Why eliminate controls gradually instead of immediately?

[TheEgoist]

Wouldn't the logical conclusion of this be to never eliminate SS? If you eliminate it at any point, many people will be getting a lot less than they paid in. Rand said she wanted all controls out in 3-5 years, which for someone who's 60 years old, basically means they paid into this system for a very long time and get nothing back. Do you object to her position and want SS to be phased out over a period of something like 20 or 40 years? (I'm not saying this would necessarily be worse than the 3-5 years phase out)

I assume you're talking specifically about the poor only. This includes all the businesses which get huge tax loopholes (often driving their taxes down to near-zero). I don't see how they'd really be getting "screwed".

I'm not an economist, so I really couldn't come up with the most effective way of releasing the money to those that deserve it, but I do think that people who are 40-60 shouldn't just get a complete raw deal.

[Mnrchst]

There is no "inherently immoral," it's always within a context. So, within the context of America today, yes, it is immoral to eliminate all forms of government intervention, all at once, with no warning for the populace. Even that, however, drops the context that it will never end abruptly. People take time to change their minds...

I think I get it now: you're saying that if 90% of people woke up tomorrow and decided to end all taxation now, it would be immoral to make that change because of what it would do to the 10%. However, if more and more people gradually reached this view, then it would be moral to pass legislation that immediately ends all taxation because the 40ish% of people who oppose such legislation knew there was a good chance such legislation would pass for at least a few months, if not years, ahead of time.

So my question now is why it would be immoral to end all taxation immediately if 90% of people woke up tomorrow and reached this conclusion (virtually impossible, I know, but please indulge me).

[DonAthos]

Even suddenly ending slavery would be worse than having a transition period.

I'm trying to understand this.

So... let's say that there was no Civil War, and instead we're discussing the proper method of ending slavery -- a transition period. I've heard "5 years" discussed elsewhere in this thread as being a reasonable amount of time for people to adjust to radical social change, and certainly the ending of slavery in the antebellum South would have been a radical change.

In that case, would we have proposed a (roughly) 5 year transition period for the South to end slavery? To the slave who might have said, "Thanks kindly, but I'd rather my forced servitude were ended immediately," would we reply, "Society, and your owners, need a transition period. They've been relying on your labor for such a long time that it wouldn't be just to expect them to live without it immediately. Therefore, we need you to keep on picking cotton for a few more years"?

Maybe this isn't what you're saying. But I can't imagine advocating prolonging actual, in fact slavery versus its absolute and immediate abolition. Which is the only thing I can think that a "transition period" would entail. Or do you mean something else?

[Eiuol]

Maybe this isn't what you're saying. But I can't imagine advocating prolonging actual, in fact slavery versus its absolute and immediate abolition. Which is the only thing I can think that a "transition period" would entail. Or do you mean something else?

I don't know a whole lot about pre-Civil War history, so it's hard for me to make some kind of prediction about what may have happened if slavery was outright ended suddenly. I'm not sure how slave-holders would have reacted, perhaps the Civil War would have ended up much worse than it actually was with southern slave-holders then pushing for state's rights even harder. It doesn't even so much matter the immediacy of the tactic, all that really matters is what sort of resulting condition will there be afterwards? If I knew more history, I could give you a better answer.

[DonAthos]

I don't know a whole lot about pre-Civil War history, so it's hard for me to make some kind of prediction about what may have happened if slavery was outright ended suddenly.

All right. I don't mean to make this a discussion of the Civil War specifically. It's just that you said, "Even suddenly ending slavery would be worse than having a transition period," and I'm trying to understand that idea. Because I'm having a hard time imagining the situation where I would call for "the end of slavery... but not right away."

Do you think that a slave -- from before the Civil War or in any other context that you can supply -- would be content with a "transition period," during which, I imagine, they would remain enslaved? Why should they want anything other than their rights to be respected immediately? Why should they settle for anything less than liberty? And why should I do anything other than agree with him?

Edited October 15, 2011 by DonAthos

[Eiuol]

Why should they want anything other than their rights to be respected immediately? Why should they settle for anything less than liberty? And why should I do anything other than agree with him?

I'm not saying anyone would be *happy* that any rights violation would keep occurring, only that a poor transition can lead to perhaps even more severe conditions. I personally can't say what the best option may have been, I simply don't know enough. I still suspect some amount of intermediary steps would have been a good idea so that the southern economy wouldn't collapse. I'm sure at the time there were frequent discussions on the best way to end slavery amongst abolitionists, and I wouldn't be surprised if there was some discussion like we are having now. Although, maybe we could say that slavery is such a strong violation of rights that whatever happened to the south really didn't matter.

