Compromising Principles

[JMeganSnow]

Imagine a slave forced to work in a cotton field. Every day that he does not try to escape, or put down the agressor (the slave master), isn't he living for the sake of another man? How is that different from forced taxation, and how would a slave or taxpayer ever be able to say "I swear by my life... never to live for the sake of another man"?

You're assuming that there are no guards and no risk involved in disobedience. If there were NO risk and the "slave" didn't just laugh and walk off, then yes, he'd be making an immoral choice. When the risk involved is greater than zero then you must begin to calculate whether the gain is worth the risk. What is the slave's situation? What will be the consequences of attempting to escape? Is there anywhere to escape TO? Are there ways to minimize risk, say, by working with apparent diligence for a while until the guards become lazy and inattentive? Is the overseer a nitwit elected by the slave and all the other farm workers? Does the slave still have the ability to try to convince the other farm workers to elect a new overseer and scrap this "slavery" plan?

All these are important questions that must be answered before a particular course of action can be selected.

[brian0918]

She is, and her brief summary statement in that quote is explained at great length elsewhere in Objectivist literature written by her AND by Dr. Peikoff, so stop quoting out of context and start using your own brain.

I'm trying to think this out on my own rather than read and absorb it. Isn't that using my brain?

Peikoff explains that, suppose a random stranger were to come up to you and demand ALL of your money and you, under no duress of any sort, as your idea of a compromise, decide to offer him, say, half of your money. That would constitute sanctioning the burglar's activities and leave you with no means to protest when he comes back tomorrow.

If, instead, the stranger threatened you with force and, under those circumstances, you parted with the money. There is no question of sanction: you are acting under duress. It doesn't matter whether the threat was open, obvious, and immediate or discreet and implied--the duress is real and the term "voluntary" no longer applies.

Alright, I understand that. So the burglar, in this case the govt, is demanding X% of my income, allowing me to continue with my life while funding their activities. If they demanded 100% of my income as taxes, and I said, "how about just 50%", then I would be sanctioning? It seems really contrived though if it's fleshed out in more detail I'll check it out.

Edited March 25, 2009 by brian0918

[JMeganSnow]

If they demanded *without any threat* and you said "how about just 50%?" that'd be sanction. If they demanded *with* threats, you'd just be trying to salvage what you could. At the moment our elected burglars are trying to play this careful game where they try to tax as much as they can while not enraging enough people to make overthrowing the gov't a winning proposition. Our best strategy, at the moment, consists of convincing as many people as possible that they ought to be enraged over this taxation business--it's the best risk-minimizing strategy given the current level of burdens placed upon us. However, that could change radically if, say, it becomes illegal (and thus dangerous) to try and convince other people that the gov't is bad or if the tax burden increases dramatically or any number of other things happen.

As Yaron Brook said, it's not time to quit, it's time to fight. That's not to say that the situation won't change, but there's nothing to be gained by ignoring the facts and taking drastic measures when they aren't (yet) necessary.

I'm trying to think this out on my own rather than read and absorb it. Isn't that using my brain?

Technically, making things up out of whole cloth is still "using" your brain, what it isn't is using your brain properly. Reading and absorbing is very important because you have to have material and learn the right methods before you can get good at thinking things out on your own. Even once you've gotten good, you still have to go back and check all your conclusions to see if they work.

I've seen a LOT of this "quitting" business from a tremendous number of people and I've even spent some time thinking about it myself and trying to figure out what I'd need in order to do it, which is how I came to agree with the conclusion that it's just stupid at this point. Maybe it'll help you if you go out and look at some of the schemes people have come up with for quitting and see just how impractical they really are.

Edited March 25, 2009 by JMeganSnow

[Grames]

Whether or not one is under duress is an objective fact, not a subjective mental state. When the gov't demands X% of your income on pain of imprisonment you are under duress. No degree of compliance with a demand constitutes sanction when under duress.

[Jake_Ellison]

And if a slave/taxpayer can't be seen to ever be living "for the sake of another man", then what is an example of someone actually living for the sake of another?

