"Welfare" in an objectivist world

[jadester]

I could be wrong, but I'm fairly sure objectivism holds that the government can't force its constituents to support it (can't levy taxes and must rely only on voluntary donations for its funding). I'm also going to assume that said constituents would, in an objectivist world, be able to decide which government endeavor or branch to contribute money to. But Ayn Rand also said that the only valid functions of government are the police, the army, and the courts.

But why? In a world without taxes, how are government entitlement programs actually different from the endeavors of private charities? Wouldn't government just be a medium, or an expedient, through which people could give their money to the poor without having to go through the trouble of setting up foundations themselves? The difference from the status quo being, of course, that no coercion would take place in such a process.

This doesn't apply only to entitlement programs. Another example: I understand Ayn Rand was against foreign aid (gratis Atlas Shrugged)-- but I don't see the problem with it in a world where people could only choose to fund it.

In short, why limit the functions of government to the extent that she did if it can only carry out the tasks people elect to give it the means to, and has been stripped of its ability to "initiate force" against its subjects?

And also, I'm Jade. (: (this is my first time here). I apologize if I'm a bit incoherent: I'm a callow high-school student, etc.

[softwareNerd]

In a world without taxes, how are government entitlement programs actually different from the endeavors of private charities?

True, they would not be, but... government should not be doing welfare anyway. The nature of government financing (taxes, etc.) is a question that is secondary to another question: what is the correct nature of government? Objectivism's answer is that government exists only to protect individual rights (and Objectivism contains a delineation of what it means by 'rights"). [Ref: "Capitalism the Unknown Ideal"] Edited August 20, 2010 by softwareNerd

[DavidOdden]

But why? In a world without taxes, how are government entitlement programs actually different from the endeavors of private charities? Wouldn't government just be a medium, or an expedient, through which people could give their money to the poor without having to go through the trouble of setting up foundations themselves?

You've sort of inverted the order of "repair" to our bloated government. The logically first step is to restrict what government does to its proper function of protecting individual rights. Subsequent to that is the elimination of taxation to support the government. Rand points out in "Government Financing in a Free Society" that "The choice of a specific method of implementation is more than premature today—since the principle will be practicable only in a fully free society, a society whose government has been constitutionally reduced to its proper, basic functions". Social programs would be abolished, and then taxes would be abolished. (Though surely in the interim, taxes would be severely reduced).

In short, why limit the functions of government to the extent that she did if it can only carry out the tasks people elect to give it the means to, and has been stripped of its ability to "initiate force" against its subjects?

The reason has to do with the nature of what "government" is. It is an institution created by man in order to isolate and limit the use of force in social relationships: essentially, "force, according to law" is all that a government is to do. A private concern, like a business or a charity, has no such restrictions but it does have the restriction that it does not operate by force.

[Hairnet]

A government needs to be resticted to industries where their will not be a conflict of interest, justice and legislation. If the government starts getting into other sorts of activities, it is competing with other groups, which means we have the law enforcers competing in the economic arena. Even if we don't have taxes this could be a problem.

[thewarrant]

Objectively, what gives rise to the necessity of government? In The Virtue of Selfishness, Rand explains:

If physical force is to be barred from social relationships, men need an institution charged with the task of protecting their rights under an objective code of rules.

Without such an institution, what occurs? Men, many of whom are sadly driven by whim or the imaginary edicts of divine phantoms, would have no choice but to personally wield the power of force (not unlike a Jedi? ) in the protection of their rights. These men of mixed ideology are practically guaranteed to have different conceptions of "rights" and what constitutes their violation--and that's assuming they even acknowledge their existence. Anarchy would inevitably ensue, bodies pile, and the rights of none would be protected.

So we obviously need a government. By very strictly (and objectively) defining its limitations and applications we evade anarchy, as well as abuses of power, especially with the 2nd amendment.

Beyond that fundamental sort of answer, I'd also offer that arbitrarily expanding the scope of such a vital institution increases the potentiality for its corruption. As a potentially bad analogy, if you build an elegant but simple tool shed, where everything serves a structural function, and then you decide randomly to toss a dozen gargoyles on the roof, you're creating undue stress and threatening its longevity Best to leave it as it is.

And I suppose you could argue that the beauty of the decorations outweighs the damage done. The difference is that government is more important, more powerful, and more lethal than a tool shed. It directly affects everyone, and has no place for arbitrary/optional values.

