Private Property and Greed

[Corey]

Hello everyone! This is my first post as well as a question, but I figure I'll get the I'm new stuff out of the way and say that I'm excited to finally find a place where I can speak with similar minded individuals about current events and what not. I have spent the last couple days reading this forum and I greatly look forward to participating in its community!

While I might be no expert on objectivism, I have read Rand's fictional novels, and recently have started into her non-fiction essays. Hopefully any misunderstandings or holes in my knowledge can be filled by learning from the writings of others on this site as well as her essays.

My question is the following scenario:

I live in Vancouver, Canada (which is a bordello of socialism) and as such I meet significant resistence when discussing my own ideologies with friends. Most of the time, with reason on my side, all that my opponents in a debate can muster is some sort of irrational justification for why we owe our lives in servitude to others. However when discussing private property and taxation, I can get tricked up on a couple questions.

First, if an individual were simply allowed to privatize and own resources, could one company simply not take over all of one natural resource and then hold us hostage to it? For instance if someone was capable of owning all the fresh water in our country - could they not then just set unreasonable prices that we would be forced to pay?

I fear that the questions answer may be so simple that I seem naïve, but I have been unable to come up with a good enough rationalization for why in a completely free market, this would never in fact happen.

Secondly, Government and taxation still seem impossible to me. If we have a completely free market economy, which is entirely independent from the government, how does the government exist? Does it not need to tax the public to pay for itself to exist? Even if the governments only service is the defence of the nation as a whole - how can it exist without income?

These two issues are arguments have plagued me for a while, so any insight would be easing to my mind.

[LeoPTY]

Hi Corey,

I will attempt to answer the first part of your question, but I will leave the second part for someone else since my knowledge of the subject is rudimentary at best.

It would be quite a feat to buy up all of the fresh water in Canada. However, just because your hypothetical company would have the money to buy up all of the water in Canada, it still requires a voluntary sale from the owners of the water supplies. As more and more of these water supplies are bought up, current owners may be reluctant to sell to this large company since they can raise their prices, too.

The wonderful thing about Capitalism is the lack of barriers to entry. If the company does gain control of fresh water supplies in Canada, then yes, they can charge what they want. On the other hand, since the price for water is so high, people will have an incentive to devise new ways to get water. As an idea, people would turn to de-salinating the oceans, or sucking moisture out of the air and putting it into a bottle. In today's world these ideas would be costly compared to taking fresh water from an already existing source, but in a world with higher prices they suddenly become economically viable. Additionally, the higher prices would give people stronger incentive to start looking for new reservoirs and aquifers underground. Heck, people can even import water from other nations. Hong Kong imports its water and its one of the wealthiest nations on Earth. I hope this helps.

Edited May 14, 2008 by LeoPTY

[Corey]

I hope this helps.

It does. Thank you Leo.

[Greebo]

With regard to your second question, here is my own personal conclusion. I haven't pursued this particular topic with others here yet, but it has been on my mind of late.

In a wholly rational society, no individual would take from others what was not paid for (albeit not necessarily with money, see below), just as one would not give to another what had not been paid for.

Therefore, a Government comprised of wholly rational people serving to protect the liberty of its citizens, via military defense, the court system, and the police, would be paid for voluntarily by its citizens, who would recognize the service they were receiving.

Now I move onto theory about how I envision such a system working in practice - this is a work in progress, but I invite comment by anyone.

Now, with regard to what is owed and how to calculate it. What a Government, in a wholly rational society, should exist for is ONLY to protect its citizens from an infringement of their right (note, singular right) and in doing so, objectively determine what constitutes such an infringement. The sole right that such a government would protect is an individuals right to live in rational freedom (that is, not taking by force, fraud, extortion, etc., from any other, nor having things taken from one by same).

Since each individual is paying for the same protection of the right to live - the cost to each individual should be the same: An equal share of the total cost between all citizens. The Government, in recognition that it is providing a service, would present each individuals cost to them in the form of a bill.

