Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Capitalism, Democracy, and Utopia

Rate this topic


Kate87

Recommended Posts

Say a hypothetical dictator simply changed the law to make 90% of tax collecting illegal and punishable by death? On what basis could Objectivism fight this since tax is theft, and the dictator has just outlawed theft?

Your question doesn't make sense. Wouldn't the dictator control the government and the government is the one that controls tax collections? Why would the "IRS" purposely collect more than what was ordered by the dictator?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fascism is a very specific term. Pinochet wasn't a fascist.. He was a dictator who took the advice of a right-of-center economics school. A dictatorship would only worked in the short term in Chile because Chile was a nation composed of Roman Catholics and Socialists. Pinochet himself wasn't an individualist or a capitalist, he just copied the American system because he wanted a system that worked.

Would Capitalism require a military junta or a dictatorship to enforce? I don't see any reason why it would, as no one would be oppressed and social welfare systems would be phased out over time, not shredded the night someone got elected.

An Objectivist dictatorship should not be fought as long as it is doing its job. If it becomes corrupt, or incompetent, or starts violating rights, reforms can be sought, but I don't know why I would care if an Objectivist dictatorship existed as it wouldn't do very much.

Edited by Hairnet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What does this even mean? How do you define American? I thought it just meant people living in America?

The present political majority of unproductive moochers and the looters who service them may live in America... but they aren't Americans because they are not living by American values. Living off of the government, either as a recipient or a transfer of wealth program servicer, is not even remotely an American value. Capitalism is an American value because it implies an ethical code of conduct. One example of this code is upholding the trust of those who are worthy of your trust.

Because being an American is not an ethnicity, anyone who comes here from anywhere can become an American simply by adopting American values into their life. In the past, becoming an American was actually regarded as a privelege. Ayn Rand came here and became an American... and a Capitalist as well.

It used to be a moral ideal worthy of aspiration.

Edited by moralist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as I know these three are the main respected economists who argued for radical capitalism. They all won Nobel prizes and they were all highly respected amongst their peers. You could include people like George Reisman or 100 other economists, but I would say they are in a lower intellectual league than these three. These three essentially influenced the development of the 20th century and beyond.

Mises never won the Nobel, and he was the only one of the three that conceivably advocated a government compatible with Objectivism. Both Friedman and Hayek held that the state should have a more expansive role than an Objectivist politics would allow, in providing for a forced social safety net, roads funded by taxation, etc. If you wish to argue simply against generic libertarianism, I suggest you do so on a libertarian site.

I can reject dictatorships because I believe in democracy, but why would an O'ist reject a dictator that was spreading Objectivist ideas and ideals? Say a hypothetical dictator simply changed the law to make 90% of tax collecting illegal and punishable by death? On what basis could Objectivism fight this since tax is theft, and the dictator has just outlawed theft?

Asked and answered.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can reject dictatorships because I believe in democracy, but why would an O'ist reject a dictator that was spreading Objectivist ideas and ideals? Say a hypothetical dictator simply changed the law to make 90% of tax collecting illegal and punishable by death? On what basis could Objectivism fight this since tax is theft, and the dictator has just outlawed theft?

Couple of things. First, the Mises quote you replicate from the Salon article does not show "sympathies with fascism." The word fascism is in there, and he said they saved Europe, but okay, so what does this mean? Why was he saying this? How does this translate into "sympathies," what does "sympathies" mean? We are not told. The ironically hyper-nationalist Michael Lind just wants us to believe this is unacceptable.

The quote appears in Mises' book, Liberalism, written in 1927, just after Mussolini took power. It was a commonly argued view that fascism was the wave of the future, and European and American media were singing fascism's praises. The passage appears in the section entitled "The Argument of Fascism," in which Mises is explaining the Establishment's love for this new movement. Mises says, alright, it's true that fascism saved Europe from a Bolshevik takeover, and for that we can be eternally grateful, but in the very next sentence, he says the salvation it has brought is not the kind that can provide continued success. "To view it as something more would be a fatal error." Mises was not fooled by fascism, unlike his contemporaries, its evils are not much different from Bolshevism, since they use the same violent methods, Mises explains. In fact, he warned, its foreign policy is based on aggresive force, and is bound to destroy all of Western civilization. (Quite a prescient prediction.) All of this is in the very same chapter. How this constitutes "sympathies" with fascism, is not plainly self-evident. Let us not be in doubt of Salon's (and the OPs?) exemplary scholarship, maybe this is all just an oversight? (In fact, it was partially this chapter of this book, and his dissection of Nazi Germany Omnipotent Government: Rise of the Total State and Total War that established Mises as one of the leading anti-fascists in academia during the twentieth century.)