As for this part of your post:

Wouldn't government just be a medium, or an expedient, through which people could give their money to the poor without having to go through the trouble of setting up foundations themselves?

I'd imagine that most of these foundations wouldn't need someone to go through a burdensome process to set it up, because private charities already exist in the real world. And if a certain form of charity didn't exist, that's no justification to make it some governmental adjunct.

Edited August 21, 2010 by thewarrant

[jadester]

If physical force is to be barred from social relationships, men need an institution charged with

task of protecting their rights under an objective code of rules

.

OK but you don't actually need a government to do that. You could just leave it up to people to take initiative and pool their money to fund the courts and the police, without acting through an intermediary organization (although I don't think this would be feasible for a national military). It's just that there's little practical difference between this and acting through the "government" in a world w/o taxes, except that acting through the government is probably easier.

So what's the distinction between the courts&police, and everything else? Setting aside social services for a moment, what about current government functions that are as essential as the Big Three we've enumerated? Like, say, scanning items that are shipped into the country to make sure they're safe (thereby safeguarding against poisonous lipgloss, etc.)? Or providing relief in the case of natural disasters? Why bar the government from performing these functions as well?

I'd also offer that arbitrarily expanding the scope of such a vital institution increases the potentiality for its corruption

.

But if branches of the government became corrupt, people could just stop funding them, couldn't they?

I'd imagine that most of these foundations wouldn't need someone to go through a burdensome process to set it up, because private charities already exist in the real world.

Sure, sure, they exist, I'm just assuming that there aren't enough of them to give aid to all the people government programs like welfare do.

Edited August 21, 2010 by jadester

[jadester]

which means we have the law enforcers competing in the economic arena

Yes, that's why I dont think the government should be doing things businesses do, i.e things that one can profit from. But how would this apply to social services?

[jadester]

Objectivism's answer is that government exists only to protect individual rights

But again, if no coercion could take place in the system, why does it matter what the government does? Why not maximize freedom by allowing people to fund the government endeavors they want to fund (as long as said endeavors do not violate anyone's rights)?

a society whose government has been constitutionally reduced to its proper, basic functions

Apply the above response to this quote as well.

Edited August 21, 2010 by jadester

[DavidOdden]

But again, if no coercion could take place in the system, why does it matter what the government does?

Because the nature of government is that is "an institution that holds the exclusive power to enforce certain rules of social conduct in a given geographical area", and those rules serve the end that "physical force is to be barred from social relationships, men need an institution charged with the task of protecting their rights under an objective code of rules", thus "a government is the means of placing the retaliatory use of physical force under objective control—i.e., under objectively defined laws".

There is a broader philosophical point here, that man's chosen relationship to an existent is properly determined by the nature of the existent, i.e. man commands nature by correctly and non-contradictorily identifying nature. To be more specific about the nature of government, government is that institution which states law objectively, states laws only for the purpose of protecting individual rights, and enforces those laws by applying retributive force against those who violate the law. Furthermore, no other institution may do this: government has a monopoly on the use of force. Because the use of force is a terrible and dangerous thing, the government's use of force must be very tightly restricted. It can punish an alleged evildoer only after the person's actions have been objectively inspected by independent-minded evaluators (a jury, for example) and compared to what is prohibited, by law. Your premise "if no coercion could take place" implicitly recognizes this point about the need to severely limit what government may do. As Rand puts it ("The Nature of Government, p. 128):

It has to hold such a monopoly, since it is the agent of restraining and combating the use of force; and for that very same reason, its actions have to be rigidly defined, delimited and circumscribed; no touch of whim or caprice should be permitted in its performance; it should be an impersonal robot, with the laws as its only motive power. If a society is to be free, its government has to be controlled.

This has an immediate logical consequence about freedom and the "burden of proof" or need to justify an action: the individual need not justify any of his actions, and the government must justify all of its actions. Thus

Under a proper social system, a private individual is legally free to take any action he pleases (so long as he does not violate the rights of others), while a government official is bound by law in his every official act. A private individual may do anything except that which is legally forbidden; a government official may do nothing except that which is legally permitted.

