Why should goverment be limited?

[Mick Pestis]

By the way,

I often get "Tackled" by certain issues... I find it hard to explain why goverment should be limited and why unregulated capitalism is the most moral way when im debating people. I'm usually saying that it's not moral to take my money via taxes with coercion in order to pay somebody else's lifestyle, but then, even though they are not anarchists, they put me in the corner saying "So you are willing to take from people in order to pay police and courts but not other things?", and I answer than, and I explain the laizes-faire point, but I always end up trying to defend that position and explain why anarchy is immoral... it's rather tiring. maybe you have a rebuttal for that.

And another thing:

Someone asked me if I support limiting the speed of drivers on the road (can you go 200miles an hour if you want to?) or if I support laws about crossing the street or driving through a red light. I tried to think about it, but came to a blank. I tried to compare that to legalizing weapon carrying, which I agree for the most part with the Objectivist party view (that it should not be granted to ex criminals), so why would I object a limitless speed on the roads?

I was certain that if I go down that road of "Voluntary communites can excersize certain norms/laws" he would "extrapolate" that to a state level, and I dont really know what to answer to that.

[Craig24]

By the way,

I often get "Tackled" by certain issues... I find it hard to explain why goverment should be limited and why unregulated capitalism is the most moral way when im debating people. I'm usually saying that it's not moral to take my money via taxes with coercion in order to pay somebody else's lifestyle, but then, even though they are not anarchists, they put me in the corner saying "So you are willing to take from people in order to pay police and courts but not other things?", and I answer than, and I explain the laizes-faire point, but I always end up trying to defend that position and explain why anarchy is immoral... it's rather tiring. maybe you have a rebuttal for that.

This is good topic for a new thread. Start one. I'll figure out a reply.

[Spiral Architect]

By the way,

I often get "Tackled" by certain issues... I find it hard to explain why goverment should be limited and why unregulated capitalism is the most moral way when im debating people. I'm usually saying that it's not moral to take my money via taxes with coercion in order to pay somebody else's lifestyle, but then, even though they are not anarchists, they put me in the corner saying "So you are willing to take from people in order to pay police and courts but not other things?", and I answer than, and I explain the laizes-faire point, but I always end up trying to defend that position and explain why anarchy is immoral... it's rather tiring. maybe you have a rebuttal for that.

I get this frequently when talking politics. The user jumps from a point on Federal taxation this tosses in something about police of firemen. At the point I first ask the person if I should finish the point on federal policy or switch to talking local community politics. Then from there I point out that a community that wants police can easily work with each other, as adults, learn to communicate, and then through voluntary association come up with means of paying for police or any other service. The point is, if you start with the principle that you are not going to force participation then you can open up the discussion. The users point is that forced participation is the only way. Simply ask them that if they were a community leader and had to talk to locals to generate revenue what they might do. If they insist on force being the only “practical” means then you are pulling the conversation towards them justifying a statist approach to dealing with their neighbor.

A good leader should be able to motivate a community and influence others through voluntary appeal to their values with reason. One of the greatest indications of the vacuum existing in politics today is that there are few leaders that do this. The common answer is to write a bill to force people to participate. In business, such people who force others through position are regarded as poor managers. They need their position to influence people. In politics they are regarded as strong leaders that “get things done”. It’s sad really.

The idea is forced association versus voluntary association – If anything they should be the ones to explain why force is a legitimate method of human interaction.

And another thing:

Someone asked me if I support limiting the speed of drivers on the road (can you go 200miles an hour if you want to?) or if I support laws about crossing the street or driving through a red light. I tried to think about it, but came to a blank. I tried to compare that to legalizing weapon carrying, which I agree for the most part with the Objectivist party view (that it should not be granted to ex criminals), so why would I object a limitless speed on the roads?

I was certain that if I go down that road of "Voluntary communites can excersize certain norms/laws" he would "extrapolate" that to a state level, and I dont really know what to answer to that.

This falsely assumes that people will just mindlessly turn into animals and do whatever they want, as if the Government was the only thing between us and the fall of Western Civilization. Bureaucrats wouldn’t even have a paycheck without someone earning it for them, let alone having some power to hold back a Pictish wilderness of anarchy.

It also confuses Government policy with any terms inherent in using something. If that road belonged to me I would still set terms on its use and they would include safety. A speed limit since such a limit is good for the road, the car, as well as the safety of the customers using that road, or if it was an interstate I could take the limit off but impose other rules Autobahn style to control high speed safety. There are many ways to set terms of use. The gross assumption is that the Government is the arbitrator of standards when some of us would be even harder on motorists.

For example, as a driver safety instructor I know the bad habits and common cause of accidents so I would expect those that used my road to follow additional rules too. A good one is that the government ignores rules regarding those that speed up to a construction zone then merge into traffic at the last second to avoid the back-up in the open lane – I would revokes these people’s passes for a period. Same for those that like to read a paper, shave, or do other ridiculously bone headed things while driving… They would also get the boot.

