of life and your fight to survive. Accept that as well. It is not an ignoble fight: exercise, eat well, laugh, go to your doctor, these things are not ineffectual denials of death they are effective weapons to extend life. Take your fear and turn it into passion. Every second you extend your life you win a small victory over oblivion. In some sense it is a wonder you were ever here... all those unthinking molecules floating in the nebula that gave birth to our sun never had a clue... Now that you are here, you need to extract from existence as much as you can.. and laugh as you go!

They are in opposition to Objectivism's requirement of "voluntary funding" of government Here is a reminder about what a certain very thoughtful someone thought of this issue: http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/taxation.html

Crow: Suppose on Jan 1st Anarchists (who adhere to non initiation of aggression but reject all forms of government) and Objecitivists live in the same geography in which there is an Objectivist government (the ideal minimal govt we al know - police. justice, military). Should the Objectivists: 1. Forcibly export all the Anarchists against their will, out of the "geographical area"? (recall it would not be a nationalistic nation-state with public property or a single creed race tribe or culture) 2. Provide government services to them but forcibly take Anarchists resources or incarcerate them if they do not comply (taxation) 3. Leave the Anarchists alone (in accord with Laissez Faire) and to the extent possible provide no government services to them.

You have not answered by questions. Why are you getting angry? It's a rational discussion. It has relevance to the issue if "the impossibility of voluntary payment of resources required for the delegation of the use of retaliatory force in the form of a police, justice, and military system"

If the "deposits" are truly abundant always in space and time it would not qualify as wealth as its value would be greatly diluted in proportion to its abundance and/or ease of access. If the "deposits" are rare, in space or time, yes there is a factor "sheer chance" which comes into it. BUT to be at the right place at the right time, systematically, does require some effort. I concede (odd word to see in this forum huh?) that sheer chance can play a role in making a random person wealthy... if say they find a diamond sticking out of a cliff when they were only going for a picnic. This however is the rare exception. Wealth is almost always a result of production but sometimes (thanks Jaskn) it can, by sheer chance (on the rare occasion) come into the hands of an unsuspecting individual directly from nature with little to no effort.

Wealth had to be produced originally... a producer's endeavors were required. This is very close to a definition of what wealth is, no?

Endeavor is to attempt or do something i.e. spend effort to achieve something. Productive ... well something which produces something is productive. I don't see an enigma with a straightforward reading of "productive endeavor". Plasmatic has a great point. I agree and think the more correct pronouncement is: That wealth of the rich which was "achieved" by definition is the wealth which was produced by their efforts: i.e. productive endeavor. So wealth which is given as a gift is not achieved, but wealth which is traded is achieved.

Oh yes indeed. So what is your answer?

OK Crow: we'll come back to Guards... or security of the person and property.. later. Let's talk insurance. Why would a rational person pay for any kind of insurance (not just life... theft, fire, etc.) if they do not know whether they will incur a loss? Specifically what about Fire insurance? If I buy fire insurance (at an appropriate rate according to my risk factors) for 20 years and never had a fire did I receive any value for my payment? Suppose in that same time someone else with higher or lower risk but paying their appropriate amount, actually had a fire ... the amount they paid into the system of course no where near the amount of the loss or the compensation they received. Would you say I "paid" for their loss? Is fire insurance a valid choice (in fact a moral choice) that a rationally self-interested Objectivist should adopt (short of being certain that loss due to fire is not possible)? Why?

Crow, as a starting point, what do you see as the main difference between voluntarily deciding to pay for: Life Insurance A video Alarm system A security guard to guard my factory A bouncer to guard my Drinking Establishment (all very successfully "funded") and deciding to voluntarily pay for a police, legal, and military system?

