Morality of accepting government funds or employment

[carriew7]

Hi everyone!!

I have a scenario that I would like your feedback on!

A woman is studying Objectivism, and wants to implement it into her psycho-epistemology.

Her goal is to go to University, and integrate Objectivism into whatever career she chooses.

She is starting out with nothing, no help from her parents.

She wants to save up for it, but realizes, that it will take, probably many years. She also wants to move into her own apartment. The only feesable way to University, is if she applies for OSAP (government funding).

And she is eligible for that if she is a full -time student. Which means she can only work on weekends.

She has an option of staying in "subsidized" housing, and being transferred to an appartment of her own. It is based on "rent geared to income" therefore her rent is much cheaper.

Is it immoral or unethical of her to take this offer up, when it's nearly the only way she can go to school????

-carrie

[y_feldblum]

It is perfectly ethical to take up the offer.

It is immoral to live a contradiction. Supporting taxation implies that one thinks there is no such thing as an absolute right to property. Taking up the offer implies that one thinks that the absolute right to property does exist and is in full effect.

Since the absolute right to property exists objectively and is independent of whether people believe in it or not, if she recognizes reality she may take the money.

The government has no right to any money which it has taxed (stolen) from its citizenry - only that money freely given to it. The person who has not earned a dime of it has more right to it. She should take it.

Disclaimer: I saw something like that opinion on this forum; I am by no means knowledgable in the philosophy. One of those class A geeks currently studying Aristotle in Greek can offer a better answer in more detail.

[Guest Guest]

Carry,

Y_feldblum is right. If you wants a clearer statement on this, though, you don't need to wait for a "class A geek" (whatever that means), you can read Ayn Rand's article on the subject called "The Question of Scholarships" (Chapter 7 in _The Voice of Reason_).

[dondigitalia]

[Mod's note: Merged into an earlier thread. - sN]

Is it ethical to accept employment from a publicly funded agency whose function is not to prevent the initiation of force?

The reason I ask is that I will be returning to school in the fall to study Astrophysics and Cosmology. My research has shown me that the bulk of jobs in these areas (about 90%) are funded in some form by assets looted from their producers. Is it ethical to hold one of these positions? Or, when the time comes, should I seek employment only in private organizations?

Edited October 6, 2006 by softwareNerd

[Richard_Halley]

If I were you, I would seek employment in the private sector. But it wouldn't be immoral to work for government subsidized programs. It is like accepting government scholarships... they take it from you, you are merely getting it back.

[dondigitalia]

Thanks, R. I would MUCH rather work for a private organization. In my experience, government agencies are horribly inefficient, and I have never seeked employment in one. Due to the limited number of privately funded jobs in this field and high level of competition, however, I think it is prudent to accept the possibility that I might have to bite the bullet and deal with the governmental red tape until I have some hands-on experience.

[Invictus]

So long as you are being forced to pay taxes it is quite reasonable that you reap the benefits of what your tax is paying for. The only reason you would have to feel guilty for using a government-funded resource is if you payed no tax.

[Bearster]

I don't agree with the premise that one is justified living off loot because one paid some (any?) amount of taxes in the past.

Don't think of it as a vast "system" into which one "has paid". Think of it as it really is: when you paid taxes, the loot was given, unearned, to someone. Now, as a beneficiary of such loot, others are being forced to pay in order to give to you.

Of course, the moral is the practical, and to work for the government is to subject one's self to a numbing array of rules, procedures, and dishonest people.

Finally, look at the example of Dr. Robert Stadtler in Atlas Shrugged. You can't close your eyes to the morality of looting to the narrow specifics of loving astrophysics. You have to be aware and focus on the big picture.

[Richard_Halley]

Bearster:

Would you say that Ragnar was correct to take the tax dollars back for those invited to Galt's Gulch?

I agree that one should aviod publicly funded employment due to the kind of experience it would be. But sometimes, such an experience is better than the alternitive.

And as for Dr. Stadtler... as long as one recongnises that one is merely taking back what is theirs, there are no eyes being closed or averted.

[Invictus]

I don't agree with the premise that one is justified living off loot because one paid some (any?) amount of taxes in the past.

Following this philosophy would exclude you from driving on taxpayer-funded roads, walking on taxpayer-funded sidewalks and observing for pleasure taxpayer-funded gardens.

