123Me Posted July 4, 2012 Report Share Posted July 4, 2012 Nicky, thank you for your response. Can you elaborate on how taking the government money is not seen as unjustified according to objectivism in this case? Would you be able to get into the specifics? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nicky Posted July 4, 2012 Report Share Posted July 4, 2012 Nicky, thank you for your response. Can you elaborate on how taking the government money is not seen as unjustified according to objectivism in this case? Would you be able to get into the specifics? Well, there's nothing in Objectivism to suggest that accepting money from the government of your country, for your education (money anyone in your position could receive, by law), would be wrong on principle. Beyond that, it would be difficult for me to prove a negative. I'd have to guess why you're asking the question. Tell me what about Objectivism made you think it would be unjustified to do that, and then we can discuss specifics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
softwareNerd Posted July 4, 2012 Report Share Posted July 4, 2012 Can you elaborate on how taking the government money is not seen as unjustified according to objectivism in this case?To clarify, Objectivism is completely against using government as a way of forced "charity". Objectivists do not support any government scheme like scholarships, food-stamps, etc. -- since these are not charity, but redistribution of wealth that has been expropriated by force. However, you can be against a government-scholarship scheme, and you can want it disbanded; yet, being against it, it does not follow that you should not use it if it is law. Imagine this extremely simplified example: suppose the government takes $1000 from each person and then has a scheme where each person gets $1000 in food-stamps from the government. You could be against this scheme. Yet, it does not follow that you should refuse to take the $1,000 in food-stamps. Of course, real examples are more complex, but that example illustrates why there is no contradiction between being against a scheme while using it. [P.S. It's worth adding that this does not mean that one ought to use all such government schemes. To some extent, using a scheme might help prolong it or might support a larger infrastructure that is not in your interest. So, in a particular case, one might refuse to take "advantage" of a government scheme.] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
123Me Posted July 4, 2012 Report Share Posted July 4, 2012 Nicky, The idea which I was thinking about is the idea of going through state-funded programs meaning there is money being taken from others and being given to you. So basically, I would have thought Objectivism would hold that it is the same as receiving stolen property. SoftwareNerd, Thank you for your response. Although in my case it would be iffy to say that it is an exact balance of me getting taxed and now I am getting government money of an equal amount to go to school. I haven't paid much in taxes. My family has, however they may be getting it back in other ways. So I am not sure if my use of the government program would have me overdrawing using taxpayer money. That being said, would the objectivist standpoint be that I shouldn't use the programs? ( the money for college and trade school?) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nicky Posted July 4, 2012 Report Share Posted July 4, 2012 Nicky, The idea which I was thinking about is the idea of going through state-funded programs meaning there is money being taken from others and being given to you. So basically, I would have thought Objectivism would hold that it is the same as receiving stolen property. It is stolen property, obviously. Where else would the government get it from, except steal it? It's not like it produces anything. But it's not as simple as saying that the government is the thief, and taxpayers are the victims. The perpetrators of the criminal enterprise known as the welfare state are all the people who vote and advocate for it, and the victims are all the people who are against it but have it forced on them anyway. If you are against it, rest assured, you are a victim of it. And not just through your parents, who are taxpayers. I'm sure you already know that the money being benevolently handed out to all comers hasn't yet been collected from taxpayers. It is borrowed money, and what is leveraged against that debt is the future earnings of everyone in your generation. So, if you are planning to use your education to earn a living, you are either a victim or a willing participant in this borrowing scheme meant to fund your education (among other things). Either way, there is no moral/practical (they're the same thing) justification for refusing the money: it will be spent either way, and you will be paying it back either way. The immoral act would be to take the money and waste it (go to college, but don't bother learning anything useful). Not so much because it would hurt the system (I don't believe it would either help or hurt the system: at this point the system wastes as much as it is available to it, no matter how much that is), but because it would hurt you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