Someone choosing life for any reason except that he likes it.

[edit] Another way of saying the same thing: Someone who sacrifices something.

Let me expand: You have the world, people, their actions, etc.. These are given. Your life is a series of choices, within that which is given: pay taxes vs. refuse and go to jail, do your homework and get a good grade vs. party and get a bad grade, etc.

So, if within the context of what is given (school, the government, taxes), you make a choice by which you knowingly give up something of greater value to you for something of lesser value, that's a sacrifice, so you've broken your promise.

And the fact that school grades are fair and taxes aren't has nothing to do with it. The evil people commit is just as real as the bad things that happen in nature, and you can't ignore either. The only difference is that evil may sometimes be defeated using only words, nature on the other hand needs a shove.

Edited March 25, 2009 by Jake_Ellison

[DavidOdden]

You say an offer isn't a surrender.

No, I say surrendering is not offering. You may surrender without offering. Any offer (to sacrifice value) is surrender.

[MichaelH]

Alright, I understand that. So the burglar, in this case the govt, is demanding X% of my income, allowing me to continue with my life while funding their activities. If they demanded 100% of my income as taxes, and I said, "how about just 50%", then I would be sanctioning? It seems really contrived though if it's fleshed out in more detail I'll check it out.

The difference between the scenario you quoted and taxes is who does the bargaining.

Scenario A:

The government walks up to you and says "I have a gun and you know it. Give me x% of your income or I'll take everything you own and throw you in jail." There is no rational choice involved here. You do what the person with the gun says. Your response is, effectively, "You are not right to do this, but here you go."

Scenario B:

The government walks up to you and says "I have a gun and you know it. Give me everything you own." You say, "Instead of taking everything, how about just taking x%?" You are now bargaining, and surrendering your principles.

In scenario A, you are rational. In scenario B, you are sanctioning. This seems clear.

Scenario C seems to be what the OP had in mind:

The government walks up to you and says "I have a gun and you know it. Give me 15% of your income." You say "Instead of taking 15%, how about taking 10%?" This is bargaining and surrendering your principles.

No matter what, the government has a gun. You are not acting as a free rational agent here. The percentage isn't what matters. Your response to the demand is what matters.

[Edit: changed "compromising your principles" to "surrendering your principles"]

Edited March 25, 2009 by MichaelH

[TuringAI]

Miss Rand addresses the essential issue here:

Okay, another question... is it okay to break an unjust law that one knows one cannot fight on legal grounds by running to another country that is offering a safe haven? I would say this applies just as much to the draft as it would to tax-evasion.

[Jake_Ellison]

The government walks up to you and says "I have a gun and you know it. Give me 15% of your income." You say "Instead of taking 15%, how about taking 10%?" This is bargaining and surrendering your principles.

No it's not. The principle (simplified) is that robbing people is wrong. If I started robbing people, then I would be surrendering my principle.

[Grames]

No matter what, the government has a gun. You are not acting as a free rational agent here. The percentage isn't what matters. Your response to the demand is what matters.

No. If you are not acting as a rational free agent, then the response to the demand does not and can not matter. If you can bargain down the amount of the robbery, that is actually a good thing in the sense of cutting one's losses.

[JMeganSnow]

Okay, another question... is it okay to break an unjust law that one knows one cannot fight on legal grounds by running to another country that is offering a safe haven? I would say this applies just as much to the draft as it would to tax-evasion.

Absolutely. The problem is that there's no such thing as a safe haven from taxation. But if you can run and get away with it (and you won't be giving up more than you gain), then do so.

[brian0918]

No. If you are not acting as a rational free agent, then the response to the demand does not and can not matter. If you can bargain down the amount of the robbery, that is actually a good thing in the sense of cutting one's losses.

Now I'm completely confused. Jake, Grames, MichaelH, JMeganSnow, David all seem to be disagreeing with eachother. If a burgler demands 10% of my money (with or without a gun) and I offer 5% instead, is that a surrender of principles? I think Jake and Grames say no, MichaelH and David say yes, JMeganSnow says it depends on if he has a gun to your head.

