Country voting itself in for social services

[Jake_Ellison]

This is a false dichotomy. Government would be soliciting its citizens for funds anyway - no reason why Government could not solicit "Liberty Funds" which were exclusively for protection of rights, and "Social Funds" which would only be used for non protection projects.

Please note - I'm not advocating the idea. I'd vote against the idea every time. I think it's far too risky to go down that path.

I simply do not see that the moral argument against the idea has been proved and if it has not been proved, then claims that it would be immoral must be supported.

The concept "government" as you're trying to define it (composed of two entirely separate entities, one a government in the Objectivist sense, another a "charity" as defined in any dictionary), is not a proper concept. It is in fact two concepts: a government and a charity.

The only reason why we would join those two concepts together (into something called the greebornment - real clever, huh?) is if there was some sort of logical connection between the government and a charity. For instance, if they have the same elected President. So who pays that President's salary? What about the money needed to organize the presidential elections? If they are taken from the charity wing of the greebornment, that's fraud, if they're taken from the government wing of the greebornment, that's even worse.

[Grames]

We are not necessarily talking about a situation where force is involved. Again, if the population chooses to have Government supplied healthcare, AND if said care is funded voluntarily, what force applies?

That Government must by necessity hold the monopoly on the use of retaliatory force does not mean all Government actions involve force.

To have Government supplied healthcare, there must be a tax law to the effect of "pay up or else" over a service which has nothing to do with a justification by self defense. It sets up the government as the final authority in medicine to decide such matters who gets treated and who does not and what is a permissible treatment, makes accusations of malpractice and attempts to collect damages under liability into conflicts against the state, removes price as a natural regulator between supply and demand, and so on and on. There are initiations of force all over the place.

[Greebo]

The concept "government" as you're trying to define it (composed of two entirely separate entities, one a government in the Objectivist sense, another a "charity" as defined in any dictionary), is not a proper concept. It is in fact two concepts: a government and a charity.

The structure of the Government is not relevant to the discussion here. Further, I think you're reaching here. We have a Government today which (obviously immorally) does quite a lot more than just protect liberty under the umbrella of a single Government.

The only reason why we would join those two concepts together (into something called the greebornment - real clever, huh?) is if there was some sort of logical connection between the government and a charity. For instance, if they have the same elected President. So who pays that President's salary? What about the money needed to organize the presidential elections? If they are taken from the charity wing of the greebornment, that's fraud, if they're taken from the government wing of the greebornment, that's even worse.

Why? Assuming the Governmental structure designed includes a President, which is arguably unnecessary, if the charitable functions set up by Government are funded completely voluntarily, why would the President's salary be a question? Payment for the head of Charity would by necessity come from voluntarily contributed funds.

Arguments ad absurdium aren't proof. Address the fundamental question - WHAT moral compunction exists to stop a Government from offering a service to the people if the people so delegate that function AND the function is provided WITHOUT the use of force?

[Greebo]

To have Government supplied healthcare, there must be a tax law to the effect of "pay up or else" over a service which has nothing to do with a justification by self defense.

You are changing the context to attempt to disprove it, and the assertion itself (that there must be a tax) is invalid. If a Police and Military and Court system can be funded without force, why not a health system? And, if funding doesn't appear for the health system, then such a system *could* simply be shut down for lack of funding.

So to repeat: We are not necessarily talking about a situation where force is involved. Again, if the population chooses to have Government supplied healthcare, AND if said care is funded voluntarily, what force applies?

[volco]

On Morality superceding politics: Yes, good to make the distinction between legal and moral. But using your example of crack cocaine:

A) It is immoral for the user to engage in self-destruction.

but

It is immoral for the state to stop him; but it would be moral not to.

C)onclusion: The addict doesn't cese to be immoral, but the society he lives in does. I thought we were talking about that situation.