softwareNerd Posted July 4, 2012 Report Share Posted July 4, 2012 (edited) SoftwareNerd, Thank you for your response. Although in my case it would be iffy to say that it is an exact balance of me getting taxed and now I am getting government money of an equal amount to go to school. I haven't paid much in taxes. My family has, however they may be getting it back in other ways. So I am not sure if my use of the government program would have me overdrawing using taxpayer money. That being said, would the objectivist standpoint be that I shouldn't use the programs? ( the money for college and trade school?)I gave the very simple example where one is effectively getting back what has been taken from one. As a society, we will never get back what is taken, because inefficiency is the nature of the beast. If all the voters around you and for the last few decades had allowed the last few generations of your family to be more free, perhaps you'd have started life as a richer brat Has that been taken from you? There's no reasonable way to compute the losses and gains. Here's a second way to look at it. If you do not take money from some scheme, what then? Does it go away, or does it simply go to someone else? If it goes to someone else, then the robbery is a fact. Consider this: the majority of the victims support the system. In other words if you give up the money, the odds are that it goes to someone who thinks the system is pretty good. How could you justify that? Here's another way to look at it: we all use government schools, airports, police services, and all sorts of things that are paid for by our taxes. Did you go to public school? If you did, it was "free"... no different from a college scholarship in that sense. So, was that wrong? If you did not, is it wrong for a typical middle-class person to send their kids to publicly-financed school (not speaking of what is taught, but the mechanism of financing) today? My advice would be: if you do not like the system you find yourself in, go ahead and fight it intellectually in any way you can. However, live in the system, and even try to thrive in it. Of course, you have to honestly ask yourself these questions and be convinced that you are not a hypocrite. Also, if happiness is your goal, your life is probably not going to revolve around fighting the system or complaining about it. Reject the most egregious aspects, refuse to do things that you know will bolster aspects you object to. Then, use the rest to give you the most benefit you can draw from it. If you want to "atone", commit to giving some percentage of your time or money to causes that will actually change public opinion. In that way, what you draw from the system is also going -- in small part -- to change it. BTW: The most effective thing you can do to change the world is to become successful in whatever you love doing. Edited July 4, 2012 by softwareNerd whYNOT 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spiral Architect Posted July 5, 2012 Report Share Posted July 5, 2012 This has really been covered well already but I’ll attempt to say it more succinctly. You are already being punished by being forced to participate in a scheme you are opposed to. There is no virtue in removing the legal benefit that justified the scheme to begin with. You might as well get your money back instead of sacrificing yourself for a principle, which in Objectivism it would not be since altruism is the vice at work. It was what caused your forced participation in the system and it would be the cause of you doubling down on the punishment by denying the benefit. Who would benefit from your double sacrifice to “society”? So, as Steve Miller once said, “Take the money and run”. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thenelli01 Posted July 5, 2012 Report Share Posted July 5, 2012 (edited) As long as the government is giving out subsidies, schools will keep raising the price. It is not immoral to accept tax payer money to pay for a government inflated tuition price because I am not the one creating nor agreeing with their policies. It is a result of their policies that the price is so high so it would be stupid for me not to accept it, especially when it will just free up money for other people. Edited July 5, 2012 by Matt Giannelli Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
123Me Posted July 10, 2012 Report Share Posted July 10, 2012 (edited) Spiral Architect, I can see what you are saying. BUT, the thing is that I have not put in lot by the way of taxes to the government so far. It is likely that I will be moving countries so I won't be contributing like that. If I use the services, it will most likely equate to me just taking money out of the tax pool and not contributing. On the basis of my family could have had more money, I think of this: Basically, it is not a definite thing that my family has put in the tax money and has not gotten it out, or gotten more of it out thus it is not in balance, having taken more out then they have put in. I could take it out not knowing if they are 'overdrawn' or not. Whatever the case is, it might be best to not 'punish' someone unless you are sure that they are responsible. Public roads, public schools, police... yeah I have used them. But I was forced to go to public schools, I have no other options but to use the roads, and the police I have no alternative if I am in danger to call (like a private militia). Honestly, not using taxpayer money is not something I am trying to die for (in terms of police) or to seriously cripple myself... i don't think there is any sort of police work that is legal even apart from the government. However in terms of taking government money for college or a trade school there is other options for education then taking the money. As for the subsidy comment from Matt: I am not sure how this is the truth that subsidies mean higher education prices. Could you elaborate? Edited July 10, 2012 by 123Me Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nicky Posted July 10, 2012 Report Share Posted July 10, 2012 As for the subsidy comment from Matt: I am not sure how this is the truth that subsidies mean higher education prices. Could you elaborate? According to the law of supply and demand, greater demand for a commodity drives prices up. A subsidy for higher education means more students. More students means greater demand, greater demand means higher prices. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
123Me Posted August 2, 2012 Report Share Posted August 2, 2012 Good point Nicky. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