Edited March 25, 2009 by brian0918

[Grames]

Now I'm completely confused. Jake, Grames, MichaelH, JMeganSnow, David all seem to be disagreeing with eachother. If a burgler demands 10% of my money (with or without a gun) and I offer 5% instead, is that a surrender of principles? I think Jake and Grames say no, MichaelH and David say yes, JMeganSnow says it depends on if he has a gun to your head.

Freedom to act is a prerequisite for moral responsibility.

To offer 5% when 10% was demanded at gunpoint is actually a form of resistance. It is a logical equivocation and point of confusion to use the word 'offer' for actions under duress and actions not under duress.

[brian0918]

It is a logical equivocation and point of confusion to use the word 'offer' for actions under duress and actions not under duress.

Alright but I believe others here disagree with you on that point. I think David/Jennifer would say that it is a surrender of your principles for you to do that.

Edited March 25, 2009 by brian0918

[softwareNerd]

Now I'm completely confused. Jake, Grames, MichaelH, JMeganSnow, David all seem to be disagreeing with eachother. If a burgler demands 10% of my money (with or without a gun) and I offer 5% instead, is that a surrender of principles? I think Jake and Grames say no, MichaelH and David say yes, JMeganSnow says it depends on if he has a gun to your head.

We need a poll!

If force is in play, all bets are off. The question of surrendering one's principles does not arise: those principles assume freedom of choice.

I don't access to the books right now, but I think the part you quoted was simply Rand exploring the nature of compromise. There can be no legitimate compromise between you and the force-wielding thief (qua thief). There can only be surrender. However, that is not a surrender of one's principles.

[JeffS]

I understood the allusion. What you missed, I think, is the question of whether there are any remaining rational values for her in running the railroad. I'm telling you that paying taxes is not the same as "living for the sake of others". The lack of value for your life is what makes staying and running the railroad altruism.

I think I understand your argument now. You're arguing that simply because some use you for their own benefit does not mean you're living for their sake; that consciously choosing to give up your values for them constitutes surrendering your principles, but you can go on living for your own sake even though others may latch onto you.

Do I have that right?

You haven't identified the principle. There is no principle in Objectivism that says "you must withdraw fron society if anyone ever initiates force against you". Try to clearly identify the principle that you are proposing. Are you claiming that you must sacrifice yourself in order to prevent someone else from initiating force against you? That is not an Objectivist principle. Fill in the blank -- what Objectivist moral principle would you propose of the type "When someone initiates force against you, you should ____".

I would fill in the blank with, "protect yourself." The principle is, "Never live for the sake of another, nor ask another to live for mine." I interpreted the quote to mean something like, "I will never allow others to use me, nor will I use others." Now, that seems unreasonable since we all use each other even as free traders. I was applying only the negative connotation of the word "use."

Would someone who receives welfare be considered to be asking others to live for their sake, or must they support such programs? It seems to me acceptance of the productive efforts of others with no value offered in return represents at least a tacit support of such a program. In that case, the latter part of the quote would apply - those who receive welfare would be asking others to live for their sake. It seems the former part of the quote should also apply for those who are forced to give up their productive efforts - they are living for the sake of others. If I understand your argument above, however, those who are forced to give up their productive efforts aren't necessarily living for the sake of others; it just so happens that, in pursuing their own lives (possibly for the sake of their own lives) they have the resources with which to accede to the demands of others.

[JeffS]

You clearly have no idea what "pragmatic" actually means.

I can't imagine what led you to this conclusion.

Pragmatism - "In ordinary usage, pragmatism refers to behavior which temporarily sets aside one ideal to pursue a lesser, more achievable ideal."

If the ideal is for everyone to be an end in themselves, to not use some as the means to others' ends, then allowing the government to subvert that through welfare taxation represents a setting aside of that ideal so we can pursue a lesser, more achievable ideal. You can certainly debate whether I have the ideal right, and you can argue there's a higher ideal we're pursuing, but your hasty conclusion that I don't know what the terms mean is unfounded.