Now in fact it is not and cannot be the case that government is prohibited from using force. On the contrary, it is in the very nature of government that it uses force, in a highly controlled manner. Therefore your suggestion that it might be okay for the government to act arbitrarily as long as it does not use force denies the fundamental fact that government is the agency that is supposed to use force, for a very restricted purpose. This is the contradiction that you need to eliminate. The way to eliminate the contradiction is to identify the premise that you hold that allows the contradiction. I don't know exactly what you have in mind, but it seems to me that you're thinking "Government can do anything it wants, as long as it does not use force". The simplest resolution of the contradiction, I think, is to reject that assumption, and replace it with the premises held by Objectivism. Those premises are that government may only do that which is permitted by law, and that proper law exclusively serves to protect the rights of individuals. It follows that establishing government as a charitable agency is not proper law, since acting as a charitable agency does not protect the rights of individuals.

Note, specifically, that "maximizing freedom" is not the purpose of proper government, it is a consequence of having proper government. If "maximizing freedom" were the purpose of government, then government would simply not exist and you would be free to rape, murder and pillage.

[Hairnet]

Yes, that's why I dont think the government should be doing things businesses do, i.e things that one can profit from. But how would this apply to social services?

Charities can scam people, screw with workers, and be embezzled from just like any other business.

[thewarrant]

OK but you don't actually need a government to do that. You could just leave it up to people to take initiative and pool their money to fund the courts and the police, without acting through an intermediary organization (although I don't think this would be feasible for a national military).

I'm a bit confused. You say that there's no need for a government, yet you still want the courts and the police. If you'll look at DavidOdden's precise definition of "government," you'll see that the existence of a court system or of a police force necessarily implies the existence of a government, whether you want to call it that or not. That is, unless you mean those publicly funded institutions are somehow not interrelated/exclusive--which means they're ultimately competitors.

If you meant an exclusive institution, then your description of voluntary funding for the courts and police is what the Objectivist position entails, yet your first sentence makes it seem like your offering the voluntary funding as an alternative. It seems like you might be using "government" in a very different sense than what we mean. Any clarification?

But if branches of the government became corrupt, people could just stop funding them, couldn't they?

Well, they could stop funding the branch directly, but what's to stop fresh funds from being siphoned away from a thriving branch? Ah, the possibilities of a monopoly on power. Maybe you just don't like to see people suffering, but a voluntarily funded charity branch of the government is very unlikely to do a more effective job than a well-established institution.

Again this is all peripheral to the fundamental argument. The expansion is merely an arbitrary one. With no objective basis, where do you draw the line? What if Lady Gaga, and some hip bureaucratic friends, thought it'd be convenient to have a branch dedicated to the spread of her music? Donations could be used to fund her high-budget videos, and fans could submit wacky clothing designs. It may sound silly, but there's nothing to stop it form happening.

Edited August 22, 2010 by thewarrant

[CapitalistSwine]

I'm a bit confused. You say that there's no need for a government, yet you still want the courts and the police. If you'll look at DavidOdden's precise definition of "government," you'll see that the existence of a court system or of a police force necessarily implies the existence of a government, whether you want to call it that or not.

Comments like these are where you will lose the anarchists in argument regarding your credibility. This makes it sound as if government is the only way these things can exist, ever. There have been historical cases of functional private courts and police forces. What you need to do is prove that these privately managed alternatives are dangerous or otherwise not preferable to a proper governmental system. Things like a single, known, system of laws are one part of that kind of argument, I suggest you look at Paul McKeever's Anarchism: In Defense of Ayn Rand on youtube. This is why they think such a thing is possible, not flawed, etc. Because there have been instances where it has worked for a period of time in the past. Albeit none of these were in a moral laissez-faire system.

[jadester]

Because the nature of government is that is "an institution that holds the exclusive power to enforce certain rules of social conduct in a given geographical area", and those rules serve the end that "physical force is to be barred from social relationships, men need an institution charged with the task of protecting their rights under an objective code of rules", thus "a government is the means of placing the retaliatory use of physical force under objective control—i.e., under objectively defined laws"

.

OK I can get behind that-- but how does establishing/maintaining the military fall under the category of "enforcing rules of social conduct" domestically? Shouldn't that be beyond the realm of government jurisdiction, as you've just defined it?

[jadester]

If you meant an exclusive institution, then your description of voluntary funding for the courts and police is what the Objectivist position entails, yet your first sentence makes it seem like your offering the voluntary funding as an alternative. It seems like you might be using "government" in a very different sense than what we mean. Any clarification?