123Me Posted February 13, 2013 Report Share Posted February 13, 2013 (edited) So, an update. I started going to college, but I still have questions floating around my head. Some arguments and counter-arguments are as follows. I wanted to get your thoughts on them if you have thoughts. ( :-P ) The people won't get their money back anyway. If you refuse to use what is offered, nobody benefits. What if ppl benefit by having $ in the system though? If I say no there is more to go around. If I don't even know if I or my family is not taking more out then I am putting in anyway. Besides, if I am, then I am guilty of receiving stolen goods. Plus, what if they DO get it back if I don't use it? Like, there is a limit and I am using the share they put in, but if I don't use it then they get it back? Most people support the system anyway, so you aren't robbing them. Taking money from a blind person who if he knew better wouldn't have agreed to it is taking advantage of people. Whether you use it or not, the robbery is a fact. It already happened, and it will either benefit someone or it will just sit there and nobody benefits. Well, there is still the option of taking it out and giving it to people. Still, you don't know who is putting more in then taking it out. If you get the wrong guy you are getting someone who is 'overdrawn' Well, you could ask for people to prove it, for example, if you posted something on the internet then people might want to prove it for some free money. Law of Supply and Demand. The government is driving up prices because they are giving loans to people. Unless it equals out: the people who lost the money gain it back in the loan so it is kept even, and not driven up. You have payed and will pay taxes, plus your whole family was taxed. So why only get 'robbed' and not get anything in return? Well, I don't know if the services in use out of the family total are more or less then was put in. If I am taking more out then that is receiving stolen goods, if I am taking less out then that is fine, but you don't know. You don't want to make moral decisions on what you don't know. So, what do you think? Edited February 13, 2013 by 123Me Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
softwareNerd Posted February 13, 2013 Report Share Posted February 13, 2013 So, an update. I started going to college, ...Congratulations. I hope you get the values you are looking for, and make the most of it...., but I still have questions floating around my head.You'll never, ever be able to compute things at the level of detail you ask. You are born into a country where voters have decided on using force to hold people back from all sorts of economic activity. You did not design this system: a majority of taxpayers support it. The system forces you to comply to all its rules. By its nature, the system is designed to take from all sorts of people in all sorts of ways, and to give to all sorts of people in all sorts of ways. People who receive "tax breaks" or "subsidies" or "child credits" or "free schooling" or "college loans" or any of the various handouts are thus made to feel like beggars and moochers in a system they do not want, and where they have no choice to say: "I don't want your shit... don't take any of mine". If your education gets you to a point where you thrive financially, your fellow voters will take their pound of flesh, and more... and hope that you give it with guilt... because without their help you would not have made it. Don't fall for the gimmick. Take every dime of government money you can get legally, and if you have no use for it, donate it to an organization that fights for individual rights. 123Me and DonAthos 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tadmjones Posted February 13, 2013 Report Share Posted February 13, 2013 (edited) Congratulations. I hope you get the values you are looking for, and make the most of it.You'll never, ever be able to compute things at the level of detail you ask. You are born into a country where voters have decided on using force to hold people back from all sorts of economic activity. You did not design this system: a majority of taxpayers support it. The system forces you to comply to all its rules. By its nature, the system is designed to take from all sorts of people in all sorts of ways, and to give to all sorts of people in all sorts of ways. People who receive "tax breaks" or "subsidies" or "child credits" or "free schooling" or "college loans" or any of the various handouts are thus made to feel like beggars and moochers in a system they do not want, and where they have no choice to say: "I don't want your shit... don't take any of mine". If your education gets you to a point where you thrive financially, your fellow voters will take their pound of flesh, and more... and hope that you give it with guilt... because without their help you would not have made it. Don't fall for the gimmick. Take every dime of government money you can get legally, and if you have no use for it, donate it to an organization that fights for individual rights. Amen with the obligatory proviso "this system sucks, because.." Edited February 13, 2013 by tadmjones Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ruveyn1 Posted February 13, 2013 Report Share Posted February 13, 2013 According to the Objectivist perspective, would it be immoral to advocate or accept government grants for college-education? I'm talking mainly about need based financial aid, rather than loans or scholarships. These loans aren't given for academic performance, but strictly based on income. Get your money back (or your parent's money back) any legal way you can. Why be a sucker twice. First they fleece you. If you don't get it back you are fleeced twice. ruveyn1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
123Me Posted February 13, 2013 Report Share Posted February 13, 2013 (edited) Thx for the thoughts guys. Ultimately what I realized earlier today I think trumps everything... no one cares if I use the gov. money. No one holds it against me. At least 99 percent of people out there, or more. So I can use either mine or theirs which they put in at the moment b/c they aren't going to be holding it against me, they would agree that it would be fine for me to use it. I am not saying to take advantage of them though, just that everyone basically would say it's okay, and those people are the people who's money is being used (and mine). So, yeah. Edited February 13, 2013 by 123Me Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.