Secondly, in the very same book Mises has an entire section ("Democracy" in "The Foundations of Liberal Policy") devoted to upholding representative democracy on the basis of the argument that the majority is going to get the government they want (through revolution if all else), therefore he supports ballots over bullets. The OP's stunning theory that Mises sympathizes with dictatorships because he knows no one will support liberalism and therefore opposes democracy is not only not supported, but explicitly defied by the actual book itself. I guess this is an oversight too?

And lastly, the OP asks us, how can we oppose an "Objectivist dictator." Uhh, well let's see. On practical grounds we can differentiate between political structures that have institutions and incentive structures that are better or worse at doing the job you want it to do. On moral grounds, if the constitution of a society upholds objective law which prohibits the initiation of force, then it is objectively valid and morally binding on men, all men, in fact, and not just the men of the particular society. However, if the constitution of any society attempts to do more, for example, to prescribe political forms for the society, such as recognizing the office of a dictator as supreme head of state (or such as elected offices), then that constitution is not binding upon men in those aspects. (Incidentally, those are both also practical and moral reasons to oppose representative democracy as well.)

Edited by 2046
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The present political majority of unproductive moochers and the looters who service them may live in America... but they aren't Americans because they are not living by American values. Living off of the government, either as a recipient or a transfer of wealth program servicer, is not even remotely an American value. Capitalism is an American value because it implies an ethical code of conduct. One example of this code is upholding the trust of those who are worthy of your trust.

Because being an American is not an ethnicity, anyone who comes here from anywhere can become an American simply by adopting American values into their life. In the past, becoming an American was actually regarded as a privelege. Ayn Rand came here and became an American... and a Capitalist as well.

It used to be a moral ideal worthy of aspiration.

Which American values, which I assume you mean as proposed by the founders, does one need to hold to become an American? All of them, some of them? Where is the threshold? And which of the founders are we looking at as the standard?

Edited by thenelli01
Link to comment
Share on other sites

An Objectivist dictatorship ... ...
The notion is an impossibility, an actual contradiction. One might fantasize that a small minority of Objectivists could take over some country and rule it. It would only work in fiction, but at least one can envision it. However, to think that that ruling group will then appoint on of themselves as a dictator is really an impossibility.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The notion is an impossibility, an actual contradiction. One might fantasize that a small minority of Objectivists could take over some country and rule it. It would only work in fiction, but at least one can envision it. However, to think that that ruling group will then appoint on of themselves as a dictator is really an impossibility.

Somewhere or other, I think in a Peikoff podcast, LP tells what Rand's answer was when asked "what would an Objectivist dictator do first". The answer: resign.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Somewhere or other, I think in a Peikoff podcast, LP tells what Rand's answer was when asked "what would an Objectivist dictator do first". The answer: resign.

Thanks, I'd not heard that.

When I look around at the Objectivists I know and at the few hundred Objectivists I'm acquainted with over the web, it seems to me that the most likely implementation of law-making would be a multi-party democracy, with no party having much of a majority and a fair amount of flux moving people from one party to another, but also with some larger, loose inter-party coalitions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks, I'd not heard that.

I just went looking, and I'm almost certain I found where I heard that. I searched for "dictator" on Peikoff's site.

http://www.peikoff.com/2012/10/01/would-a-dictator-be-more-or-less-immoral-if-he-imposed-objectivism-on-a-country/

So it's actually not a Rand quote, but comes from Von Mises. And he said "abdicate" instead of resign. Close enough for Jazz.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which American values, which I assume you mean as proposed by the founders, does one need to hold to become an American? All of them, some of them? Where is the threshold? And which of the founders are we looking at as the standard?

Ayn Rand actually did a pretty good job with her description of moochers and looters in Atlas Shrugged, and how they lived by a completely different set of values than American Capitalist producers.

The size of government is inversely proportional to the number of Americans who govern themselves.

And it's perfectly clear their numbers are rapidly dwindling as America devolves into a nation of moochers and looters who pander to their feelings of entitlement to be served at the expense of others.