Now the good thing for others is that if I impose too many safety restrictions they can simply choose to ignore my road and use someone else’s. That is the good thing about private property – Unlike a bureaucracy you can choose to ignore it and the owner.

And this brings us back to the point of free association versus forced association.

[Mick Pestis]

Thanks alot Grames, ill check in on these threads.

Spiral Architect, Thanks also, I can't believe I forgot about the fact that roads would be privatized... as for the voluntarism thing, well, couldn't they just say that a good leader could influence people to "accept" other so-called "rights" like "right for healthcare"?

The main issue is explaining why you CAN'T extrapolate, from the fact that many things require "regulations", like forums, and voluntary communities to the state level? I know it sounds silly but they use that against me, they actually start bad-mouthing me for no particular reason, and when I report that to the Mod, they go; "Oh, you need a Regulator now huh??", hence implying that regulations are neccecary, hence the "conclusion" that it is required on the state level. I know it's a fallacy but I just don't have an adequate rebuttal for that.

What am I suppose to say, "some places do require regulation, others don't"? it's that and the fact that I don't really know how the state level "Book of laws" looks like in a laissez-faire state (especially regarding property rights), is there something like that? cause I know objectivism supports one law system (right?), so there must be something judges base their verdicts upon (right?;|)

I need some reading material on this aspect (Threads, articles, certain books that cover that topic, etc) so if you have it, bring it over!

Thanks.

[Spiral Architect]

Thanks alot Grames, ill check in on these threads.

Spiral Architect, Thanks also, I can't believe I forgot about the fact that roads would be privatized... as for the voluntarism thing, well, couldn't they just say that a good leader could influence people to "accept" other so-called "rights" like "right for healthcare"?

A good leader (in this case as you are describing it as effective or charismatic) can very well convince people to deny individual rights for some other bad end. For an extreme case, you have Hitler that took the theory of rights being a product of race and convinced a nation to put the community above themselves in one of the worst disasters in modern history. Lenin and Mao created even bigger body counts. They managed to get away with some pretty horrendous quotes claiming people should be willing to deny themselves as individuals for the “right” of the people/race/Nation/anyone-but-them. Reading their quotes leads one to wonder how anyone could have gone along with them. Fear was a factor later but early on they had to motivate support before they could use force, so between sleight of hand arguments, exploiting accepted premises of the times, and old fashion charisma they got into powerful positions.

In this case I mean good as both effective and moral. They motivate people with rational ideas that are just. Applying philosophy to management and leadership is a passion of mine so I’ve thought a lot about this – There is poor or effective leadership as a skill then there is leadership that acts on moral principles. A good leader should do both. Denying the full context either leads one to poor results while the other leads to the wrong results.

The main issue is explaining why you CAN'T extrapolate, from the fact that many things require "regulations", like forums, and voluntary communities to the state level? I know it sounds silly but they use that against me, they actually start bad-mouthing me for no particular reason, and when I report that to the Mod, they go; "Oh, you need a Regulator now huh??", hence implying that regulations are neccecary, hence the "conclusion" that it is required on the state level. I know it's a fallacy but I just don't have an adequate rebuttal for that.

What am I suppose to say, "some places do require regulation, others don't"? it's that and the fact that I don't really know how the state level "Book of laws" looks like in a laissez-faire state (especially regarding property rights), is there something like that? cause I know objectivism supports one law system (right?), so there must be something judges base their verdicts upon (right?;|)

I need some reading material on this aspect (Threads, articles, certain books that cover that topic, etc) so if you have it, bring it over!

Thanks.

The issue isn’t “regulation”, but the Government forcing regulations on people without their consent versus you choosing to accept someone’s terms (regulations) for using their property. You can choose to ignore a forum you don’t like but you cannot ignore the Government. Your friends on the other forums choose to participate in that forum based on the conditions the owners established. They are supposed to “regulate” their property but in this case it is simply controlling the terms of how they want others to use it. Property is supposed to be controlled by the owners – That is why people need the right to dispose of their property because controlling and disposing of it is a function of living.

Society does not belong to the government nor does that government have any moral right to set terms or regulate participation in “government’s society”. I’ve already mentioned three leaders that got away with that notion. Society does not belong to the government, the government belongs to society. The purpose of government is to protect rights so people can live in the full sense of that word, including the creation of property and to control it as a neccessary condition of living. “We The People” decided that government belongs to us and the Constitution was supposed to be the terms for their operation. We set the terms in our life, not the Government. Sort of puts a perspective on how far we have wandered off the reservation on that one doesn’t it.

My response would be, “Exactly – This is about your right to control your property. What do you think I’m defending? Why do you want to give it away to someone else?”

As for books, since this is an Objectivist forum an obvious place to start is Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal. I'll list more later.

[Mick Pestis]

Thanks, that was a really clear answer that sums it up:) ill use it.