Unjust Laws

[woschei]

Ayn Rand argues, "The right to accept [government scholarships] rests on the right of the victims to the property (or some part of it) which was taken from them by force." Of course, as Rand notes, Objectivists must also advocate the repeal of such programms. But the repeal of unjust laws can have harmful effects on individuals. I think of social security or goverment-run health insurances. When I am sick and old it is maybe impossible to get a private health insurance. Is it always proper to demand a swift repeal of an unjust law or are there cases when a repeal -without compensation- means a second vicitimization?

[argive99]

Ayn Rand argues, "The right to accept [government scholarships] rests on the right of the victims to the property (or some part of it) which was taken from them by force." Of course, as Rand notes, Objectivists must also advocate the repeal of such programms. But the repeal of unjust laws can have harmful effects on individuals. I think of social security or goverment-run health insurances. When I am sick and old it is maybe impossible to get a private health insurance. Is it always proper to demand a swift repeal of an unjust law or are there cases when a repeal -without compensation- means a second vicitimization?

Well in reality, if these laws were to be repealled, which they wont anytime soon, but for arguments sake, the way to argue it would be to suggest a phasing out period so that people that are too old will not be left without the service the government was providing and younger people can make arrangements to provide for their own care. That's the way it would work for social security and health insurance.

But as I said, not any time soon. Sorry to say.

[DPW]

Is it always proper to demand a swift repeal of an unjust law or are there cases when a repeal -without compensation- means a second vicitimization?

That's an interesting question. I would say, however, that your being treated unjustly does not justify extending that injustice to others. Now, does that mean that, if possible, all unjust laws should be repealed at once? I don't think so. I think it would have to be gradual, for a number of reasons, but not primarily out of justness to previous victims.

[DavidOdden]

But the repeal of unjust laws can have harmful effects on individuals. I think of social security or goverment-run health insurances. When I am sick and old it is maybe impossible to get a private health insurance. Is it always proper to demand a swift repeal of an unjust law or are there cases when a repeal -without compensation- means a second vicitimization?

The injustice comes from the means of financing. There is not a shred of moral justification for continuing to tax people for entitlements of any nature. So taxation would be ended immediately, if there were any justice. Then the question is, what should happen to the surplus wealth under the control of the government if taxation were ended -- and the answer is, there isn't any. There is a very large debt which is covered up via creative accounting, and no surplus.

I grant that it would suck for a person to work all their lives in the pious hope that the government will take care of them in their old age and then find that the state isn't going to really take care of you. But no rational person in the US can possibly think that SS will be viable in the long term, and you should recognise now that this is just money that has been stolen with little hope of recovery, and plan accordingly.

The problem with the "I paid into the system, I just want what's coming to me" argument is that it ignores the well-known reality that the government destroys wealth rather than creating it, and therefore at best you can hope to recover a dime on the dollar. Everybody pays into the system, and you cannot wait on ending taxation for everybody to get their full refund. People have learned to depend on the government to take care of them in their old age, so it might seem cruel to make people face reality, and maybe we should not cut on dependence on the state too quickly. The same with the highway system -- gradually taper off. And farm subsidies: many farmers are dependent on those government handouts, so they should be phased out gradually (not!).

I have no doubt that there will be some serious pain coming from a swift end to improper government. Actions have consequences, and the actions of the government over the past 200 years (and really just the past 100 years) will have some significant consequences. Since I don't have any expectation, at this point, that things will get better short of an Atlas-style meltdown, the question is pretty much purely academic.

[argive99]

The problem with the "I paid into the system, I just want what's coming to me" argument is that it ignores the well-known reality that the government destroys wealth rather than creating it, and therefore at best you can hope to recover a dime on the dollar. Everybody pays into the system, and you cannot wait on ending taxation for everybody to get their full refund. People have learned to depend on the government to take care of them in their old age, so it might seem cruel to make people face reality, and maybe we should not cut on dependence on the state too quickly. The same with the highway system -- gradually taper off. And farm subsidies: many farmers are dependent on those government handouts, so they should be phased out gradually (not!).

But there is a big difference between highways and farm subsidies and social security and health care. For eldely people who have been sold the altruistic bill of goods, it wouldn't be right to have taken from them all those years and then cut them off immediately. Certain things should be phased out, others should be killed quickly. But I agree. This is purely academic. There will probable be a collapse of some sort before the government is forced to change its ways. Since when do politicians ever renounce or decrease their power when they don't have to? (Excepting America's Founders)

Lastly, Richard Salsman proposed an interesting way to end SS. He suggested that the government float a major bond issue and pay off all existing claims in one shot and then pay the interest on the bond until maturity. He said the payments would be the same as they are now and that the math would work out due to the increase in tax revenues caused by the massive infusion of wealth into the capital markets.

Of course that too is purely theoretical in today's culture but at least its nice to dream of it.