[Bearster]

Would you say that Ragnar was correct to take the tax dollars back for those invited to Galt's Gulch?

The context there was an entire society of looters who believed in looting as such. The current US is not that kind of dictatorship yet (not by a long shot), and the culture hasn't declined to nearly that level. Remember, Atlas was about a strike and Rand wrote afterwards that she didn't think the time had yet come for such a strike.

And as for Dr. Stadtler... as long as one recongnises that one is merely taking back what is theirs, there are no eyes being closed or averted.

According to this rule, must one quit one's public job as soon as one's cumulative salary has reached what one had previously paid in taxes? This idea is rife with contradictions.

As I said earlier, one is not taking "back". One was robbed, and now one is robbing a fresh set of victims.

Following this philosophy would exclude you from driving on taxpayer-funded roads, walking on taxpayer-funded sidewalks and observing for pleasure taxpayer-funded gardens.

Why do you say this?

[y_feldblum]

The contradiction of public property is that everyone has a right to all of it. Everyone excludes those who do not see the contradiction.

[Capitalism Forever]

The contradiction of public property is that everyone has a right to all of it.  Everyone excludes those who do not see the contradiction.

A nice way of putting it!

The rational answer to altruism is to take up the altruists on their offer--BIG TIME. As Abraham Lincoln said: "The best way to get a bad law repealed is to enforce it strictly."

[y_feldblum]

To paraphrase Ayn Rand, the best way to defeat (knock the support out from under) an argument is to take it literally.

[Bearster]

The rational answer to altruism is to take up the altruists on their offer--BIG TIME.

What about the rational way to run one's career? Should one's career be based on how to answer altruism, or how to best to earn a living and develop one's self professionally and personally?

What does an Objectivist do, if he's in a position to influence people to close down an inappropriate government program?

What does a middle-aged career civil servant, with two kids in college, do when faced with the possibility that his agency will be closed?

Don't live a conflict of interest, or a contradiction. Work a fully, properly moral job that you can be proud of!

[always_learning]

There is no shame in working in a government sponsored job and there is nothing unethical about using government programs to aid your life, you pay for them that is part of the package. We would be better off without them, but they are there, use them.

Bearster,

Do you use public roads? Why is this not a conflict of interest according to your claim?

[Bearster]

Do you use public roads? Why is this not a conflict of interest according to your claim?

The government has taken nearly all of the easements in Arizona, and paved them. I either use those roads, or else sit in my living room until I starve to death.

When the government nationalizes the entire economy, and one cannot work except to work for the government, then that would be the equivalent situation (and high time to go on strike!)

Consider the scenario of a state science institute employee who's 52 years old, with two kids in college. When a discussion comes up about the proper scope of government, and government-funded science labs, he is faced with a choice: the moral or the pragmatic. The moral is to express his idea that the lab which employs him should be immediately defunded, its staff laid off, and its assets sold at auction. The pragmatic is to hope the gravy train continues for another 13 years, and not risk stopping it before then.

Consider the scenario of a citizen of the current USA who drives on public roads. What is to keep him from advocating their proper return into private hands?

[always_learning]

Let me start by answering you original question.

“What does an Objectivist do, if he's in a position to influence people to close down an inappropriate government program?”

He does what he can to have to program shut down, assuming he is honest (one could lie in order to have the program canceled), but as long as it’s open he should work there, assuming it is the job he wants and the best job for him.

I find my public road analogy to be quite fitting. In most government employment situations, the program that is providing the job has cornered the market, or at least damaged the private sector, on whatever area we are talking about. In the road situation the government has pretty much taken that market. As you pointed out if you did not use the roads your life would suffer. However, I do not think it is a mater of life and death as you stated it was. You can walk to the store, you could grow your own food, or you could order delivery every night. The issue is not the severity of the problems you will suffer by not taking advantage of the government program (eg. life or death situation, or working a job that is not exactly what you want to do when your dream job does exist). The issue is whether it will better your life including morally.

“When the government nationalizes the entire economy, and one cannot work except to work for the government, then that would be the equivalent situation (and high time to go on strike!)”

Then why have you not gone on strike against the road situation? It is because these two are not the same. The government has taken over the roads not transpiration as a whole.