The question of the 100% is tricky. All other percentages involve a majority (or minority who cares) forcing another group to have it their way. But conceptually, a situation where 100% agrees on something is thought of as if it constituted an individual. 100% is the 1 of irrational numbers. Just do te math = 100 / 100 :S

The question about voting is even trickier, that's why I insist so long as the document they are signing, not voting (I added that) is not fraudulent, is not ad infinitum, and is not signed at the poit of a gun. Then a group of people doing that would not be immoral as they will be engaging in preventely protecting their lives, or whatever collective purpose they unanimously had agreed on, without forcing or defrauding others. Why is furthering one's life infrastructure is immoral when not harming anyone? Because it touches the word Government?

In Reality, the second example the thread opener proposed is so improbable that isn't worth a thought. The equivalent would be as said, things like the Rotary Club, Lions, etc. But if the whole country (small enough to make it thinkable) voted on it - and then signed a document proving the checks and limits to this agreement - then why isn't it perfectly moral?

In a situation I have been warned by officials not to talk about anymore in this board, the scenario of political consent becomes more plausible.

As it is, the scenario is so ridiculously unlikely that whatever could be said is trivial . as pointeed out.

[Imogen]

My understanding on the subject is that the reason why government is restricted to only protective/retaliatory action is that personal responsibility via reason, and industry/trade are aspects of human nature that are contravened or worse, oppressed/destroyed by the individual being governed in his pursuits- in any way other than to stop him from coercing/forcing another individual and to protect him from the same against him, precisely so that he can continue living/acting freely.

In order for a man to be responsible for his own actions, to freely act according to his inclination toward/need for self-preservation and enjoyment of his life, and to freely create/make and trade his skills and abilities leveraged through goods and services for himself and to others in exchange for theirs, he must be free to do so without his actions being directed or governed by any other man and certainly not an over-arching group of individuals making laws and legislation that limit his pursuits. To do so is antithetical to man's freedom, logically, reasonably, and obviously.

If he enters into a contract that he later finds unsuitable, he is free to disengage from it according to the agreement, free to learn from his mistakes, to live out the consequences and to make his own reparations. Man does not require "protection" (a misappropriation of this concept when applied here) from the consequences of his choices (once he is beyond childhood, where protection is a valid concept as relates to consequences of ignorant/ill-informed/premature choices).

This is why, as other posters have written, it is immoral for a man to vote to be governed in this way, even if he wants to be governed. Suggesting that he ought to be able to vote himself into such a situation is advocating hedonism, since in hedonism, the 'moral' or 'right' is determined by what feels good to him, and not what reason shows to be best for his life. A truly moral person strives to correct where his feelings do not line up with reason, and an immoral man does the opposite.

Morally (as in aligned with man's nature), man requires freedom from coercion, and government by its nature is coercive, which is why it must be employed only to the services of the individual in the form of retaliatory protective action and the necessary caveats to its execution, such as judiciary systems for meting out (actual) crimes and punishments.

This is why if 100% of a population voted for government over themselves (especially over something so essential as its individual needs for healthcare!), it would still be immoral, and the individuals voting would be acting according to hedonism, at best.

[Imogen]

To add, in a society where government does not interfere with the free activities of its people, there would no doubt continue to be private factions to whom men and women could enslave themselves to whatever end. Presently, we call them cults, and there are even now many from which to choose. If one thinks he is incapable of living a free life congruent with reason and benevolence and true personal/individual responsibility, and desires government by others, s/he would no doubt find it quite easy to join just such a group who could role-play this charade, in a free society. In other words, those who think that they need government in their affairs need never worry that there would be a shortage of supply where their demand evokes its presence.

We would call that enterprise a 'niche'.

And I would call its members 'hamsters', but that is likely beside the point.

[Hotu Matua]

Can A make a deal (a contract) with B, when B has the monopoly of force?

We all understand that the normal situation is A making a contract with B, while C, which has the monopoly of force, oversees that the rights of A and B are respected.

