politics and economy in government. separable?

[cab21]

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.

[Hairnet]

 Ouch! The run on sentences!

 

I am not really picky about grammar or spelling, but could you take the time to rewrite your post? 

[bluecherry]

Long story short: donations.

 

Long story a little less short: The government would be voluntarily funded. "But what about all the freeloaders?! What if nobody wants to pay and expects everybody else to pay for it?!" The more somebody has to lose the more motive they have to donate to a government that will protect it all. If the choice was seriously down to people either choose to start paying up or the government effectively ceases to exist - not just some hollow threat - I highly doubt that this would be such a huge problem. The government having ceased so many illegitimate operations means it would require far less financially too, making it far easier to sufficiently fund it without bleeding citizens dry.  Why would somebody choose to fund a government (supposing it was a good one) rather than just rely on private security measures alone? It's a lot like why anybody would get insurance. By pooling resources people can maintain a system that has far more it can do than what they could have afforded all on their own. A much larger protection system is thus there for anybody when and if they should find themselves in a serious, potentially very expensive emergency and without having to just make sure they have enormous funds all of their own on hand at all times just in case of any such emergencies. "But wait! Couldn't people pool resources still by having lots of people pay a private security force?" While they can certainly do that, and I wouldn't be surprised if many people still did in addition to having the government, the government getting funds from most of the citizens will still be more powerful than one of several or more private security forces with a much smaller clientele. With no central governing body that obviously has the most resources and just a bunch of competing private groups in a territory instead there's a high risk for things devolving into conflicts and confusion that are often resolved simply by a matter of, "Yeah, well, my army is bigger than your army, so I win, we do it my way." Supposing we had a government that stuck to its real purpose rather than just doing pretty much whatever they feel like and think they can get away with, we should have a very stable system with predictable rules for things rather than having uncertainty on whose various rules one may find themselves subject to at any given time. I mentioned that some people may still want private security forces in addition to having a good government. Why would anybody still want these private forces perhaps? The government can't have people everywhere all the time. Private security forces may exist to do what is necessary to help protect a person from a criminal until government forces can arrive and take over.

 

Now, as for how the military would function as far as getting resources goes, it would work pretty much like it does now I expect. How would we get any difference in results from how things are now though? 1) The government people who are in charge of picking the people to run the military and allocating their resources are doing that allocating with voluntary funding and 2) they do not have any authority to pass laws which would economically benefit somebody in particular as a way of obtaining favors or giving special treatment to certain people based on if they like them or not.

 

When Galt said to fire government employees relating to the economy, he didn't mean the government should have zero employees. Lots of positions should be cut though because they are performing illegitimate actions (many of which are largely responsible for how bad the economy was in the story) or else because they're basically useless and just there to collect a pay check because somebody they know in the government got them a job as a favor because they just like that person.

 

A large part of why a private army of some sort may play a significant role in a story like Atlas Shrugged is because in the story the government has become worse than useless, completely unreliable for the functions it is supposed to serve and even flying in the face of their purpose to the point that they are making life almost impossible for citizens. It's reached the point where the government is operating as effectively just a glorified gang. Keep in mind though just how extreme the situation is in the story. A government can be pretty darn crappy before it reaches the point where it may be justified for private citizens to take on the functions meant for government. To be clear, I don't think we are at or are even very near such a point in the United States right now, highly flawed as our current government is.

 

As for how things operated in Galt's Gulch, the highly secret and selective nature of the place and its citizens meant that a situation never arose where they needed government intervention and they could be quite confident that such a thing would not have happened. There's no way to obtain such trustworthiness of a general population of a country as opposed to some small, private, hidden place. Retreating into the Gulch or something like it permanently wasn't a desirable alternative to getting the government fixed because life in the Gulch was vastly more limited in what people could do and get than in the outside world. Not to mention, there is still the off chance other people would find them eventually. And in the story they know they can't have found every decent person and brought them to the Gulch, so there are good people out there still being subject to rampant, potentially even deadly systematic injustice. Those good people out there in the world the story takes place in have no even relatively safe alternative place to go to because every other country in the world has already become even worse than the United States.