Yeah, sorry, i think I understand better now what "government" actually means in the objectivist lexicon; I was defining it simply a medium for funding things, not as an institution with a monopoly on force, as DaveOdden defined it.

[jadester]

There have been historical cases of functional private courts and police forces. What you need to do is prove that these privately managed alternatives are dangerous or otherwise not preferable to a proper governmental system

What's the difference? If the government is simply "an institution that holds exclusive power to enforce certain rules of social conduct", isn't the government essentially just the courts and the police? And they would be funded directly and by voluntary donations, so what distinguishes "a proper government system" from "privately managed alternatives"?

[Zip]

What's the difference? If the government is simply "an institution that holds exclusive power to enforce certain rules of social conduct", isn't the government essentially just the courts and the police? And they would be funded directly and by voluntary donations, so what distinguishes "a proper government system" from "privately managed alternatives"?

Who is in charge of these "privately managed alternatives" and how did they get there? From what do they draw their legitimacy? Money?

A proper government system is a system of, by and for the people, elected, accountable and ultimately replaceable through defined processes.

[DavidOdden]

OK I can get behind that-- but how does establishing/maintaining the military fall under the category of "enforcing rules of social conduct" domestically? Shouldn't that be beyond the realm of government jurisdiction, as you've just defined it?

I assume that you're referring to the fact that there are many separate nations, and a military may need to operate outside the boundaries of that nation in order to protect the nation (e.g. engaging the enemy before they cross over to US soil). This actually describes a non-ideal situation, just as it is non-ideal that there are multiple governmental jurisdictions (federal, state, county, city) and potential or actual conflict in the rules.

There actually is such a thing as "international law", but it is weak, so effectively what we have is semi-pre-civilization at the global level, even though at the national level we do live in a civilized nation. If you turn the clock back some hundreds of thousands of years (depending on where exactly you're looking in the world), men lived without the benefit of civilization, perhaps as hunter-gatherers, and everyone was subject to attack by passing marauders. In that circumstance, you have no choice but to use your spear on your attacker, so there is no issue of delegating your right to self-defense to the government -- "Government?! What's that! (I hear the Romans have one)".

Since in fact there is no government and no system of objective law that applies to the entire planet, we are faced with the same problem that primitive men faced, namely the need to survive, without the proper tool that is necessary (namely, a certain kind of government). In essence, the concept "military" refers to that force which protects rights from attack outside of a superior jurisdiction, i.e. when there is no police force. There is nothing intrinsically desirable about the anarchy of nations, but the alternative of living under a UN dictatorship is vastly worse than the philosophical problem of the US having to decide sua sponte, without reference to actual global statutes, that a certain act requires use of retributive force. The problem lies not with the idea of a single government, but lies with the nature of the govenment that wold no doubt arise, given the horrifying philosophical foundation that prevails in so many countries.

[jadester]

Thank you. Between the last two posts, all my questions have been answered (for now, anyway).

[DavidOdden]

What's the difference? If the government is simply "an institution that holds exclusive power to enforce certain rules of social conduct", isn't the government essentially just the courts and the police? And they would be funded directly and by voluntary donations, so what distinguishes "a proper government system" from "privately managed alternatives"?

I think you're misunderstanding what CS said (or, maybe I misunderstand your response). Specifically, you should learn / fully understand what it is exactly that distinguishes non-governmental rights protection from governmental rights protection. There are three important factors. First, in addition to judicial and policing, there is also a legislative function -- the actual creation of the objective law which is enforced. Only the government can make law. Second, only the government (via the courts) may order the use of force in accordance with law. Private courts and security firms are limited in what they can do, and if a party to binding arbitration decides to ignore the decision, the matter has to be turned over to government courts for enforcement.

A further distinction regards procedural law, which refers to the "meta-law" about how the law is enforced (for example, the requirement to Mirandacize a suspect, law regarding fruit of the poison tree, reasonable doubt standards, and so on). Procedural law is a restriction on what government can do as a means of tightly limiting the government's ability to use force. The kind of restrictions imposed on governmental judicial proceedings cannot rightly be imposed on ordinary voluntary interactions between citizens.

[jadester]

Yeah, I was making the wrong distinction between government programs and private programs: I interpreted government programs as the kind we have today, and private programs as ones that are privately funded, by voluntary donations instead of some regulated tax process. Zip's post cleared it up though.

And I now see that the original poster said privately managed, so it probably should have been clear from the start