Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Some questions about capitalist society and voting

Rate this topic


ex_banana-eater

Recommended Posts

Assuming the country is a capitalist by its strong constitution, what would there be to vote for?

I can think of:

-Allocation of percentages of funding in police, courts, and military

-New strategies to improve police, courts and military

There is a situation I am interested in; if the government was confined to supporting individual rights, and "Capitalist Country" had been attacked by "Religious Country." A candidate ran his platform on how he wouldn't defend Capitalist Country. Would he be legally allowed to be elected?

Also, could police be contracted by government? I have read somewhere that when a town contracted police out to a company they reduced crime, improved response time, and required less resources. I think as long as contracts were kept short, and an internal investigation beureau was allowed to suspend them at any time, competition could be introduced. This isn't the anarcho-capitalist idea where the government would not contract to a police company.

Lastly, would foreign embassies (separate from foreign military bases) exist? Could a foreign military base act legitimately as an embassy? Is diplomacy a legitimate function of government (since it seems like a branch of military conduct)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As envisioned by the Founders, the purpose of elections is to pick the best candidate for the job according to his credentials and political philosophy, not his views on particular policies.

I don’t think a capitalist society with a proper foreign policy would have need for foreign embassies or military bases.

A candidate ran his platform on how he wouldn't defend Capitalist Country. Would he be legally allowed to be elected?

If the majority supported a candidate who explicitly promised to violate the Constitution and surrender to the enemy, the issue would be moot.

(How sad is it that in America the president can violate the Constitution, surrender to the enemy, win the election – and still be better than the alternatives.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Assuming the country is a capitalist by its strong constitution, what would there be to vote for?

I can think of:

-Allocation of percentages of funding in police, courts, and military

-New strategies to improve police, courts and military

In a free republic, voters elect representatives. Then the representatives decided among themselves how to spend revenues and what strategies to follow overall.

In a democracy, voters would make those decisions directly. A democracy is the enemy of freedom, by definition: A democracy is a dictatorship by the majority of voters -- without checks and balances, without guarantees of individual rights, specifically protection from the majority as well as common individual criminals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Assuming the country is a capitalist by its strong constitution, what would there be to vote for?

Most likely, few people would vote. When the Brits ran Hongkong and had some elected positions, few people bothered to vote. Then the Brits and rich Hong Kong capitalists realized that China was serious about taking over Hong Kong and could not be dissuaded politically or miltarily. It became evident that Hong kong would become part of China. Thats when the local really began to be so interested in politics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Assuming the country is a capitalist by its strong constitution, what would there be to vote for?

They would select the personnel of the executive branch according to the standard of who could best manage the day to day operations of the government just like a Board of Directors selects the CEO of a corporation from among possible candidates.

They select the legislators who amend or create statutes as necessary to deal with issues as they arise in a free society. These would probably be lawyers or legal philosophers, working part-time, to resolve issues posed by experience with current law (Maybe the punishment for shoplifting is too harsh.) and new concerns (Is internet spam a violation of rights?).

They select the judges. Some people are better at judging the facts and applying legal principles than other people, and candidates for judgeships would have to convince the voters that they are the best ones for the positions.

They may even vote on issues as required by law such as whether to issue bonds to finance a war, change the age of majority, amend the constitution, etc.

There is a situation I am interested in; if the government was confined to supporting individual rights, and "Capitalist Country" had been attacked by "Religious Country." A candidate ran his platform on how he wouldn't defend Capitalist Country. Would he be legally allowed to be elected?
Sure, but in a country with the philosophy necessary to institute and maintain a laissez faire system, a man like that would never get nominated, let alone elected.

Also, could police be contracted by government?

Perhaps. That is something for the executive and legislature to decide. Regardless of how the police are managed and paid for, their actions would be tightly circumscribed by the law.

Lastly, would foreign embassies (separate from foreign military bases) exist?

Probably. We need a way to coordinate foreign policy with our allies and it helps to have our representatives close enough to personally communicate with officials of friendly governments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for answering my inquiries, everyone.

I have one last question: Could the military (say the army corps of engineers) be allowed to recieve pay for their work from private individuals? For example, during training for the engineering corps, the soldiers make plans to dredge a private harbour or build a bridge on someone's property designed to be applicable to wartime situations. Could they charge for this service? It seems like involvement in an industry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(How sad is it that in America the president can violate the Constitution, surrender to the enemy, win the election – and still be better than the alternatives.)

This is such an excellent description of President Bush. Its so sad. If I were to allow myself to obssess on how scary this is I wouldn't be able to get out of bed in the morning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Could the military (say the army corps of engineers) be allowed to recieve pay for their work from private individuals? For example, during training for the engineering corps, the soldiers make plans to dredge a private harbour or build a bridge on someone's property designed to be applicable to wartime situations. Could they charge for this service? It seems like involvement in an industry.

1. Do you see any unresolvable objection -- in a free republic that has all the checks, balances, and rules of openness of accounting -- to such military units receiving pay? I don't. In fact, I think your idea is ingenious and deserves close study.