 

Also, about charging more when there is mutual benefit anyway, are you thinking of things like when Galt and Dagny rented a car from somebody else in the Gulch? The point there wasn't that one should never charge less or no money to people when there are other benefits involved in the exchange. The point was that everybody there in the Gulch was sick to death of having to give things away to people who have been expecting favors. They chose to charge for things even between friends and when there was clearly other mutual benefits involved because it was a relief to everybody there to just not have to deal with favors for a while. Also, thematically, this is included in the story for the point that these good people don't hate money and embrace producing goods and services in order to earn things. There's pride involved in paying for and being paid for stuff that they like getting at all opportunities in the Gulch given how starved they are of such attitudes and opportunities when they are out in the world for the other 11 months each year.

[softwareNerd]

... ..., but how does the military stay out of the economy, when a military needs resources?

To that extent, it does not, nor should it.

[Devil's Advocate]

Politics and the economy are separable, and necessarily so, for the same reason politics and religion are seperable; liberty.  Our government is tasked with securing the liberty to trade (free commerce), and to worship (or not to).  The economic equivalent of a secular state is laissez-fair capitalism.  Unfortunately, democratic majorities tend to dabble in both areas under the Constitutional premise of promoting the general welfare.  The 'impass' between public and private referred to results from individuals in positions of political power trying to "level the playing field" according to the bias of their constituency, rather than securing the playing field from the kind of favoritism political majorities tend to express.

[cab21]

Ouch! The run on sentences!

 

I am not really picky about grammar or spelling, but could you take the time to rewrite your post?

 

 

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.

Edited May 5, 2013 by cab21

[cab21]

Long story short: donations.

 

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.

 

Long story a little less short: The government would be voluntarily funded. "But what about all the freeloaders?! What if nobody wants to pay and expects everybody else to pay for it?!" The more somebody has to lose the more motive they have to donate to a government that will protect it all. If the choice was seriously down to people either choose to start paying up or the government effectively ceases to exist - not just some hollow threat - I highly doubt that this would be such a huge problem. The government having ceased so many illegitimate operations means it would require far less financially too, making it far easier to sufficiently fund it without bleeding citizens dry.  Why would somebody choose to fund a government (supposing it was a good one) rather than just rely on private security measures alone? It's a lot like why anybody would get insurance. By pooling resources people can maintain a system that has far more it can do than what they could have afforded all on their own. A much larger protection system is thus there for anybody when and if they should find themselves in a serious, potentially very expensive emergency and without having to just make sure they have enormous funds all of their own on hand at all times just in case of any such emergencies. "But wait! Couldn't people pool resources still by having lots of people pay a private security force?" While they can certainly do that, and I wouldn't be surprised if many people still did in addition to having the government, the government getting funds from most of the citizens will still be more powerful than one of several or more private security forces with a much smaller clientele. With no central governing body that obviously has the most resources and just a bunch of competing private groups in a territory instead there's a high risk for things devolving into conflicts and confusion that are often resolved simply by a matter of, "Yeah, well, my army is bigger than your army, so I win, we do it my way." Supposing we had a government that stuck to its real purpose rather than just doing pretty much whatever they feel like and think they can get away with, we should have a very stable system with predictable rules for things rather than having uncertainty on whose various rules one may find themselves subject to at any given time. I mentioned that some people may still want private security forces in addition to having a good government. Why would anybody still want these private forces perhaps? The government can't have people everywhere all the time. Private security forces may exist to do what is necessary to help protect a person from a criminal until government forces can arrive and take over.

 

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.