[DonAthos]

I'm not saying anyone would be *happy* that any rights violation would keep occurring, only that a poor transition can lead to perhaps even more severe conditions. I personally can't say what the best option may have been, I simply don't know enough. I still suspect some amount of intermediary steps would have been a good idea so that the southern economy wouldn't collapse. I'm sure at the time there were frequent discussions on the best way to end slavery amongst abolitionists, and I wouldn't be surprised if there was some discussion like we are having now. Although, maybe we could say that slavery is such a strong violation of rights that whatever happened to the south really didn't matter.

But we're not necessarily talking about the South anymore. We're talking about "slavery."

While I can understand your saying that we don't want a "poor transition" -- nobody wants anything "poor," right? -- I'm trying to understand this in terms of actual, real human lives. We can't talk about the Civil War because we're not experts, which is fair enough, but we should be talking about slavery.

Imagine that I was a slave in a given society. Since any situation of slavery will necessarily have *some* context, I have to imagine that our conversation might go something like this:

Me (the slave): Eiuol, slavery is immoral. I demand that my servitude end yesterday, because nobody has the right to enslave me.

Eiuol: Not so fast. Before we put an end to it we have to examine the impact of doing so. We need to have a good transition.

Me: A good transition for whom? My rights are being violated; slavery is wrong; and it needs to end immediately.

Eiuol: While it is wrong, you need to get back to work until we've ensured that the economy of those who've enslaved you doesn't suffer too much. I assure you, this does not make me happy.

***

And I mean... huh? How can we want anyone enslaved to be forced to continue for even one more minute? Out of concern for the welfare of the slave masters? What regard do we owe them, and on what basis? Because they've chosen to enslave people, and tied their economic well-being to that monstrous decision? Shouldn't they suffer the misfortune of losing their slaves, and whatever that entails? Isn't that justice?

[Mnrchst]

And anyone can take what DonAthos just said about slavery and apply it to taxation if they want to know my view on the elimination of taxation.

[Eiuol]

And I mean... huh? How can we want anyone enslaved to be forced to continue for even one more minute? Out of concern for the welfare of the slave masters? What regard do we owe them, and on what basis? Because they've chosen to enslave people, and tied their economic well-being to that monstrous decision? Shouldn't they suffer the misfortune of losing their slaves, and whatever that entails? Isn't that justice?

That's why I was suggesting that a particular rights violation may be bad enough that some consequences won't matter in the long-run. Respecting rights has a practical benefit; I don't respect rights because I'm "supposed to". If what happens afterwards is a situation where either myself or the slave cannot benefit from rights, I should not eliminate slavery suddenly. War is a possibility, or other legislation is passed that are a different kind of rights violation that may possibly be worse than slavery. Maybe war is worth the price. Maybe those concerns are ill-founded. In general, though, what I'd say is a "good transition" is one where you achieve the change you want without being in a worse condition than before. Typically, that means social stability.

I should add that I don't think taxation is as strong a rights violation as slavery. Plus, taxation isn't a good comparison, because taxation is used to support infrastructure that you probably would want in a capitalist society anyway, while slavery isn't something you'd want at all and only supports unjust labor practices.

[DonAthos]

I hope you don't mind my pressing these issues a bit further. Right now, I can't help but feel that you're challenging certain ideas that I've considered... fairly central to my understanding of Objectivism. So in the interest of expanding/revising that understanding (and perhaps that of others), I'd like to keep going...

Respecting rights has a practical benefit; I don't respect rights because I'm "supposed to".

Agreed on both counts. We recognize no distinction between the moral and the practical, and we don't hold to any sort of moral duty.

But when I take this all together, and with your other posts in this thread, I believe that what you're saying is that it may, at times, be judged "impractical" to respect others' rights.

If that were so, and given our (presumed) agreement above on "the moral and the practical," could I say that it would be immoral to respect those same rights in those situations? In the instance where you judged a transition from slavery necessary (the more practical) -- as opposed to its outright abolition -- then slavery's abolition would be immoral. It would amount to choosing lesser values over greater; a sacrifice. Right so far, or have I misstepped?

In that case, it would be moral to violate the rights of others; it would be moral to initiate the use of force. In saying that we ought to continue to enslave people, even if only for a "transitional period," I believe that this is where we've unavoidably wound up: advocating the initiation of the use of force, and defending its initiation in the name of morality.

I must be wrong. Right? That can't be the correct development of your position. I must be wrong here, somewhere, and I'd be greatly appreciative if I could be helped to see where.

[Eiuol]

I must be wrong. Right? That can't be the correct development of your position. I must be wrong here, somewhere, and I'd be greatly appreciative if I could be helped to see where.