Crow: I do not see what the issue with "voluntary taxation" is, other than it being a contradiction in terms. You say such a thing is impossible as if it were unnatural to the psyche of man. Do you believe that "naturally" human beings, by some quirk of a defective cognitive process are unable to determine that ... for example.. if he wants SOMEONE ELSE to DO something for him, whether it is to go fetch some water, catch a rabbit or grow lettuce... that he is required to trade SOMETHING for it? Is such a thing far to complex or enigmatic for his grey matter to grasp? I think the truth of the matter is quite the contrary.... the natural tendency (observable in children... and adults with healthy self-esteem) is to offer a trade for the doing of something... ANYTHING for him by someone else... from the mundane and almost inconsequential to the most serious and important of tasks. How is it then, that people who want to delegate authority for a justice system, a police force, and a military, and who would otherwise need to spend energy, time, and resources to fill these kinds of roles for themselves had they not delegated it, would not automatically (or at least naturally) assume they also convey resources in exchange for WHAT THEY ARE ASKING FOR OTHERS to DO FOR THEM? I do not think this is riddle of the ages or some implacable Gordion knot. Far from being wholly foreign to the natural tendency of man, so called voluntary taxation (better called trading value for value or paying for something with something) is completely in accord and in harmony with man's nature. That said, BAD philosophy, irrationality, altruism, paternalism, lack of self-esteem.... all poisoning a writhing mass of mentally crippled souls, such a situation does make spontaneous adoption of what IS natural and proper... and OBJECTIVELY moral, extremely difficult. SL

Crow: What about the "corruption" which IS the nanny state - redistribution of wealth - altruistic democracy (RULE by the mob) - immoral and tyrannical system we live in? Does not any one social worker who follows or flaunts the corrupt laws of that behemoth count for nothing? The "corruption" is not the action of individuals in the system, it is the entire system, ideas, laws, politics, ethics, society itself... where does all that crap come from? I'll concede not a "corrupt philosophy" (which could be called a contradiction in terms) but the LACK of any valid philosophy... i.e. metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, politics.

Interesting. Certainly both Rand and fictional Reardon are acting (and portrayed as acting) as rational egoists. It is a good observation, the echo or mirroring. This is a commonality that one could use to imagine Rand literally speaking through Reardon. I think there is a slight difference introduced by context and their respective life's work. If Reardon were real, his context would be as a businessman making money (by making metal) and he defends his rational self-interest at his trial more or less directly for his business although he has some interest in attempting to show others, the judge, society, the truth of what he says it is not his aim to tell them the truth for the sake of its truth. Rand due to her context, ability as an author to reach many people, spread ideas, I think was also in the business of making money; with her writing, but that includes her ideas. I am familiar with written and film biographies of her, and although I cannot recall this being her main aim, I believe it was Rand's purpose, a selfish purpose, to spread her ideas, to improve society to the extent possible. So with Rand we have the content of the speech being one of the main purposes of its presentation, the spreading of its ideas, of rational-self interest and morality to society, whereas for Reardon the content was presented for a purpose other than the dissemination of ideas. Whether or not this distinction is minor or major I leave it up to you. That said, there certainly IS an echo and a mirroring, one of the other.

OK so like 1. Taxation IS immoral because it is initiation of force; a form of theft: taking by force. That's easy. 2. In a "society" where some people are delegated authority NOT TO RULE but to protect individual rights of self-sovereigns, those people require resources (also delegated) voluntarily by members of society. In such a situation the delegation and the resources go hand in hand... I want you to do X for me, here is y which I would have used to do it... I pass it to you so you can achieve X on my behalf. Clearly free-riding is immoral. That also is easy. 3. The HARD part is figuring out how to untangle the following: Is society just the group the people who happen to live in a common geography whether or not they are self-sovereigns who have delegated authority to retaliatory force, whether or not they are free-riders, and whether or not they are criminals (initiate force or fraud).... Are only some of those people in the common geography part of that society? Does the delegation of retaliatory force extend to serve those in the geographical area those who are not part of the society, i.e. those who did not delegate authority or resources? Really, does the protection of individual rights ... delegated by self-sovereigns along with the accompanying required resources, extend to the benefit of people within the same geography who are not part of the society and/or are not self-sovereigns who have delegated that authority and/or the accompanying required resources (free-riders) or for example does it even extend to violent criminals? If the protections do extend, are they limited to protecting the free-riders from the society members initiation of force or does it also extend to protecting them (non-society members) from each other? for that matter does the protection of rights extend to protecting violent criminals from each other? Perhaps the line to draw in the sand as to what is "given" as extended protection is in some way linked to the society being rationally responsible for its members actions...and what is done to its members... and not for actions of nonsociety members amongst themselves. Like I said... 3. who morally gets the benefit of protection of individual rights is not easy to answer.