If you think it's so easy to leave, why don't you DO it instead of TALKING about it?

Now, honestly, where would this conclusion come from? I never argued it would be easy to leave, nor did I even imply I would like to. In fact, my argument has been, from the beginning, that the fact that it is hard to leave is not a valid justification for accepting the status quo; I have argued that is pragmatism - accepting a more achievable goal rather than one which conforms to principle.

My freedoms are limited and infringed, but this is not a dictatorship yet and I can still speak out and be heard and help to reverse the trends.

And if the trends don't reverse? If no one listens to you? At what point do you say, "That's enough." On what basis would you make that claim? That some line has been crossed? What delineates that line? How much limitation to your freedoms will you accept before you assert your right to be free? Are principles graduated?

Being an Objectivist means applying principles to YOUR personal, concrete, immediate situation, not deciding that because your situation shares one or two factors in common with John Galt's situation that you should do exactly what he did. That is applying the philosophy as a dogma divorced from reality instead of as a guide to living. A novel is a STYLIZED version of reality. We don't live in a novel, we live in the real world.

While I'm quite aware we live in the real world, do you not suppose Ms. Rand meant to use John Galt as a mouthpiece for her philosophy - a philosophy she asserted was the right philosophy for the real world?

[DavidOdden]

I think I understand your argument now. You're arguing that simply because some use you for their own benefit does not mean you're living for their sake; that consciously choosing to give up your values for them constitutes surrendering your principles, but you can go on living for your own sake even though others may latch onto you.

Do I have that right?

Yes. Bingo.

I would fill in the blank with, "protect yourself."

Bingo two. There is of course the concrete question of what actions constitute protecting yourself. My judgment is that paying taxes beats abandoning my central purpose in life, which is why I haven't dug myself a hole in the side of Mt. No-name.

Would someone who receives welfare be considered to be asking others to live for their sake, or must they support such programs?

We have to know why the person is on welfare. The government can make it impossible for people to life. I guess I object to the inference that this is always an implicit demand that others live for your sake, but I think it usually is, if not always.

It seems to me acceptance of the productive efforts of others with no value offered in return represents at least a tacit support of such a program.

I'm trying to imagine myself in that situation; so here's the scenario. Suppose, thanks to constant government manipulation of the economy, my wealth is obliterated or confiscated and my means of survival is destroyed. I am forcibly prevented from digging a hole in the side of Mt. No-name and finding a new way to exist. In return, I can accept minimum-support welfare (or, of course, I can die). I would prefer to give something of value in exchange, but the problem is, there is no meaningful or realistic to repay the anonymous victims of taxation.

But that's a pretty marginal scenario. I have a problem with the assertion "I don't have any other choices", because I think you do.

[Jake_Ellison]

Pragmatism - "In ordinary usage, pragmatism refers to behavior which temporarily sets aside one ideal to pursue a lesser, more achievable ideal."

I don't understand how a lesser "ideal" could still be called an ideal. Doesn't ideal mean perfect, impossible to improve upon?

Edited March 25, 2009 by Jake_Ellison

[rem1100]

"A significant portion of your taxes support those who do not produce.

Why? If you don't, you'll quite probably be put in jail."

It is interesting to think that by putting a person who refuses to pay taxes in jail it simply denies money to both parties. The government doesn't come out ahead by imprisoning people (yikes imagine if it did!), and the prisoner doesn't come out ahead either, so the cost ultimately falls on those who are productive and do pay taxes.

I'm not quite sure what to make of this situation.

[Space Patroller]

First, some quotes:

Source

If you pay taxes in the US (and, I imagine, anywhere else), then you live for the sake of other men. A significant portion of your taxes support those who do not produce. Why? If you don't, you'll quite probably be put in jail.

Is this not a compromise of our principles? By choosing to continue paying taxes simply because we wish to avoid jail constitute a pragmatic argument rather than a rational, moral choice? Or, can we justify this continued use of our productive minds and bodies as a rational and moral choice in that no rational person would choose jail over even limited freedom?

