Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
dream_weaver

Walter E Williams on What's Rule of Law

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

I agree, but what I'm having difficulty coming to terms with is the "voluntary" nature of paying for a necessity.

Primitive man found or hunted food, and found a cave. He was forced to do so if he wished to stay alive, but his actions were completely voluntary as the term is used in politics... its a different concept, using the same word "force".

Ayn Rand apparently recognized pubic servants as deserving of their paycheck, which then makes working as a government employee a unique form of employment given that your employers can "voluntarily" choose not to pay for the service you provide, n'est-ce pas?

Why would anyone work -- say, as a cop -- if they thought they would not be paid? From the very fact that they exist as (say) cops, we know that they're being paid.

The whole force issue, i.e., coercive taxation vs voluntary taxation, appears to be somewhat of a smoke screen if one "would and should" voluntarily pay for what one otherwise would be coerced to pay for.

The crucial aspect is: who decides? That's what force and voluntary action is all about. Otherwise, what's the point of freedom: let bureaucrats or our fellow-voters decide everything we should. Their level of rationality is probably going to be about average anyway, so -- on average -- we should expect similar outcomes overall? What's the whole point of freedom and voluntary action anyway? Or is freedom to reserved only for unimportant choices?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mark Scott used to refer to government as a necessary evil. If evil is equated with force, by what means is it bound? Government serves as a 'good' for man. Freedom is a value or 'good' for man. To protect freedom (individual rights), government is necessary. Is government the antithesis or the procurer of freedom?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

... Is  the service necessary, which then requires necessary funding, or not?

This places the issue squarely before us. "Need" is the idol before which human sacrifices are required. The cult of need is prevalent and ascendent, Need should not be a blank check on other people's lives, but a demand for individual responsibility. Since needs are inifinite, the moment you make your needs someone else's responsibility is the moment of compulsory human sacrifice.

 

dream_weaver said:

 

"Is government the antithesis or the procurer of freedom?"

 

If only protecting freedom was the sole role of government.... Government has metastasized to become largely an abuser of our freedoms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Primitive man found or hunted food, and found a cave. He was forced to do so if he wished to stay alive, but his actions were completely voluntary as the term is used in politics... its a different concept, using the same word "force".

...

 

Contemporary man is not forced to vote, yet that is the means by which he maintains control of whatever political beast he creates.  Whose fault is it if the beast one day gobbles him up?

 

...

Why would anyone work -- say, as a cop -- if they thought they would not be paid? From the very fact that they exist as (say) cops, we know that they're being paid.

...

 

That they ought to be paid for services rendered is not in dispute, and so long as payment is volunteered in advance of service their work will not be impeded. But that's a thin argument for saying taxes(payment) ought to be voluntary.  Their services are engaged by vote, and payment(taxes) are agreed to by vote, and we are the owner/operators of the business that employs them...  all very voluntarily.

 

...

The crucial aspect is: who decides? That's what force and voluntary action is all about. Otherwise, what's the point of freedom: let bureaucrats or our fellow-voters decide everything we should. Their level of rationality is probably going to be about average anyway, so -- on average -- we should expect similar outcomes overall? What's the whole point of freedom and voluntary action anyway? Or is freedom to reserved only for unimportant choices?

 

We the people decide.

 

Mark Scott used to refer to government as a necessary evil. If evil is equated with force, by what means is it bound? Government serves as a 'good' for man. Freedom is a value or 'good' for man. To protect freedom (individual rights), government is necessary. Is government the antithesis or the procurer of freedom?

 

There are other choices for the role of government than tyrant or pimp.  It is what we want it to be and only reflects our choices to date.

 

Whether or not the government comes after you to pay your taxes, or a utility company comes after you to pay your bill, the point is you will pay for services rendered or face legal consequences.  The owner of the utility company certainly appreciates the government's role in "forcing" you to do what you "would and should" do in any case.

 

It seems to me this "voluntary" tax thingy is more of a placebo than a panacea.  I'll look further into other threads that have addressed it so as not to take up more time here.  Since no one is really disputing the relationship of education to crime reduction, I'll allow that part of my argument to rest for now.

 

As always, thanks for the feedback.

Edited by Devil's Advocate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

American's Want Obama to Repeal the Bill of Rights
From what I can tell, this is just going out to "make" news. What is chilling is the responses.
Unless this is all choreographed and scripted, or he just continues to ask the question until he gets the answers that will fit what he's trying to project . . . Either way I find it disturbing.

 

When I saw DA say "There are other choices for the role of government than tyrant or pimp. It is what we want it to be and only reflects our choices to date."

 

For some reason, I can't just shake my head and say "Nah, that would never happen here."

 

Batter up!

 

I would have to add, if they don't know what rights are, they don't have any. The answers given didn't come across as having the courage of conviction behind them - which just seems to underscore what I underscored.

Edited by dream_weaver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No one, other than dream_weaver, is disputing my claim that ignorance is a significant contributing factor to criminal behavior.  And I think dream_weaver's observation has more to do with the fact that crime would continue to exist even in a fully free society of the kind envisioned by Objectivists.

I'll try to pick an example from my head out of the book and tape:

The criminal views the world differently. In school, they think the others are just conforming, that they do not need to do likewise. They are quick to size people up and identify what they perceive as weakness that can be exploited to get their way, or wiggle out of a jam they find themselves in.

 

The mentality of getting caught is not that they did something morally wrong, rather they did something wrong that got them caught.

 

Piekoff reads the book using psychological analysis to try to identify the philosophical base. I recall the evasion of identity, with strong overtones of primacy of consciousness. They believe they can control others, and this belief gets reinforced through positive feedback derived from the manipulative tactics.

 

They find most people want to believe if they say they won't do it again, they can go on their way, and resume their activities after the scrutiny is slacked.

 

Again, this is just a taste. Both the book and tape are much better than I think I do it justice here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×