I don't think your reasoning can quite work out this far. The context here is that rights are already being violated. Asking for immediate action won't necessarily translate into long-lasting benefit, the very benefits rights are supposed to enable for all individuals. There is no kind of fragmentation of the rights respecting and morality, because an implementation strategy is required in order to get rights to be respected. Law isn't the only thing that gets people to respect rights. Subversive or underground tactics may do a better job than having the government support a change right away. It's one thing to respect a person's rights, it's another to have a law passed which enforces the respect of rights on a large scale. Of course, the sooner you remove rights violations on a societal scale, the better, but the individual level may suffice while you work up higher.

Rapid changes cause the most disruption in daily living, and I was trying to point out before with the French Revolution, those disruptions can be violent. I'm sure French peasants had their rights violated in some horrible manner, but their method of change involved cutting off the heads of royalty. Then the violence got out of control beyond what anyone ever intended.

[DonAthos]

I don't think your reasoning can quite work out this far. The context here is that rights are already being violated.

It is an interesting observation, but one with which I'm not sure I can agree. Imagine a man enslaved for five years. Have his rights only been violated once, in his enslavement? Or are there fresh initiations of force against this man throughout?

Let us revisit your initial statement:

Even suddenly ending slavery would be worse than having a transition period.

All right. And so I try to imagine some context in which your statement might apply. Suppose you and I are lawmakers. We live in a land in which there is slavery, and neither you nor I believe that there ought to be slavery. However, I argue for slavery's immediate abolition whereas you think that there should be a "transition period," during which (I presume) slavery would continue. For argument's sake, we will put that period at five years.

During those five years, I expect that your plan will put the force of law on the side of the slave masters; that is, it will commit force against those enslaved, insofar as they resist their "owners."

While you may claim that those slaves who will suffer throughout these five years have already had their rights violated, and so having the law continue to support said rights violation does not have the same moral character as an actual initiation of the use of force, I do not agree that there is either one undifferentiated rights violation, or that there is a moral difference between the first initiation of the use of force and the second. If one man attacks another and punches the victim in the face, I don't believe that the second punch he throws is any more moral (or any less immoral) than the first had been. And if we observe a man getting beaten down in this manner, I do not believe it would be any less immoral for us to join in and kick that man while he is down.

If one man enslaves another, how can it be less immoral for us -- and less an initiation of the use of force -- to put our governmental power behind the slaver, and not the slave? And in supporting a "transition period" as opposed to immediate abolition, isn't that precisely what we'd be doing?

It seems that you would claim that this transition period is the pragmatic, the practical, the wise route to take; that route which is most likely to secure the slaves' freedom in the long term (or other goods, such as "stability"). And I admit that this is a persuasive argument. But if our "wise route" involves supporting, sanctioning, and committing outrages against actual human beings and their rights, then aren't we simply saying that our ends justify our means? And aren't we also saying that we've determined it to be acceptable (or even moral) to violate others' rights -- if temporarily -- if it is "for the greater good"? And finally, aren't we doing this in the name of appeasing those irrational persons who do not respect rights, and allowing them to continue to "profit" from their abuses with an apparent legitimacy that we would thereby grant them?

In pursuing such a course of action, have we considered everything which we might stand to lose?

I don't know. I'm not sure I'll have much more to add to this conversation -- I have more thinking to do, at least -- and I thank you for the time you've taken to explain your statement.

[Eiuol]

And finally, aren't we doing this in the name of appeasing those irrational persons who do not respect rights, and allowing them to continue to "profit" from their abuses with an apparent legitimacy that we would thereby grant them?

I didn't specify what transitionary steps could be taken. You wouldn't be supporting violating rights if the explicit methods you are using are a matter of reducing the kind of power a slaveholder has over a slave. I especially point out that law isn't the only way to bring about change, so transition can involve some sort of activism or actions on the individual level (it's an important distinction I think). Also, the type of government where the change occurs matters. If the government in question is quite capitalistic and slaveholders are an extreme minority, I'm probably inclined to take rapid action (< 3 months), but if it a strongly mixed economy with a huge portion of slaveholders, longer judicial change might be better. Really, the principle I'm operating on here is how to get from point A to point B if the wider goal is human flourishing in the Objectivist sense? There are a variety of considerations.

Edited October 16, 2011 by Eiuol

[Mnrchst]

I should add that I don't think taxation is as strong a rights violation as slavery.

So what?

taxation isn't a good comparison, because taxation is used to support infrastructure that you probably would want in a capitalist society anyway, while slavery isn't something you'd want at all and only supports unjust labor practices.

This is ridiculous. Slavery could be used to support infrastructure that you probably would want in a capitalist society.