If B happens to be the State itself and there is no agent C to effectively protect the rights of A, then the deal between A and B is immoral, notwithstanding how voluntary such a deal is. Person A would be forfeiting his rights, and all renunciation of rights implies immorality, as it goes against one's own mind and life as a rational being.

Is this the ultimate reason for the immorality of a deal made with the State, such as converting the State in a provider of health care in exchange of taxes? That we cannot escape the deal (cancel our contract) without suffering prison, injuries, expropiation, exile or death? Is this all?

If you think it is, let's suppose that B is a local government that is subject to the decision of a federal government called C, which can enforce law and protect the rights of A.

At this stage, government B could not say it has monopoly of force. It would be C which has such a monopoly in reality, as C could punish B and save A.

We could go one step further,imagining a contract between A and C in which a supranational agent, D, has the power to punish C and protect A, proving that C did not have, REALLY, the monopolyof force at some aspect of reality.

In this imaginary chain of governments, each one empowered to act against the other, what would render my deal with the one at the lowest level immoral? Why the fact that 100% of citizens of a small county in Montana assing their government the pro ision of medical care would be immoral, if the government of the state of Montana could at any time nullify and punish any breach of contract by the county government?

If your answer is only "because providing medical services is not part of the function of a proper government" we are trapped in a circular argument.

[Greebo]

Can A make a deal (a contract) with B, when B has the monopoly of force?

Be precise - it's monopoly on *retaliatory* force. Government still may not morally initiate force.

So - can Government hire contractors to build buildings? To make guns?

Answer: Of course.

In this imaginary chain of governments, each one empowered to act against the other, what would render my deal with the one at the lowest level immoral? Why the fact that 100% of citizens of a small county in Montana assigning their government the provision of medical care would be immoral, if the government of the state of Montana could at any time nullify and punish any breach of contract by the county government?

If your answer is only "because providing medical services is not part of the function of a proper government" we are trapped in a circular argument.

We have that chain already, even at the highest levels. The State itself is set up in such a manner to be self policing. People win court cases against the Government with surprising regularity. In a (generally) honest Government, the game is not fixed.

[Leonid]

Hotu Matua, on 19 October 2010 - 08:34 PM, said:

"Can A make a deal (a contract) with B, when B has the monopoly of force?"

Obviously not. Such a contract would be nil and void as any contract made under duress. However even in present semi-free countries no government has a monopoly on usage of force. In America alone millions of people are legally armed and, besides, one may use the force even without arms. From the Objectivist point of view a government doesn't have a monopoly on force, its only function is to put the use of force under restriction of OBJECTIVE law. Since such a law pertains to the nature of man as rational being, it should be identical to any agency-A, B, C etc...If any agency forces people to accept health or any other insurance, it would be an initiation of force and therefore violation of objective law. Proper government should protect the people and prohibit such an action. The fact that such an arbitrary legislation is a result of democratic process- a vote-is irrelevant. Nobody has a right to vote freedom out.

Edited October 19, 2010 by Leonid

[Grames]

You are changing the context to attempt to disprove it, and the assertion itself (that there must be a tax) is invalid. If a Police and Military and Court system can be funded without force, why not a health system? And, if funding doesn't appear for the health system, then such a system *could* simply be shut down for lack of funding.

So to repeat: We are not necessarily talking about a situation where force is involved. Again, if the population chooses to have Government supplied healthcare, AND if said care is funded voluntarily, what force applies?

I think it is you who are changing the context away from a government action.

If there is no law that compels people to use gov't health and no law that makes them pay for it, then just what is role of government in this hypothetical healthcare system that distinguishes it from an incorporation of a non-governmental business or non-profit organization? If you insist on making government's role as an enforcer small enough to be zero, then it disappears and this is no longer distinguishable from any other business.

[Greebo]

I think it is you who are changing the context away from a government action.

The context I have been speaking in the entire time has been consistent - AND different from the context of the OP.