An individual is protected in such a system from birth to death, and so an individual should be billed for the service of individual protection starting from birth. The parents or guardians of a child may choose to pay that bill for the child, but I would imagine that instead, the child would be presented with the bill as an accrued debt, payments to begin when they are old enough to begin working to earn their keep (initially for the parents who would give them chores to do in exchange for earnings).

At adulthood (method of determination of adulthood still not fully formented), an individual would be required to pay their bill (or make payments on the debt as arranged with the Government's collection office), or face one single consequence: Loss of ANY say in how the Government operated. In other words, if you want a vote, or to run for office, pay for what the Government does for you.

This is about as far as I've gotten so far...

[Zip]

With regard to your second question, my answer from http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.php?showtopic=12343 follows:

One possibility I've thought of is a lottery. North Americans generate Billions of dollars every year for charities through state and local lotteries. I see no reason why something similar could not be used to fund the government.

Also with the dismantling of the current state much, between 60 and 80% of the current government (not an actual percentage and more just pulled out of thin air than anything else) would need to be sold to privatize the bloated bureaucratic system. Now much of that money would out of necessity be going to pay down debt but some (50%?) should be invested wisely so that "government" became cash self sufficient through wise investment and prudent spending.

Also all land that is now 'government owned' should be sold as and when requested by the citizenry at fair market prices to further fund the government.

I also see no reason why the few government services such as passport control and treasury operations should not be able to fund their own operations and charge a fair market profit for their services.

I encourage you to read the whole topic.

Oh, and it's good to see another Canadian find his way , and find his way here too!

[adrock3215]

In other words, if you want a vote, or to run for office, pay for what the Government does for you.

I disagree. In a laissez-faire environment, one should assume that the majority of individuals will voluntarily fund a government. Why? Because man is for the most part rational, and can be counted on to act in his own interests. However, with regards to the few who do not choose to fund their government: they will still enjoy protection under the law, as is necessary, they will simply be supported by those who do contribute funds to government. In other words: Objectivist-minded individuals will keep government and society intact, as they do now anyway. How's that for a sociology topic.

The important thing to keep in mind here is that individuals will be keeping 100% of their income, and paying no taxes on capital gains, property, and everything else. I don't know about you guys, but that puts a good amount of change in my pocket each year.

In addition to these voluntary funds, the best way to fund a government in a laissez-faire society is to make criminals pay.

[Greebo]

I disagree. In a laissez-faire environment, one should assume that the majority of individuals will voluntarily fund a government. Why? Because man is for the most part rational, and can be counted on to act in his own interests. However, with regards to the few who do not choose to fund their government: they will still enjoy protection under the law, as is necessary, they will simply be supported by those who do contribute funds to government. In other words: Objectivist-minded individuals will keep government and society intact, as they do now anyway. How's that for a sociology topic.

I said nothing about removing their protections. I said that if they choose not to pay for the Government they get, that they should not get a choice in how that government operates. That is, no pay, no vote. NOT, by any means, no pay, no court system, no police protection, no military protection.

Yes, most people would be rational in a l-f environment, but there will always be those who are not rational, and an objective government, which is providing a service to the rational, should not create an opportunity for those who are not rational to take control. That's exactly what happened in the US - the loopholes were used to insert Stateism.

[adrock3215]

Yes, most people would be rational in a l-f environment, but there will always be those who are not rational, and an objective government, which is providing a service to the rational, should not create an opportunity for those who are not rational to take control. That's exactly what happened in the US - the loopholes were used to insert Stateism.

I can see your point here, and it has some validity. The solution is objective (little-O) law governed by objective (little-O) principle. Which means basically throw the whole idea of democracy out the window, where legislation can be made to suit various and sundry interest groups. It should not and would not be possible to pass some sort of legislation (i.e. welfare) antithetical to objectively defined principles. But I see the problem and I would have to think on that more I suppose.

