theestevearnold Posted December 21, 2013 Report Share Posted December 21, 2013 Miss Rand said [paraphrasing]: There are many ways. (Then she gave an example which she made clear she wasn't necessarily endorsing but didn't violate her principles)...The government could insure business contracts which would give businessmen access to the civil court system to resolve alleged breaches to insured contracts. (A small percentage of every transaction.) If businessmen chose not to buy the insurance, & if there was an alleged breach of their uninsured contract, they would have no legal recourse. Miss Rand semed to be prompting me, and other people who share her principles, to come up with more ideas and figure out the details. I'm thinking about it. Does anybody have any ideas? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leonid Posted December 21, 2013 Report Share Posted December 21, 2013 (edited) There are many ways to skin the cat. Insurance could pay to law enforcement agencies which in turn will pay for legislation process, Or people could pay directly and voluntary for different government projects. If government managed to collect enough for the certain project, it will go ahead with it, if not-not. people also could directly subscribe with law enforcement companies which will pay part of their income to government as a payment for providing legal framework. as for the proposal above, i don't think that government can really compete on this with insurance companies. Edited December 21, 2013 by Leonid Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
softwareNerd Posted December 21, 2013 Report Share Posted December 21, 2013 (edited) A few previous threads on this can be found here and here. Edited December 21, 2013 by softwareNerd theestevearnold 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Repairman Posted December 21, 2013 Report Share Posted December 21, 2013 Lotteries were used to build some of the first highways in America. War bonds were one means to generate funding during several of America's wars. Leonid is quite right about using insurance companies to accomplish many of the services mismanaged through government. There are a number of Youtube presentations illustrating various ways to use market solutions to replace government services. I would be cautious of government ambitions of "making money", or government for profit. I'm pretty sure I know what you mean, but if setting government on a mission to secure wealth within its treasury vaults, they will be tempted to use immoral methods. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theestevearnold Posted December 22, 2013 Author Report Share Posted December 22, 2013 Thanks softwareNerd for pointing me in the right directions. And heck, yeah, Repairman, a lottery is definitely a legitimate idea. I've heard some arguements for a national sales tax, with an untaxed, unlicensed, etc., buying and selling legally occuring simultaneously (black market is the closest term I've got). I don't know if it would violate LFC principles if I supported a national sales tax, even if it was voluntary (meaning I could choose to buy on a legalized black market, opting to forfeit some sort of legal recourse if the product/service is not as advertised/agreed upon). But I am less hesistant to assert that If a government wants to offer a product or service, that EARNS revenue to pay for its proper role, then I think it can be done without violating LFC principles. I don't call that intervening; I call that being a legitimate player in the market. As long as they don't use force. I would never knowingly violate an Objectivist principles. This topic (in other forums) exposed members who aren't Objectivists. Alan Greenspan, in his memoir, praised Miss Rand as mentor then, in the same breath, tried to discredit her philosophy because he said [paraphrasing]: "I was an Objectivist until she said a government shouldn't tax, it should be voluntary. That was naive," he said. [still paraphrasing]: "A government couldn't rely on people voluntarily paying for it." Greenspan new that Miss Rand didn't mean 'sit around and wait for people to donate to the government,' which of course sounds naive. He purposely set up some sort of context-dropping straw man. He also said something about her love life (not with him, no, never) that might not be true so I won't repeat it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
volco Posted December 23, 2013 Report Share Posted December 23, 2013 With insecurity on the rise Worldwide because of the imminent homogenization of the World (where First countries become more like Third World Countries), governments competing for profit doesn't sound that bad an idea. Sure some would be tempted by immoral methods but eventually the safest governments would win the most customers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theestevearnold Posted December 23, 2013 Author Report Share Posted December 23, 2013 Yeah, I agree. I see how government officials waste money because it doesn't matter if they turn a profit. And in fact, many lefties think turning a profit is evil. Profit-seeking would increase efficiciency and innovativeness, and I could go on and on about all the great things (about profit-seeking) that politicians could begin to concern themselves with. Of course the profits should only go to the things a government does in its proper role, and the surplus could be invested. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Repairman Posted December 24, 2013 Report Share Posted December 24, 2013 I would argue that the best way to make a national government "safe" is to have the strongest possible currency note. The United States could have taken that road, when President Clinton was making policy regarding the revenue surplus. At one point, he mentioned the national debt, which I believe would have been by far the most moral and sensible pursuit. Profits and earnings are for private businesses. Balances books are for the public sector. In any realistic case, the best way today to "raise money" in the treasury, would be to decrease spending money through government. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theestevearnold Posted December 24, 2013 Author Report Share Posted December 24, 2013 I would argue that the best way to make a national government "safe" is to have the strongest possible currency note. The United States could have taken that road, when President Clinton was making policy regarding the revenue surplus. At one point, he mentioned the national debt, which I believe would have been by far the most moral and sensible pursuit. Profits and earnings are for private businesses. Balances books are for the public sector. In any realistic case, the best way today to "raise money" in the treasury, would be to decrease spending money through government. That last sentence is an important point, because before the moral taxation can properly be addressed, government should be limited to its proper role. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
