Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

CWilliams

Newbies
  • Posts

    10
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About CWilliams

  • Birthday 04/17/1997

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Previous Fields

  • Sexual orientation
    No Answer
  • Relationship status
    Single
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Not Specified
  • Country
    NewZealand
  • Biography/Intro
    17 Year Old High School Student
  • Experience with Objectivism
    I recently read Atlas Shrugged for the first time and would like to learn more about Objectivism
  • Copyright
    Public Domain
  • Real Name
    Curtis Williams
  • Occupation
    Student

CWilliams's Achievements

Novice

Novice (2/7)

0

Reputation

  1. Conclusion 3, so in terms of my hypothetical situation 'The government should operate other 'functions' to the extent it helps serve its purpose of protecting the rights of it's citizens (Defense, Law & Order...) but if these other functions are not a requirement if it can do other things to protect its citizens.' So i can draw the conclusion that just because a Government's purpose is to protect the rights of its citizens it is not limited to only this function, providing additional functions do not hinder its primary function they are acceptable, Thank you you have given me a lot to think about
  2. So the government can not do anything except protect the rights of individuals? Therefore the threads on this site that advocate a 'government' (the organistaion that protects our rights) run lottery to raise money to fund 'government' activities are wrong. Here is an earlier thread that discussed the merits of a government run lottery http://forum.objectivismonline.com/index.php?showtopic=22606&hl=%22voluntary+taxation%22
  3. Ok i think we might be arguing in circles here, If you were writing the constitution for a new state would you restrict government to only being allowed to protect the individual rights of its citizens, therefore prohibiting any other government function regardless of whether it was the wish of the citizens and involved no use of force.? I should have been clearer, basically i have seen a contradiction in other threads and wanted to establish which premise was correct. Premise 1 being 'that the only function of government is to protect the rights of individuals' and premise 2 being that the government could operate as a business in other industries. If the only function of government is to protect the rights of individuals it cannot (as an example) operate a lottery or any other other business (which of course includes my hypothetical educational system). Either the government is allowed any function that competes with/in the private sector (without the use of force) or it is only allowed the one function (of protecting rights).
  4. Here is a hypothetical situation to elaborate on this: In an Objectivist state, a group of elementary school CEO's get together and form an alliance, they decide they want a standardized testing system, they also decide they want this to be administered by the government (Now i'm sure they could do it themselves or hire a private entity but in my hypothetical situation they don't). To fund this testing system they add a small tax to their tuition fees. No force has been used to fund this operation, no force has been used to implement it, no school is forced to use this system and no school (even the ones who use it) are forced to pay for it. Would the government be allowed to provide this service even though it is not 'protecting individual rights'?
  5. I apologize, i don't seem to understand what you are saying could you please elaborate When you say 'squaring majority rule' are you referring to vote buying? (that is my understanding of that term) Why does a government have to be limited to only protecting individual rights? in other threads i have seen no objection to the government running a lottery or any other business venture in order to raise capital, how is running a lottery OK whilst providing an educational system not? Where do we draw the line?
  6. This is a valid point and i think you are correct in assuming that a service provided by private individuals would be more efficient and therefore more desirable. However this is not really my question, i just want to discuss whether government has the right/should be allowed to provide these services
  7. I cannot fault your argument, however, and i'm getting slightly off topic, under a system of voluntary tax i think (and hope) that each individual would have control over which branch of government they are funding. I am implying that there wouldn't be a shared budget, i could give x amount of dollars to the police and y amount of dollars to the military and by purchasing good x (which the producer has voluntarily added a tax on to) i could be giving money to the legal system, etc. (i could go on indefinitely here) I think a 'split' budget would be necessary because some individuals would value the police force higher than they value the military and vice versa. Now, working on the assumption that there is no shared budget and that there is no conflict of interest between different branches of government, would it not be acceptable for the government to provide other services, such as my earlier example of education, on the basis that this function is funded from a budget independent of other government budgets?
  8. Ok, thank you that makes sense. So 'government enterprise' is perfectly acceptable assuming it follows the same laws as 'private enterprise', and to be defined 'governmental' it must include the use of force (such as detaining a criminal, etc.). So, therefore, big government (as in the government providing a large number of services) is not a problem as long as no force is used. Does this mean that from an Objectivist point of view the only problem with a 'welfare state' is that the money used to fund it is taken by force, and less directly implemented by force?
  9. Now obviously everyone here agrees the only function of government should be to protect the rights of its citizens, which means a legal system, police force and a military force. However in a state where all taxation is voluntary would it not be acceptable for the government to have other functions assuming it is not exercising force in funding and/or carrying out these functions? For example if the voters in our hypothetical state decided they wanted government run elementary schools, the voters then voluntary funded these schools, would this not be an acceptable function of government? Basically my question is if no force is exercised why should government be limited, if i decide that it is in my rational self-interest to fund a basic education for children who otherwise couldn't afford it (and enough others also decide this) would it become a justified function of government?
  10. How would currency and monetary supply be controlled in an ideal 'Objectivist' society. I imagine that, under a truly laissez-faire capitalist government, the government would have no control over currency at all. Would there be a Gold Standard such as described in 'Atlas Shrugged', and if so how would this work? (I struggle to grasp the concept of it working at a national level). I always liked Milton Friedman's idea of mechanical system producing money at a steady rate as opposed to the government having direct control.
×
×
  • Create New...