Edited by moralist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as I know these three are the main respected economists who argued for radical capitalism. They all won Nobel prizes and they were all highly respected amongst their peers. You could include people like George Reisman or 100 other economists, but I would say they are in a lower intellectual league than these three. These three essentially influenced the development of the 20th century and beyond.

Are you saying that most state economic planners of the 20th century were trying to implement these economists' theories, I seem to think they more aspire to have the Keynesian view as reality.

A principled arugement about proper governments would focus on whether a given 'system' was collectivist or not. Governments that recognize individual rights are the only proper kinds of governments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ayn Rand actually did a pretty good job with her description of moochers and looters in Atlas Shrugged, and how they lived by a completely different set of values than American Capitalist producers.

Why use the phrase "American Capitalist" - according to you, both terms are used interchangeably. Are you conceding that being an "American" means being an inhabitant of America?

Edited by thenelli01
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The notion is an impossibility, an actual contradiction. One might fantasize that a small minority of Objectivists could take over some country and rule it. It would only work in fiction, but at least one can envision it. However, to think that that ruling group will then appoint on of themselves as a dictator is really an impossibility.

I agree. Dictators require an army that is extremely loyal to them alone and a society that has no weapons themselves. This would be impossible in America, and an altruistic military is contrary to Objectivism anyways. Napolean showed the instability of such regime's anyways as they fall apart once the charismatic individual dies.

Fascism on the other hand is a popular movement, supported by the people, and could not be considered the same thing as a military junta/dictatorship. If Objectivists had enough support to set an autocracy up, we would just set up a representative government instead.

Edited by Hairnet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would Capitalism require a military junta or a dictatorship to enforce? I don't see any reason why it would, as no one would be oppressed and social welfare systems would be phased out over time, not shredded the night someone got elected.

How can Objectivist ethics justify phasing out of welfare systems? If you really believed welfare was stolen goods, you would want an end to the theft immediately! This seems to be a stunning contradiction? You cannot justify theft because some people have come to rely on the proceeds of stolen goods!

An Objectivist dictatorship should not be fought as long as it is doing its job. If it becomes corrupt, or incompetent, or starts violating rights, reforms can be sought, but I don't know why I would care if an Objectivist dictatorship existed as it wouldn't do very much.

I think this is a revealing (and honest) statement. An Objectivist dictatorship would simply declare that taxation is theft. The result of this would not be that it isn't doing very much. The result would be the jailing of tax collectors for a start. Why would the IRS recognise an illegitimate dictator who declared them illegal? They wouldn't and they would fight and be jailed. As far as I can see, Objectivism could not say anything against the jailing of tax collectors in such circumstances.

I said you're a liar. I never said you're the only one.

Fascinating. Thanks for your insight there Nicky. Keep up the good work.

I agree. Dictators require an army that is extremely loyal to them alone and a society that has no weapons themselves. This would be impossible in America, and an altruistic military is contrary to Objectivism anyways. Napolean showed the instability of such regime's anyways as they fall apart once the charismatic individual dies.

Fascism on the other hand is a popular movement, supported by the people, and could not be considered the same thing as a military junta/dictatorship. If Objectivists had enough support to set an autocracy up, we would just set up a representative government instead.

Dictators have come to power with less than a majority of people supporting them. The point is that once in power, they use it to shut down dissent. In this case, they would start by putting IRS employees in jail for theft.

Edited by Kate87
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why use the phrase "American Capitalist" - according to you, both terms are used interchangeably.

I actually used the term "American Capitalist producer" to denote that being a productive Capitalist is an American value.

Are you conceding that being an "American" means being an inhabitant of America?

Not at all.

The majority of people presently living in America are not Americans. The size and nature of government is indisputable evidence of this fact. It is the political majority who have created a huge taxating regulating litigating government in their own image by their own irresponsible failure to govern themselves. Big government is not an American value. It can only exist because the plurality of people who live in America are not living by American values.

Edited by moralist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How can Objectivist ethics justify phasing out of welfare systems? If you really believed welfare was stolen goods, you would want an end to the theft immediately! This seems to be a stunning contradiction? You cannot justify theft because some people have come to rely on the proceeds of stolen goods!
It's easily justified by understanding how human beings think and plan, and by understanding that there actually is a difference between regular theft and the type of theft involved in welfare payments.

Do *you* want to see welfare systems ended overnight? I guess you're simply trying to hang Objectivists by their own petard. It is not a practical way to fight an ideological battle, because you give up the moral ground.