volco Posted December 24, 2013 Report Share Posted December 24, 2013 That last sentence is an important point, because before the moral taxation can properly be addressed, government should be limited to its proper role. True. If a Government is its appropriate size taxation becomes indistinguishable from paying utilities or general building maintenance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nicky Posted December 24, 2013 Report Share Posted December 24, 2013 I remember writing a few detailed posts in other threads, on this. My main suggestion was to make paying taxes a condition of citizenship (where citizenship involves voting rights, getting a passport, being allowed to run for office, and other perks that, when withheld, don't amount to initiation of force). Hairnet and theestevearnold 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
volco Posted December 24, 2013 Report Share Posted December 24, 2013 I remember writing a few detailed posts in other threads, on this. My main suggestion was to make paying taxes a condition of citizenship (where citizenship involves voting rights, getting a passport, being allowed to run for office, and other perks that, when withheld, don't amount to initiation of force). and where citizenship also entails being able to vote on a referendum each time the tax structure is suggested to change Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theestevearnold Posted December 24, 2013 Author Report Share Posted December 24, 2013 As long as I'm not forced to pay, meaning I can opt out of citizenship, voting, etc., then it's moral and I like it. It might have a side-effect of creating 2 or more "classes" (for lack of a better word) of citizens, based on their ability to pay for certain privileges, but that's good. Rights are free. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevetherawman Posted January 17, 2014 Report Share Posted January 17, 2014 Government, by definition; initiates the use of force to earn revenue. Therefore the concept of government or the state is not compatible whatsoever with the philosophy of Objectivism. Most Objectivists contradict themselves by saying they believe in a minimal government yet advocate one of the most fundamental axioms of the Objectivist philosophy; the non-initiation of force. It doesn't work like that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theestevearnold Posted January 17, 2014 Author Report Share Posted January 17, 2014 Government, by definition; initiates the use of force to earn revenue. Therefore the concept of government or the state is not compatible whatsoever with the philosophy of Objectivism. Most Objectivists contradict themselves by saying they believe in a minimal government yet advocate one of the most fundamental axioms of the Objectivist philosophy; the non-initiation of force. It doesn't work like that. Wrong. A moral government should not initiate force against its citizens. You've accepted that it's okay, but it's not. The US had no income tax for a long time. There are ways government can earn revenue without force. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevetherawman Posted January 17, 2014 Report Share Posted January 17, 2014 Wrong. A moral government should not initiate force against its citizens. You've accepted that it's okay, but it's not. The US had no income tax for a long time. There are ways government can earn revenue without force. I haven't accepted that it's okay, I don't believe in taxation or government; I believe in a voluntary society based on the non-initiation of force. Show me one way a government can earn revenue without initiating the use of force. Also, what gives the government the right to rule over a stretch of land? Governments don't have property rights, only individual human beings do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Repairman Posted January 17, 2014 Report Share Posted January 17, 2014 Government most definitely has a purpose: 1) To protect its borders from threats of invasion; 2) To secure the physical and property rights of its citizens through a code of moral laws; 3) To provide a court of justice to interpret and enforce that code of moral laws. This is clearly expressed in the writings of Ayn Rand. I may have taken liberties with the wording, and the of course there are details she clearly expressed. theestevearnold 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theestevearnold Posted January 17, 2014 Author Report Share Posted January 17, 2014 I don't believe in taxation or government If you don't believe in government, do you think a man should take matters into his own hands if he thinks his property was stolen? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theestevearnold Posted January 17, 2014 Author Report Share Posted January 17, 2014 Show me one way a government can earn revenue without initiating the use of force. Read the ways suggested throughout this thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theestevearnold Posted January 17, 2014 Author Report Share Posted January 17, 2014 Government, by definition; initiates the use of force to earn revenue. What I meant when I said you think taxation is okay, is that you've accepted an incorrect definition of government. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theestevearnold Posted January 17, 2014 Author Report Share Posted January 17, 2014 The consent of the governed, who delegate the retaliatory use of force to their government, to enforce a legal system of objective laws, and a military for defending against foreign aggressors. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theestevearnold Posted January 17, 2014 Author Report Share Posted January 17, 2014 Read The Nature of Government by Ayn Rand, in The Virtue of Selfishness, then retract that statement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theestevearnold Posted January 17, 2014 Author Report Share Posted January 17, 2014 Show me one way a government can earn revenue without initiating the use of force. Read Government Financing in a Free Society by Ayn Rand, also in VOS. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freestyle Posted January 17, 2014 Report Share Posted January 17, 2014 There is also some good discussion in this thread: Is Taxation Moral? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whYNOT Posted January 19, 2014 Report Share Posted January 19, 2014 "To be free, a man must be free of his brothers". [AR] I have not found anything that weakens this argument, that if the majority of citizens do not or cannot recognize the highest value to them of a free society -by willingly (and gladly) funding a minimal government- how could that society come into being in the first place? more, they deserve to lose what they have. 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.