Keep in mind, too, that in a free republic, the military would be a lot smaller than what the U. S., for example, has today. One reason is that it would be much more destructive of the enemy. Another reason is that it would not be burdened with altruist missions.

2. What is wrong with "involvement in an industry" if it is actually for training of military support forces whose purpose is to protect not only that industry but all people and property in that society?

Along the same lines, I see no valid objection to, for example, the use of prison labor to maintain prisons: repairing their own clothing, growing their own fruit and vegetables, and so forth. If that means they "compete" with free enterprises, so be it. That is much better than instituting taxation.

Keep in mind, in a free republic there would probably be fewer prisons. One reason is that ruthless suppression of true crime does have some deterrent effect on some criminals.

A second reason is that many criminals today -- such as drug dealers selling to adult drug users -- wouldn't be criminals because such laws would be abolished.

A third reason is that there are other alternatives to prison for some convicted criminals. An example is "bonding out." Racist leftists in the U. S. are constantly whining about their racial "brothers" being incarcerated at a high rate; these leftists advocate mass releases of prisoners because their "community" supports them. Well, if their community supports them, then let individual members of that community post sufficient bond and commit, in writing, to guaranteeing the convicted criminals won't commit new crimes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think there will still be the 3 powers, judicial, law making and law enforcing. The law makers would be elected by the people, as is the case today. They would elect the law enforcers. Law enforcers are accountable to the law makers. Law makers make new laws, abolish old ones or modify them.

I've read somewhere laws are a way the people organize society according to their view of an ideal society. Due trough progress laws have to be adapted to reality. Old laws on property and destroing of of property may not be suited for internet crimes and computer viruses. People change in their attitude to marriage, so divorce laws have to change etc.

If the constitution would determine how the country is organised in states, and districts it may be necessary from time to time to change it to have a more effective organisation.

The law makers should fix the taxes according to budget of law enforcing.

Basically people would vote for the law makers on the basis of their views on the new laws that have to be passed and how well they manage the tax payers money.

Government contracting to private enterprise is a difficult matter. About the police: in a free republic, policemen would be the only people permitted to use force and violence. For example if an event like the super bowl needs a lot of crowd controle and security, it is unfair to make a whole nation pay for something that benefits only to the organisers of the super bowl. There are two solutions, both unsattisfactory: 1 Make the organisers pay for the use of the police. Drawback: government officials would be inclined to rent the police out and leave day to day police work undone. 2 Make crowd control, surveillance of valuables, chemical plants and such a private matter done by private security firms. Drawback: where do you draw the line between those firms and police when it comes to the use of force.

As to other forms of government contracting to private enterprise. Government has people working for it who receive their paycheck trough taxes. If the government manages to sell know-how and labour at the market, taxes should be reduced with the amount the government earned. Reimbursment takes place at the end of the year. Taxes are fixed on the basis of how much the government THINKS it will spend next year. Private companies competing with government are in fact up against a competitor who always gets cheap loans to bridge the gap between paying its workers and being paid for the goods. In my opinion this would be disloyal competition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. Do you see any unresolvable objection -- in a free republic that has all the checks, balances, and rules of openness of accounting -- to such military units receiving pay? I don't. In fact, I think your idea is ingenious and deserves close study.

It could really be a great method of earning funding, but it rests on this question:

Are the police and military allowed to sell their services to special requests?

Along the same lines, I see no valid objection to, for example, the use of prison labor to maintain prisons: repairing their own clothing, growing their own fruit and vegetables, and so forth. If that means they "compete" with free enterprises, so be it. That is much better than instituting taxation.
I understand the percieved parallels, however self-sustenant prison labour is wholy different from entering the market. When prison labourers enter the market the prison can sell the goods at slave labour prices, which puts other businesses out of work. The same could be said for the sale of military training actions.

2. What is wrong with "involvement in an industry" if it is actually for training of military support forces whose purpose is to protect not only that industry but all people and property in that society?

The engineers could always construct their projects on military reservation land, which would still allow proper training but unfortunately would not be a source of income for the government. Thus, I think this problem can be solved by determining whether government may legitimately do what my question at the top of this post entails.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are the police and military allowed to sell their services to special requests?

Now that I have thought about this more, I think the answer about actual policing is "No", and is divorced from military training, specifically. I committed the fallacy of "package-dealing," as Ayn Rand would put it. Actual services that maintain individual rights are supposed to be afforded to all citizens. The byproducts of training for these services are not governed by the same moral rules.

I think that if there ever was an army corps of engineers who ended up increasing the governments revenue, it's size would be maximized and it would certainly put private enterprise out of business.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that if there ever was an army corps of engineers who ended up increasing the governments revenue, it's size would be maximized and it would certainly put private enterprise out of business.

This argument also applies to the provision of legitimate government services, since entities like police and military bases provide disproportionate benefits to the populace. For example, observe how everyone recognized the need to downsize the military at the end of the Cold War, but the residents of every city near one rebelled at the notion that their base would have to be closed. Likewise, whoever receives government benefits has an incentive to always demand more of them at the expense of others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...