If there is no law that compels people to use gov't health and no law that makes them pay for it, then just what is role of government in this hypothetical healthcare system that distinguishes it from an incorporation of a non-governmental business or non-profit organization? If you insist on making government's role as an enforcer small enough to be zero, then it disappears and this is no longer distinguishable from any other business.

The only distinguishing characteristic would be that it was owned and operated by the Government. It would not be Governmental in nature - just in ownership.

Which brings us back to the question that keeps getting skirted - IN SUCH A SCENARIO - where a Government owned business has been approved by the populace, where ABSOLUTELY NO FORCE is involved in the funding or operation thereof - what moral compunction is there to say that Government may not operate such a business?

This is the question I have been unable to find answered in any of Rand's works, except where she herself or Peikoff in OPAR make assertions that are not clearly supported and/or do not preclude participating in other roles in a Non Governing fashion.

[Leonid]

A government is an institution of coercion. Its only proper function is to put the use of retaliatory force under restriction of objective law. Business belongs to the realm of mind, not force. Government has no business in runing businesses.If government runs a business on absolutely voluntary basis, it becomes a corporation or NGO and stops to act qua government.

[brian0918]

Which brings us back to the question that keeps getting skirted - IN SUCH A SCENARIO - where a Government owned business has been approved by the populace, where ABSOLUTELY NO FORCE is involved in the funding or operation thereof - what moral compunction is there to say that Government may not operate such a business?

This is the question I have been unable to find answered in any of Rand's works

I'm not sure why you would expect Rand to discuss this. Rand's works do not cover a lot of unlikely hypotheticals such as this. She was providing the foundation for ethics, and absurd scenarios do not offer a guideline for living.

Edited October 20, 2010 by brian0918

[Greebo]

Rand's works create the question with the following:

[q]The source of the government’s authority is “the consent of the governed.” This means that the government is not the ruler, but the servant or agent of the citizens; it means that the government as such has no rights except the rights delegated to it by the citizens for a specific purpose.[/q]

She opens the door with that statement for citizens to delegate rights to Government. Citizens have the right to own businesses. If so chosen, based on the above, Citizens can delegate the right to own businesses to Government. Not to GOVERN businesses, since that is not a right, but to own them.

[softwareNerd]

Rand's works create the question with the following:[q]The source of the government’s authority is “the consent of the governed.” This means that the government is not the ruler, but the servant or agent of the citizens; it means that the government as such has no rights except the rights delegated to it by the citizens for a specific purpose.[/q]

She opens the door with that statement for citizens to delegate rights to Government.

Rand is pretty clear on the role and purpose of government. So, given that clear purpose, one cannot read her as saying that citizens may subjectively decide the legitimate role of government.

Of course, the hypothetical that the OP posed is just a way to seek conceptual clarity. In practice, if 100% of the people in a country want something -- or even 99% for that matter -- it is going to happen. So, the question is not meant to answer: "How should we act in such a situation". Rather, its a way to answer "If 100% of a population subjectively decide that a certain act is part of the government's purpose, does that make it an objectively valid purpose?"

Citizens have the right to own businesses. If so chosen, based on the above, Citizens can delegate the right to own businesses to Government. Not to GOVERN businesses, since that is not a right, but to own them.

The right to control how my property is disposed is definitely part of my rights. It would be meaningless to say a person owns some asset but has no say in what happens to it. Edited October 20, 2010 by softwareNerd

[Grames]

The context I have been speaking in the entire time has been consistent - AND different from the context of the OP.

The only distinguishing characteristic would be that it was owned and operated by the Government. It would not be Governmental in nature - just in ownership.

Which brings us back to the question that keeps getting skirted - IN SUCH A SCENARIO - where a Government owned business has been approved by the populace, where ABSOLUTELY NO FORCE is involved in the funding or operation thereof - what moral compunction is there to say that Government may not operate such a business?