No. Miss Rand addressed that in one of her lectures at tje Ford Hall Forum in Boston in teh late 1970's. where she said that you live in the world as it is and the reforms can not be done overnight and must be done in a hierarchical way. "Government provides services that persons need and would be willing to pay for. Ending coercive tasxation is one of the last, not first, of the reforms" but it is evil to add further to them.

Even if that were not the case, she held that one cannot be held to needlessly and pointlessly put onces life or liberty in danger and there is no compromise of principle here since force is used and "...the agressor is responsible for the consequneces of his action".

Even in general Aristotelian ethical thought, coercion is one of the recognized "mitigating factors"

[JeffS]

I don't understand how a lesser "ideal" could still be called an ideal. Doesn't ideal mean perfect, impossible to improve upon?

It can also mean "a principle or value that one actively pursues as a goal."

[JeffS]

There is of course the concrete question of what actions constitute protecting yourself. My judgment is that paying taxes beats abandoning my central purpose in life, which is why I haven't dug myself a hole in the side of Mt. No-name.We have to know why the person is on welfare. The government can make it impossible for people to life. I guess I object to the inference that this is always an implicit demand that others live for your sake, but I think it usually is, if not always.I'm trying to imagine myself in that situation; so here's the scenario. Suppose, thanks to constant government manipulation of the economy, my wealth is obliterated or confiscated and my means of survival is destroyed. I am forcibly prevented from digging a hole in the side of Mt. No-name and finding a new way to exist. In return, I can accept minimum-support welfare (or, of course, I can die). I would prefer to give something of value in exchange, but the problem is, there is no meaningful or realistic to repay the anonymous victims of taxation.

But that's a pretty marginal scenario. I have a problem with the assertion "I don't have any other choices", because I think you do.

At what point is acceptance of government force no longer tolerable? Is there a point at which one must morally choose to rebel? My first reaction is to assume it's different for everyone, but as I began writing this reply I became less sure.

If our rational ultimate value is our lives as humans, doesn't that preclude choosing life as something else? Someone brought up slavery earlier. Clearly, men are not meant to live as slaves, so wouldn't accepting slavery simply because there are threats to your corporeal being be living not as a Man? In that case, wouldn't it be a surrender of your principles to not try and escape? If your highest value is to live as Man qua Man, shouldn't you fight for that value, even if it meant your death as Man qua Slave?

[MichaelH]

At what point is acceptance of government force no longer tolerable? Is there a point at which one must morally choose to rebel? My first reaction is to assume it's different for everyone, but as I began writing this reply I became less sure.

If our rational ultimate value is our lives as humans, doesn't that preclude choosing life as something else? Someone brought up slavery earlier. Clearly, men are not meant to live as slaves, so wouldn't accepting slavery simply because there are threats to your corporeal being be living not as a Man? In that case, wouldn't it be a surrender of your principles to not try and escape? If your highest value is to live as Man qua Man, shouldn't you fight for that value, even if it meant your death as Man qua Slave?

I was asking myself the same questions earlier in this thread.

You are absolutely correct that accepting slavery is not living as a rational human being. However, there may not be an alternative to slavery. The government is not just one person with a gun; it is an entire system of people back by guns. You are not morally obligated to dispose of your life simply because the evil system exists. You may choose to do so, but that is the one of the few choices you can actually make in such a situation.

I think the most appropriate AR answer is in "We the Living". As she put it, "all the characters of stature are destroyed", because "otherwise the book would show that freedom is inessential". [citation needed!] The point of the book is not the lack of morality of the characters who are forced to compromise to survive, but the evil of the system.

Ayn wrote an essay about how to be rational in an irrational society; I will see if I can source it tomorrow. If anyone else would like to post from it, now is a great time!

[Jill]

Many services that are provided by the goverment don't exist otherwise (because the goverment has a monopoly on them and no alternative can be created yet.) So it makes sense you think of your taxes going to the goverment services you use or would use that don't exist otherwise.