softwareNerd Posted June 10, 2008 Report Share Posted June 10, 2008 To make this concrete, what would a little Objectivist town do differently from a typical U.S. town? As I understand the plan, it is not simply about "let's all go live near each other". Rather, it is: "Let's all live near each other so we can run the town's government, and demonstrate the effectiveness to others". So, what are the concrete things that other people would see? For instance, they might see what happens when there are no zoning laws... but, then (I think) parts of Texas already don't have those. So, what else: school system? [in my city, the school district is a separate entity, not under the control of the city government; but perhaps some towns do run their own schools.] What are the concrete things that others will see? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zip Posted June 10, 2008 Report Share Posted June 10, 2008 To make this concrete, what would a little Objectivist town do differently from a typical U.S. town? As I understand the plan, it is not simply about "let's all go live near each other". Rather, it is: "Let's all live near each other so we can run the town's government, and demonstrate the effectiveness to others". So, what are the concrete things that other people would see? For instance, they might see what happens when there are no zoning laws... but, then (I think) parts of Texas already don't have those. So, what else: school system? [in my city, the school district is a separate entity, not under the control of the city government; but perhaps some towns do run their own schools.] What are the concrete things that others will see? Privately owned roads, no city property tax, school tax (unless that is done differently in the US), other city taxes that pay for bus lines, leisure centers, art galleries, safe injection sites, homeless centers, garbage collection, Here is a broad list of the services I pay for in Ottawa... * Aboriginal Services * Accessibility Services * Ambulances & Paramedics * Animal Care & Control * Arts * Birth Registration * Budget * Building Code * By-laws * Calendar of Events - Spotlight * Child Care * City Facilities * Client Services * Emergency Management * Employment & Financial Assistance * Environment * Fire * French Language Services * Funding * Health * Heritage * Housing * Hydro * Immigration * Libraries * Licences & Permits * Major Projects * Maps * Parking * Parks & Recreation * Planning * Police * Property Taxes * Provincial Offences Court * Public Consultation * Public Transit * Recycling & Garbage * Rural Connections * Safety and Safe Behaviour * Services for Seniors * Sewers & Wastewater * Statistics * Transportation (Ottawa On the Move) * Trees, Lawns and Gardens * Volunteering * Water * Youth Zone All of this stuff has city fingerprints all over it. Even if on the surface it just looks like an information service you have to consider that there is a cost associated with collecting, producing and publishing the information. I pay for far too much. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
softwareNerd Posted June 10, 2008 Report Share Posted June 10, 2008 Wow Zip, quite a list! I suppose the bigger the city, the more nonsense comes under its umbrella. I did a check on my city's budget. For a home in the $300K - $350L range, the property taxes are about $6000 - $7000 a year. Of this, about $2000-$2500 is directly under the city's control (% expressed as a percent of total property tax): Operating expenses: 18% Drains and Capital expenses: 1% Parks: 2% Public Safety: 4% Interest on debt: 2% Then, there is about $4000 - $4500 that is collected via city property-taxes, but is then sent in to the country or the school district (I assume mandated by the state): County : 11% Intermediate Schools : 9% Community College : 4% State Education : 16% Supplemental : 22% School Debt : 5% County parks & rec : 1% H.C.M.A. : 1% Country Transport Authority: 2% This is a decent-sized (33 sq. mile, population 80,000 people) suburban city. About two thirds of the money paid is mandated by the state. Now, if one were to look at one of the tiny little towns -- you'll find far less that is paid to the town government itself. A tiny town will often not have a cop, but will be policed by the county sheriff. They probably won't have a library (though I have heard of a one-person town that had one). If one considers a smaller town -- say 1000 people -- my guess if that the city government itself does not keep much of the tax-money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seeker Posted June 10, 2008 Author Report Share Posted June 10, 2008 I think the effects would become concrete with growth when the town would restrain the usual impulse towards increased taxes, services, and regulations. This of course would require gradually converting non-Objectivists who would join the town, to continue its policies, and assumes a strong potential for growth. Clearly it is not a given that Van Tassel is the best starting point. Other than just low population (chosen for the presumed speed of converting the town and surrounding areas), the location should be selected based on factors such as those already mentioned, such as the degree to which existing residents might be amenable to Objectivism, the proximity to other cities and economic centers, and the degree of power granted to town government by state law. The trade-off is the greater difficulty, at the outset, of assembling an Objectivist government in a larger town. All of these are factors to consider in forming the best strategy. Since Objectivism is not merely a political platform but a fully integrated philosophy that must be spread whole lest the political implementation collapse, any version of plan will have to deal with how to convert people to Objectivism. Forming political alliances with non-Objectivists to gain power runs the risk if not outright certainty of compromise which is wholly inadmissible. The plan therefore relies upon Objectivist electoral majorities; the question is how to create those majorities. One way is to start with a sufficient number of Objectivists at the outset, as envisaged here; another would be to create that number by converting existing residents through philosophically-oriented election campaigns. Objectivism, because it incorporates politics, will not be fully realized until Objectivists actually run for and hold political office at all levels of government, which in turn depends upon converting a majority of the residents. The premise of this plan is that federal and state majorities can be hastened by the establishment of Objectivist governments at the local level to serve as positive examples. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greebo Posted June 10, 2008 Report Share Posted June 10, 2008 (edited) In such a small town starting scenario, correct me if I'm mistaken but would not the *only* function of the local government then be operating the police and a small court? Or would the courts be the purview of the state? Rather than take over an existing small town, would we not be better served by starting from the ground up, and buying reasonably centrally located, empty land for cheap and creating our own new community? Van Tassel has an area of 4.3 sq km, or approx 1062 acres. There is property available in parts of PA three times that size for under $200,000, if the search tools I've used are accurate. (Link) That's actually pretty close to Frederick, MD, Harrisburg, PA and Gettysburg, PA. (But that price seems awfully low for that acreage in the region...) I wonder what it would take simply to incorporate a new town in PA or WV or MD. Edited June 10, 2008 by Greebo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grames Posted June 10, 2008 Report Share Posted June 10, 2008 This idea is doomed to fail because non-objectivists have a right to move into your town and take over. Democracy, you know. If there is any degree of success at all the founding principles would be overthrown the instant the objectivists lose the majority. This is why it has to be 'philosophy first'. It needs to be 'epistemology first' before you can even communicate civilly with your fellow citizens. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seeker Posted June 10, 2008 Author Report Share Posted June 10, 2008 This idea is doomed to fail because non-objectivists have a right to move into your town and take over. Democracy, you know. If there is any degree of success at all the founding principles would be overthrown the instant the objectivists lose the majority. This is why it has to be 'philosophy first'. It needs to be 'epistemology first' before you can even communicate civilly with your fellow citizens. This is rather like saying that failure is inevitable because success is not guaranteed. As I pointed out, philosophical education must occur in tandem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KevinDW78 Posted June 10, 2008 Report Share Posted June 10, 2008 I absolutely am ready to "shrug" but for me, the biggest thing I want to escape is federal taxation. Come up with an idea for a Ragnar arm of local government whose goal it is to reimburse me (somehow) for the federal taxes taken from me and you can count me in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zip Posted June 10, 2008 Report Share Posted June 10, 2008 (edited) This idea is doomed to fail because non-objectivists have a right to move into your town and take over. Democracy, you know. If there is any degree of success at all the founding principles would be overthrown the instant the objectivists lose the majority. This is why it has to be 'philosophy first'. It needs to be 'epistemology first' before you can even communicate civilly with your fellow citizens. So suddenly non-Objectivists is going to move in to O-Town? Why? If they were attracted by the low taxes and personal freedom then they would already have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. On the other hand I also doubt that a group of non-Objectivists large enough to seize control of the town would move in all at once. The question again would be why would they? The other thing you have overlooked is the fact that in O-Town there is no public property. Every square inch would be owned by someone and therefore it is logical to assume that Objectivists would have complete and legal control of whom they sell their land to and therefore complete and legal control of who lives within the borders of O-Town. I could imagine such a town expanding as O'ists buy up surrounding land and voluntarily incorporate their land into the town limits. this is all based on co-operation, not compulsion and does not in any way contravene Democracy or O'ist principal. Edited June 10, 2008 by Zip Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greebo Posted June 10, 2008 Report Share Posted June 10, 2008 I absolutely am ready to "shrug" but for me, the biggest thing I want to escape is federal taxation. Come up with an idea for a Ragnar arm of local government whose goal it is to reimburse me (somehow) for the federal taxes taken from me and you can count me in. Until such time as the United States abolishes Freedom of Speech (either directly, or indirectly by manipulating the media), such an action would be, I believe, unjustified. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zip Posted June 10, 2008 Report Share Posted June 10, 2008 Until such time as the United States abolishes Freedom of Speech (either directly, or indirectly by manipulating the media), such an action would be, I believe, unjustified. What, the shrugging or the reimbursement? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greebo Posted June 10, 2008 Report Share Posted June 10, 2008 What, the shrugging or the reimbursement? Both. The shrugging because as long as we can speak freely and attempt to influence the people to change direction, we should do so. The reimbursement for the same reason. The USA still basically respects individual liberty. Until and unless that stops being true, we should work within the system and attempt to change it that way. Making a new town to demonstrate our methods would still work within the system. Shrugging, as illustrated by AS, means total washing of ones hands of the system, contributing NOTHING extra to it, and making a new place to live that avoids the existing system. Can't have our cake and eat it too - either we shrug completely or we keep working the system while we can. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zip Posted June 10, 2008 Report Share Posted June 10, 2008 Both. The shrugging because as long as we can speak freely and attempt to influence the people to change direction, we should do so. The reimbursement for the same reason. The USA still basically respects individual liberty. Until and unless that stops being true, we should work within the system and attempt to change it that way. Making a new town to demonstrate our methods would still work within the system. Shrugging, as illustrated by AS, means total washing of ones hands of the system, contributing NOTHING extra to it, and making a new place to live that avoids the existing system. Can't have our cake and eat it too - either we shrug completely or we keep working the system while we can. Ok, i see your point but I think you and KevinDW78 are arguing semantics, not practices. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greebo Posted June 10, 2008 Report Share Posted June 10, 2008 Ok, i see your point but I think you and KevinDW78 are arguing semantics, not practices. Perhaps. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael McGuire Posted June 10, 2008 Report Share Posted June 10, 2008 I like what I'm hearing so far. I just can't see Objectivism making any tangible headway politically without some actual implementation of Objectivist principles with which to demonstrate that it could work, even if its just a small town Objectivist laboratory. The whole idea of staying integrated in society and trying to transform from within is pure fantasy in my opinion; you're never going to convince enough people to get on board with the grand societal transformation that is needed in an established country. It has to be done in pieces here if at all, but only to demonstrate the possibilities. One problem that may arise as time goes on, once the O Town is up and running, is preserving the philosophical culture through the generations. There are no guarantees one's children, or one's children's children, will choose Objectivism as one's life philosophy, and thus the whole societal order could break down. We are simply intellectually masterbating with the ideas of an Objectivism-based society unless practical steps such as this are implemented. O-Towns could spring up all over, but the eventual goal should be the establishment of an Objectivist nation state, e.g. Israel, carved out of another state. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve D'Ippolito Posted June 10, 2008 Report Share Posted June 10, 2008 So suddenly non-Objectivists is going to move in to O-Town? Why? If they were attracted by the low taxes and personal freedom then they would already have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. On the other hand I also doubt that a group of non-Objectivists large enough to seize control of the town would move in all at once. The question again would be why would they? It happens all the time. Californians moving to Nevada (or Colorado) because they like the lower taxes and fewer silly government restrictions... then voting them in. The only thing that has saved Colorado has been tax limitation, and that is eroding as more and more governments contrive a funding emergency (by e.g., spending money on "liberal" pet projects like toy mass transit trains (we couldn't get local government here to spend any damned money on their roads until we also gave them fucking useless mass transit, which will continue to drain money out of our pockets forever) and letting public safety and roads rot), and manage to get them repealed. Likewise with Massachusetts and New Hampshire. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KevinDW78 Posted June 10, 2008 Report Share Posted June 10, 2008 What about Paulville? http://paulville.org/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zip Posted June 10, 2008 Report Share Posted June 10, 2008 What about Paulville? http://paulville.org/ The process is forming a co-op of people buying shares in the community and these people would be granted land use at a minimum of 1 acre per share, for as long as they homesteaded the land. I never got farther than this sentence before the loaded connotations of it scared me off. 1. I don't EVER want to be a part of something called a "co-op", as in cooperative as in petit socialist enclave... 2. Buying shares of the community? and being "granted" land use? Ex-fucking-scuse me? If I buy it I don't need to be granted the use of it. I OWN IT!!! 3. Reference #2 above I OWN IT FOREVER, not until some co-op decides I don't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DragonMaci Posted June 10, 2008 Report Share Posted June 10, 2008 I could imagine such a town expanding as O'ists buy up surrounding land and voluntarily incorporate their land into the town limits. That makes a lot of sense. My farm example above is also a perfect example of that. I'd start off small, but I'd gradually expand until I had 100+ acres, all of which I'd of incorporated into the town's limits. The whole idea of staying integrated in society and trying to transform from within is pure fantasy in my opinion; you're never going to convince enough people to get on board with the grand societal transformation that is needed in an established country. It has to be done in pieces here if at all, but only to demonstrate the possibilities. That won't work in all countries. In many countries, eg, NZ, the system has no room for that. The smallest level of government in NZ incorporates tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of people and the laws don't allow it the leeway to do as Seeker proposes. Only a change to the national system would change that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Anthem Posted June 20, 2008 Report Share Posted June 20, 2008 Free State Project Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EC Posted June 20, 2008 Report Share Posted June 20, 2008 Free State Project See this thread as to why the FSP is no good. Live Free or Die Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Anthem Posted June 20, 2008 Report Share Posted June 20, 2008 Ah, alright. I just found that site and decided to post it. I was excited for a moment too, I live in Maine so I could conceivably get to NH. Oh, well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zip Posted June 21, 2008 Report Share Posted June 21, 2008 http://maps.google.ca/maps?hl=en&ie=UT...mp;t=h&z=11 Cockburn island is a Canadian equivalent. It is the least populated incorporated municipality in Canada. The Islands area is approximately 56sq miles (143 sq Km) maximum population is about 200 and that is only in the summer (cottagers) the rest of the year the place is a 'ghost municipality' with 10? permanent residents. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zip Posted June 22, 2008 Report Share Posted June 22, 2008 http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080621/od_uk_...zuyTiiMAuWs0NUE Too bad the island is only 2.5 acres in area. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
israel Posted July 27, 2008 Report Share Posted July 27, 2008 i smell revolution! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.