[Zip]

I can see your point here, and it has some validity. The solution is objective (little-O) law governed by objective (little-O) principle. Which means basically throw the whole idea of democracy out the window, where legislation can be made to suit various and sundry interest groups. It should not and would not be possible to pass some sort of legislation (i.e. welfare) antithetical to objectively defined principles. But I see the problem and I would have to think on that more I suppose.

In my opinion it's not impossible to limit government, but those limits must be codified in law (preferably a constitution) and be unalterable without the dissolution of the state.

That might sound harsh but it would ensure any change would be sufficiently drastic that the calls for any change would have to come from an overwhelming majority

[Greebo]

I think one problem inherent in the Constitution is that it doesn't start from philosophical grounds. It doesn't explain, within itself, the intention of the Government. Without reading ancillary works such as the Federalist papers, intent is unclear, and is left to interpretation by judges of very short passages like the bill of rights.

I've been pondering how one could establish a government which included an objective, philosophical review of every act of legislation presented, with the power to forbid any legislation which violated the philosophical principles of the Government.

[Zip]

I've been pondering how one could establish a government which included an objective, philosophical review of every act of legislation presented, with the power to forbid any legislation which violated the philosophical principles of the Government.

I rather like David's post on this thread. With articles within a constitution that resembled something like that it wouldn't be necessary to conduct an Objective review as there would be no possible way to initiate a law outside of the Objectivist framework as laid out in the constitution.

[athena glaukopis]

[Edit] Disclaimer: This is West--I accidentally posted while the computer was signed in as athena--all further posts will be correctly logged.

I think one problem inherent in the Constitution is that it doesn't start from philosophical grounds. It doesn't explain, within itself, the intention of the Government. Without reading ancillary works such as the Federalist papers, intent is unclear, and is left to interpretation by judges of very short passages like the bill of rights.

With just the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, I think it's pretty clear what the intent was of forming the Government:

From the Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

And in the preamble of the Constitution of the United States:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America

Man has nalienable rights, and we're going to institute a Government with the intent of securing them. I think the intent is rather simple and explicit. The problem is that intent is not enough; the terms used are not explicitly defined--judges argue over semantics, rendering many of these words meaningless. 'Rights' are a floating abstraction for most people, or a stolen concept, in the case of people attributing rights to animals (on a side note, that foie gras ban in Chicago is more dangerous than it sounds in my opinion; it's not merely that a particular right is being violated--it's the fact that the concept of rights is going to be destroyed altogether if legislation like this continues, as people will use it as an example for ammunition).

Edited May 15, 2008 by athena glaukopis

[Greebo]

With just the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, I think it's pretty clear what the intent was of forming the Government:

You and I know that, but the courts do not consider the Declaration of Independence, or the preamble, as far as I know, when ruling on the validity of laws. "Promote the general Welfare" is not explicitly clear. Other such langauge is also far too open to interpretation.

Further, under the current court system a law must be challenged before it can be tested.

I am saying that, should the time come when we declare our own independence and form a new, Objectivist Nation (Oooh, can we call it ON, and be "ONions"?) that we must be certain to leave no ambiguity about the intent of any portion, and further, that any new legislation must pass an independent review of Philosophical Judges before it can be enacted - including budgets - to ensure that altruism never gets snuck in under our noses.

[JMeganSnow]

First, if an individual were simply allowed to privatize and own resources, could one company simply not take over all of one natural resource and then hold us hostage to it?

I posit that this is a bad hypothetical because it would be impossible. How is said company going to stop you from putting a rain barrel on your roof and collecting rainwater? The simple truth is that short of owning the entire planet and kicking everyone else off, which you can't do because there's currently nowhere else for them to go. Monopolies like this can't arise in a capitalist system. (And if you did invent space travel and convince everyone else to leave, it still wouldn't matter because then the only value of natural resources would be of what you, personally, could use.) Among other reasons, it ignores the question of *scarcity* and the fact that the more you own of a particular valuable, the more expensive it is to acquire more of it until you reach a prohibitive limit. Attempts to corner the market always end in catastrophic financial ruin . . . for the people who tried to corner it.