Edited by softwareNerd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How can Objectivist ethics justify phasing out of welfare systems? If you really believed welfare was stolen goods, you would want an end to the theft immediately! This seems to be a stunning contradiction? You cannot justify theft because some people have come to rely on the proceeds of stolen goods!

I think this is a revealing (and honest) statement. An Objectivist dictatorship would simply declare that taxation is theft. The result of this would not be that it isn't doing very much. The result would be the jailing of tax collectors for a start. Why would the IRS recognise an illegitimate dictator who declared them illegal? They wouldn't and they would fight and be jailed. As far as I can see, Objectivism could not say anything against the jailing of tax collectors in such circumstances.

Why would tax collectors be jailed? There would just be no tax collectors.That would be easy and efficient.

You can't convict people for crimes retroactively. That would be against all of our legal principles. If someone did that they would need to be rebelled against.

Softwarenerd pointed out the flaw in your argument, and it has become very clear that you don't want to have a reasonable discussion, but that you want to make Capitalists appear to have positions that they don't. You are just going to have to accept we don't fit into your convenient narrative.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How can Objectivist ethics justify phasing out of welfare systems? If you really believed welfare was stolen goods, you would want an end to the theft immediately! This seems to be a stunning contradiction? You cannot justify theft because some people have come to rely on the proceeds of stolen goods!

Never forget the practical side. Ethics is simple but application can be another story. Context, as always, is king. In this case you can’t necessarily go from a welfare mixed economy to free society over night. For example, take Social Security – It should be eliminated but a lot of people have been forced to contribute their whole life. Do you just end it and say tough? That would be asking people to sacrifice twice. Do you phase it out over time so those who have been paid in get their return but then tell the next generation it is out? Do you end it but give people their money back? What kind of long term schedule would that take? There is a lot involved and implementation would be very complex. Some things you could do easily (end the IRS) but others might take time to sort through an objective plan (say implement a flat tax then slowly reduce the tax rate on a schedule as the Government pays of it’s obligations as part of an exit strategy from welfare to free society).

That would make a good thread actually. Thanks for the idea!

edit - @#$% font

Edited by Spiral Architect
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Softwarenerd pointed out the flaw in your argument, and it has become very clear that you don't want to have a reasonable discussion, but that you want to make Capitalists appear to have positions that they don't. You are just going to have to accept we don't fit into your convenient narrative.
Apart from the moral argument for phasing things out, there is also this practical argument: Objectivists will never get people like Kate87 to vote for a complete cessation, but they might just vote for a phased approach where they can see how things work out before going further.

Surprise! the moral is the practical.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why would tax collectors be jailed? There would just be no tax collectors.That would be easy and efficient.

All dictators face opposition which they try to eliminate. The IRS would not (and should not) take the decrees of an unelected dictatorship. If the dictator wanted to get their way they would have to jail the IRS leaders, which they could ethically do under Objectivism on the grounds of theft.

With regards to the phasing out of the welfare state, what you guys are now saying is that existing initiations of force are justified in the short term, if the long term goal is the elimination of these initiations of force. ie the ends justify the means.

Incidently, this is what Hayak thought about dictatorships when he said the following which I assume you agree with as it follows the same logic:

[A]s long-term institutions, I am totally against dictatorships. But a dictatorship may be a necessary system for a transitional period. At times it is necessary for a country to have, for a time, some form or other of dictatorial power. As you will understand, it is possible for a dictator to govern in a liberal way. And it is also possible for a democracy to govern with a total lack of liberalism. Personally, I prefer a liberal dictator to democratic government lacking in liberalism. My personal impression. . . is that in Chile . . . we will witness a transition from a dictatorial government to a liberal government . . . during this transition it may be necessary to maintain certain dictatorial powers, not as something permanent, but as a temporary arrangement.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's easily justified by understanding how human beings think and plan, and by understanding that there actually is a difference between regular theft and the type of theft involved in welfare payments.

Do *you* want to see welfare systems ended overnight? I guess you're simply trying to hang Objectivists by their own petard. It is not a practical way to fight an ideological battle, because you give up the moral ground.

I both want to reduce the welfare state and do it slowly over time.

How is regular theft and taxation different under Objectivism?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I both want to reduce the welfare state and do it slowly over time.
Good, so we basically agree... at least when it comes to the agenda for our lifetimes.

How is regular theft and taxation different under Objectivism?
We the people voted for one and not for the other.
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...