 

Now, as for how the military would function as far as getting resources goes, it would work pretty much like it does now I expect. How would we get any difference in results from how things are now though? 1) The government people who are in charge of picking the people to run the military and allocating their resources are doing that allocating with voluntary funding and 2) they do not have any authority to pass laws which would economically benefit somebody in particular as a way of obtaining favors or giving special treatment to certain people based on if they like them or not.

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.

 

When Galt said to fire government employees relating to the economy, he didn't mean the government should have zero employees. Lots of positions should be cut though because they are performing illegitimate actions (many of which are largely responsible for how bad the economy was in the story) or else because they're basically useless and just there to collect a pay check because somebody they know in the government got them a job as a favor because they just like that person.

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.

A large part of why a private army of some sort may play a significant role in a story like Atlas Shrugged is because in the story the government has become worse than useless, completely unreliable for the functions it is supposed to serve and even flying in the face of their purpose to the point that they are making life almost impossible for citizens. It's reached the point where the government is operating as effectively just a glorified gang. Keep in mind though just how extreme the situation is in the story. A government can be pretty darn crappy before it reaches the point where it may be justified for private citizens to take on the functions meant for government. To be clear, I don't think we are at or are even very near such a point in the United States right now, highly flawed as our current government is.

i think the government that initiates force is ganglike, and there is never any gaurentee that government officials won't initiate force.

 

As for how things operated in Galt's Gulch, the highly secret and selective nature of the place and its citizens meant that a situation never arose where they needed government intervention and they could be quite confident that such a thing would not have happened. There's no way to obtain such trustworthiness of a general population of a country as opposed to some small, private, hidden place. Retreating into the Gulch or something like it permanently wasn't a desirable alternative to getting the government fixed because life in the Gulch was vastly more limited in what people could do and get than in the outside world. Not to mention, there is still the off chance other people would find them eventually. And in the story they know they can't have found every decent person and brought them to the Gulch, so there are good people out there still being subject to rampant, potentially even deadly systematic injustice. Those good people out there in the world the story takes place in have no even relatively safe alternative place to go to because every other country in the world has already become even worse than the United States.

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.

 

Also, about charging more when there is mutual benefit anyway, are you thinking of things like when Galt and Dagny rented a car from somebody else in the Gulch? The point there wasn't that one should never charge less or no money to people when there are other benefits involved in the exchange. The point was that everybody there in the Gulch was sick to death of having to give things away to people who have been expecting favors. They chose to charge for things even between friends and when there was clearly other mutual benefits involved because it was a relief to everybody there to just not have to deal with favors for a while. Also, thematically, this is included in the story for the point that these good people don't hate money and embrace producing goods and services in order to earn things. There's pride involved in paying for and being paid for stuff that they like getting at all opportunities in the Gulch given how starved they are of such attitudes and opportunities when they are out in the world for the other 11 months each year.

 

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.

[softwareNerd]

how does the government choose who to buy from, and the terms of the deal, without playing a part in the economy?

The government ought to play a role in the economy, in that sense. It is a good thing.

[2046]

It should be pretty obvious that by "separation of state and economy" Rand didn't intend to make the weird claim that the government would somehow exist in a separate plane of existence than "the economy." I thought it was pretty clear that she meant something like "the government shouldn't regulate the economy," which means that she favored a laissez-faire policy.

[cab21]

It should be pretty obvious that by "separation of state and economy" Rand didn't intend to make the weird claim that the government would somehow exist in a separate plane of existence than "the economy." I thought it was pretty clear that she meant something like "the government shouldn't regulate the economy," which means that she favored a laissez-faire policy.

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?

 

 

 

 

 

[softwareNerd]

... ... what she means or does not mean be the economy and economic activity... ...

I assume you have not read Rand's non-fiction. Those are a better place to get a clearer understanding of her views, and to build upon what you've seen in "Atlas". Her two main essays are "Man's Rights" and "The Nature of Government". Check out those links.

Edited May 6, 2013 by softwareNerd

[cab21]

Property rights and the right of free trade are man’s only “economic

rights” (they are, in fact, political rights)—

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.