Weaver... sometimes I read something of yours... and for all the truth.. and poetry... and imagery you weave... I am left with absolutely no clue. It is very disconcerting for me but hey... you have your shtick I have mine.

My comment was directed at Crow. I do not believe for example, a man who undermines a morally wrong state (say a theocracy or fascist dictatorship), even by dishonesty and "hypocrisy" is corrupt, especially if his goals and reasons are virtuous. An immoral man is an irrational man, that generally stems from bad philosophy and manifests itself with immoral behaviors which include what one normally associates with corruption. Essentially actions one associates with corruption are actions which are immoral, but immorality is caused by bad philosophy. Maybe I just don't get it...

If you define corruption as "bad philosophy" then I would agree that it needs investigation, but if it means something else, I would need to know what you mean exactly by "corruption". Is a "follower" (or "leader" for that matter) of an immoral irrational system, who obeys the law, tells the truth, and executes people when the majority vote says so... corrupt or not? Is a "rebel" of an immoral irrational system, who rejects the law, upholds the rights of individuals and will not commit wrongful (against his own rational self-interest) actions... is he "corrupt"? Is corruption the rejection of valid philosophy and ethics or the rejection of arbitrary social norms? If you are proposing "corruption" as such as a major historical factor, I think we need to know what you mean by it.

Sorry I have to jump in here. When one substitutes one own decision with the flip of a coin or the spin of a wheel, in very real sense the decision IS being abdicated. To the extent a person allows something other than himself to make his decisions, he is simply NOT making the decisions. Now, that said, his "decision to allow" the external entity, person, coin or whatever to rule him in his choice, IS wrong, ethically (not in his rational self-interest). Whether or not making a conscious decision to do something which IS wrong, is irrational or not, would depend upon whether he knows it is wrong or not. SO, an Objectivist, who decides to abdicate his sovereign authority to make a decision by making himself obey the toss of a coin is being irrational, to the extent he knows it is not in his rational self interest to abdicate his decision making in such a way. This is not to say that anyone's internal decision making functions like the spinning wheel or not, I simply want to remind readers that relying on a spinning wheel simply means one is not directly making the decisions for himself, although he has chosen to let something (or someone?) else make them for him.

Anyone care to take on my post at 70 with a diligent considered response?

I meant only to remind the reader of the common errors regarding, possibility, probability, and certainty... not that these concepts themselves are errors. I can see now that I was a bit misleading in the way in which these were placed/presented in the list. It's possible an all powerful demon made me do it.... (not!)

I'd like to get a 1 million foot integrated view from a few of you people, both determinists and non-determinists. Let me start with the labels for the errors of which we are all familiar with, without going into the explanation: we all know about the errors of: possibility, probability, certainty rationalism requirement for omnipotent "proof", mystic revelation mysticism denial of induction denial of the senses, false definition of "direct perception" etc. skepticism We all know that it takes a contextual, comprehensive integrated view of all of your knowledge to properly assess and reason why these are mistakes. We can conclude of some of the following: an arbitrary claim is incoherent and forms no part of cognition agnosticism as to the nonexistence of God or the devil is an error to deny the senses is insanity, etc Given all the above sorts of all encompassing philosophical issues requiring the WIDEST kinds of integration. With the totality of all your knowledge about reality as it is, material, biological, psychological, your choices, your life, photons and billiard balls, joy and pain, all of it... which of the following is MOST consistent with all of it (the way you can honestly say "there is no God", "senses are valid" etc.are the most consistent with the totality of your knowledge): a) Free will DOES exist, the universe does not obey determinism Free will DOES NOT exist, the universe obeys determinism c) From all of the evidence one MUST BE AGNOSTIC as to whether will is actually free and as to whether the universe is deterministic or not.