This is the question I have been unable to find answered in any of Rand's works, except where she herself or Peikoff in OPAR make assertions that are not clearly supported and/or do not preclude participating in other roles in a Non Governing fashion.

Ok, I understand.

There is no simple argument from morality that can be made against such a thing, but there are arguments against it. The arguments against it are more strictly within political science and law and pertain to corruption (which by a long road do eventually get back to rights), and epistemological because this activity is beyond the bounds of the concept of government. Government needs to be able to own property to carry out its functions, but what kinds of property can it own?

We don't have to confine ourselves to thought experiments either, this is a common model for more than 2000 small municipal electric utilities throughout the United States. Small cable companies were also started this way serve rural communities. The way these these things usually work is by the local government asserting a right to grant a monopoly or franchise to a particular business entity which at least reduces the risk of competition and makes the capital investment more secure against loss, in exchange for which the government gets some say in controlling the rates and profits of the entity. This is public utility theory. Similar situation occurs when people use the existing mechanisms of government to go about attract a doctor to a rural area by essentially contracting with a student to put him through med school in exchange for obligating him to establish his practice in the area. I think small towns tried to attract early railroads this way also, so the practice goes way back.

I don't know the full treatment off the top of my head, but the similarity in the granted monopolies to other forms of property law such as land ownership and intellectual property gives the clue as to how to sort this out. Property law and the philosophy behind it need to be further developed. You might object to my examples because they include government funding and coercive monopolies, but the difficulty in avoiding those rights violations is going to be the essence of the anti-utility position.

[dream_weaver]

except the rights delegated to it by the citizens for a specific purpose.

I see it, and that gives me pause to wonder about the context of the concept of rights in that newsletter. Earlier she states: "A private individual may do anything except that which is legally forbidden; a government official may do nothing except that which is legally permitted." How does a permission become a right?

The United States held that man's life is his by right (which means: by moral principle and by his nature), that a right is the property of an individual, that society as such has no rights, and that the only moral purpose of a government is the protection of individual rights.

When I hear 'Religious rights', 'Indian rights', 'Patient rights', etc . . ., the outcome is usually one that the rights the individual, or target community of individuals is about to be sacrificed on the alter of a 'greater good'.

Citizens can delegate the right to own businesses to Government.

And when this has been practiced, it starts with one business, and when it finally usurps all businesses - it is then referred to as Fascism.

[Greebo]

Rand is pretty clear on the role and purpose of government. So, given that clear purpose, one cannot read her as saying that citizens may subjectively decide the legitimate role of government.

She is absolutely clear on the role and purpose, I agree. She is also absolutely clear that Government may not initiate force - because man has no right to initiate force. (obviously against other men, as opposed to against a tree for lumber or a deer for food)

But again, she also says Government has no rights "except the rights delegated to it by the citizens for a specific purpose" - which necessarily means man must be able TO delegate rights to Government.

And let me say again, we're not talking about Government owning a Healthcare operation in a *Governmental* role (ie: objectively defining rational laws and enforcing them, protecting citizens rights, etc), but in an ownership role.

Of course, the hypothetical that the OP posed is just a way to seek conceptual clarity. In practice, if 100% of the people in a country want something -- or even 99% for that matter -- it is going to happen. So, the question is not meant to answer: "How should we act in such a situation". Rather, its a way to answer "If 100% of a population subjectively decide that a certain act is part of the government's purpose, does that make it an objectively valid purpose?"

And to that question I would say, "Not *as* Government." But for other purposes as delegated by the citizenry? I have to conclude that yes, hypothetically, Government *could* legitimately operate healthcare, or a casino, or own roads - AS LONG AS they did not interfere with the rights of it's citizens in the process of doing so.

Ok, I understand.

Whew! Finally! It's been very frustrating making the point clear.

There is no simple argument from morality that can be made against such a thing, but there are arguments against it. The arguments against it are more strictly within political science and law and pertain to corruption (which by a long road do eventually get back to rights), and epistemological because this activity is beyond the bounds of the concept of government. Government needs to be able to own property to carry out its functions, but what kinds of property can it own?

To the latter, any property its citizens give it permission to own (and ONLY that property the citizens give it permission to own).

To the former - it is established that Government may morally hold no powers except those which are delegated to it by it's people. If the people wish the Government to, in a moral fashion, build roads (for whatever reason) or provide health care, the argument that Government may not do so because of what *might* happen is now saying that the people may not delegate certain rights to Government because of what *might* happen. That then becomes a restriction on the people - which violates the concept that people can do whatever they want, unless it's forbidden because it violates the rights of others.

Now that said, let me reiterate again that I personally would never vote for or use Government services in an objectively moral society, because of the risk involved as established in history. I am only making the point that just because it isn't advisable doesn't mean it isn't morally permissible.

The way these these things usually work is by the local government asserting a right to grant a monopoly or franchise

But of course, that is a right Government does not possess - and so your example is not one of a moral action by Government.

You might object to my examples because they include government funding and coercive monopolies, but the difficulty in avoiding those rights violations is going to be the essence of the anti-utility position.

You anticipated my objection. But of course, the obvious answer is that as soon as any coercive action of Government is proposed as a solution to a problem, the answer MUST by moral necessity be tossed out, and in a properly objectively moral system, would be so.

And when this has been practiced, it starts with one business, and when it finally usurps all businesses - it is then referred to as Fascism.

Yes, the historical example is there - but we cannot begin forbidding free will on the premise of what *might* happen. We cannot say, "No, citizens, you may not create a Government owned completely voluntary health system or road network or casino because some day the people in Government MIGHT do bad things". This isn't the same as a drunk driving argument, where the mentally incapacitated drunk driver inflicts undue risk of harm or death upon people without their knowledge or consent.

[ToyoHabu]

The only reason that governments exist is to place retaliatory force under objective control. It is in violation of this principle for a government to engage in ANY other enterprise. No population of people who understand what the role government is, would vote as you have described.

[Greebo]

The only reason that governments exist is to place retaliatory force under objective control. It is in violation of this principle for a government to engage in ANY other enterprise. No population of people who understand what the role government is, would vote as you have described.

I agree completely. I certainly would never vote as I have described.

That has never been my point. My point has only been that such a vote is morally *permissible*.

[dream_weaver]

My point has only been that such a vote is morally *permissible*.

By what moral standard?

[Greebo]

By what moral standard?

I have already covered that repeatedly.

By the moral standard that men may delegate their rights to the Government, and that to refuse them the right to do so constitutes a violation of their right to do so.

By what moral standard to you propose to refuse men the right to do so?

[Imogen]

In what way is it possible for a government to act in a completely non-governmental, fully contractual role? Wouldn't that just be individuals doing business? At which point it is not government owning/operating any business/commercial enterprise, but individuals, right? Is it assumed that individuals who work within the government would be prohibited from personal pursuits toward profits and would therefore be forced (!!!) to pursue their interests through their governmental positions (which would be also unregulated)?

I am asking sincerely because I cannot see how this hypothetical works. It seems like the 'can god create a rock he can't lift' question. Or, if daffodils weren't poisonous then we could eat them, but they are, so we don't, but if they weren't, we might or could because it would be okay in that scenario, but that couldn't happen because they actually are poisonous, ad nauseam. What am I missing?

Again, I'm not being snarky.

[Greebo]

In what way is it possible for a government to act in a completely non-governmental, fully contractual role? Wouldn't that just be individuals doing business?

I suppose in a kind of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac or FDIC manner, but without any mandatory participation / regulatory powers.

Or for instance, if the voters ok Gov't to operate a casino in order to help fund Gov't, and contribute start up funds voluntarily, then Gov't sets up the Casino on the Vegas Strip along side all the others. Competing like any other business but the revenue goes to Gov't instead of investors.