Pinon Canyon

[Shinokamen]

The U.S. Military is planning to expand an existing Maneuver Site in Southeastern Colorado. The counties which would be affected by the proposed 2.5 million acres of espansion have organized a site:

http://www.pinoncanyon.com

Something that makes this even worse is something that one of our State Senators said late last year:

“I’ve also told the Army that I feel that, if they want to expand and want to stay in that type of terrain; what’s wrong with going south to New Mexico? If you think about what’s down in that northern New Mexico area, it wouldn’t affect anything as much as it would in our part of Colorado.[!]”

It's as though because you are stealing from less people, it is all right to steal!

I am considering e-mailing Kester again concerning this as he did not respond the last time I did. :-)

[BrassDragon]

It's as though because you are stealing from less people, it is all right to steal!

If it's not all right for the military to "steal", where do you propose they build bases?

[Galileo Blogs]

If it's not all right for the military to "steal", where do you propose they build bases?

The military can buy the land it needs for its bases.

[BrassDragon]

The military can buy the land it needs for its bases.

I think it's unlikely that it could buy enough land in the right places without relying on eminent domain. All the owners of land over a 2.5 million acre area, which the military has decided is an excellent place for a base of some sort, are unlikely to sell voluntarily.

We actually had a similar situation with the Navy near where my home is, and the people there certainly would not have sold their land; if people in Colorado area are riled up enough to make a website, they probably wouldn't sell voluntarily, either.

I think this boils down to the same issue as taxation. Is the government justified in infringing upon property rights in order to exist? (Rhetorical question, but feel free to take a stab if you wish.)

Edited January 27, 2007 by BrassDragon

[mweiss]

Did anyone else notice what I noticed? This expansion signifies that the US government is gearing up to escalate the business of war. That degree of new training area growth suggests that the army is gearing up to invade more countries and maintain occupation all over the world in unprecedented numbers.

As bad as the theft of property is, we should not be distracted from the possibly dark purpose of this new facility.

[Galileo Blogs]

Is the government justified in infringing upon property rights in order to exist? (Rhetorical question, but feel free to take a stab if you wish.)

No. The government exists to protect our rights, not to violate them. The power the government has is delegated to it. It exists as our agent, and has no rights of its own of any form. Just as no individual can violate another's rights, neither can the government.

There is no instance where violating rights is permissible. For the few legitimate functions of government that are necessary to protect our rights -- the police, the courts and the armed forces -- the government, as our agent, would buy whatever land, buildings, etc., it needs, using the money we provide it.

As for your specific example, with all due respect it is not a very good one. The federal government already is the largest landowner in the country, and owns most of the land of many states in the West. It doesn't need any more land for military bases. It has abundant land already that it could use. In any case, if it somehow did need more land, it would have to buy it. (In a free society, government landholdings would be far, far smaller than they are today. As a percentage of the land mass in the United States, it just doesn't take much land at all for the legitimate functions of government.)

Edited January 27, 2007 by Galileo Blogs

[BrassDragon]

Did anyone else notice what I noticed? This expansion signifies that the US government is gearing up to escalate the business of war. That degree of new training area growth suggests that the army is gearing up to invade more countries and maintain occupation all over the world in unprecedented numbers.

As bad as the theft of property is, we should not be distracted from the possibly dark purpose of this new facility.

I don't really think you can jump to that conclusion. The military is building new bases and so forth (and getting rid of old ones) all the time. And, their funding is dependent on Congress. I don't think we have many hawks there.

Another limiting factor on the military is the number of people they can get to join, and that's definitely been a problem lately. (I don't see a draft on the horizon, as long as Iran doesn't get to the point where even liberals are calling for a full-scale ground invasion--i.e. ever.)

[The Guru Kid]

The United States' current military capacity is more than enough to fight the wars it is fighting. So, since there is no emergency in obtaining large amounts of land for training etc. the military can slowly and without use of eminent domain buy out the surrounding land to expand the base.

Another option i can think of is to say that the government gets "first dibs" on any surrounding land that is voluntarily up for sale. But I am sure that it can outbid any private competitors even if it didn't have such an advantage.

Edited January 27, 2007 by The Guru Kid

[BrassDragon]

No. The government exists to protect our rights, not to violate them. The power the government has is delegated to it. It exists as our agent, and has no rights of its own of any form. Just as no individual can violate another's rights, neither can the government.

There is no instance where violating rights is permissible. For the few legitimate functions of government that are necessary to protect our rights -- the police, the courts and the armed forces -- the government, as our agent, would buy whatever land, buildings, etc., it needs, using the money we provide it.

As for your specific example, with all due respect it is not a very good one. The federal government already is the largest landowner in the country, and owns most of the land of many states in the West. It doesn't need any more land for military bases. It has abundant land already that it could use. In any case, if it somehow did need more land, it would have to buy it. (In a free society, government landholdings would be far, far smaller than they are today. As a percentage of the land mass in the United States, it just doesn't take much land at all for the legitimate functions of government.)

The overriding question is, if violation of rights is necessary to protect them, should rights be violated? If government can't get enough money by donation to provide police, courts, and military, should it tax? I think the answer is yes.

If the principle that the government should violate rights in some instances if it must do so to protect them broadly is established, the military need only to establish that building the base in that location is important for national defense in order to legitimately do so (in this cases and all cases, which to me seem to come up a lot).

I don't believe that the federal government owns "most of the land" of many states in the West. You might be right, but you'd have to prove it to me. It might work out if you somehow count national parks and reservations, neither of which should be counted for this example, because neither are available to build bases on. Anyway, if the military really did have equally good options for building a base on land it already owned, don't you think they'd do that rather than go through a long eminent domain legal process?

The United States' current military capacity is more than enough to fight the wars it is fighting. So, since there is no emergency in obtaining large amounts of land for training etc. the military can slowly and without use of eminent domain buy out the surrounding land to expand the base.

Another option i can think of is to say that the government gets "first dibs" on any surrounding land that is voluntarily up for sale. But I am sure that it can outbid any private competitors even if it didn't have such an advantage.

I seriously doubt people are willing to just sell their land over that large an area. Again, my reference is the concerned citizens' website, and also this one. Don't let the environmentalist jargon on there fool you--the main opponents of the OLF in North Carolina are large landholders in the area.

[Galileo Blogs]

I don't believe that the federal government owns "most of the land" of many states in the West. You might be right, but you'd have to prove it to me.

This point is not essential at all to my discussion. Even if the government had no land today, it can and should only buy what it needs, without resorting to taking it through eminent domain.

But, this is a map which shows the huge extent to which the federal government owns land. I have seen other maps, some of which show the actual land area owned by the federal government. In several states such as Nevada and Alaska, the percentage of land that is in private hands is actually quite small.

As for the issue of taxation, I would recommend reading Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal by Ayn Rand where there is a discussion of government financing in a free society. The key point to realize is that government expenditures in a free society would be a very small fraction of what they are today. The first step is to bring down government expenditures so that there is no spending on anything except that which is necessary to protect our right to life and property from the threat of force. This means only spending it on the police, the courts and the armed forces. Once this is accomplished, a non-coercive form of financing could be devised and implemented.

Governments do not have the right to use force for any purpose, except in retaliation against those who initiate its use. This also precludes taxation.

If government was confined to its very small legitimate role, its financial needs could be met through a non-coercive method. Ayn Rand (or one of her associates, I can't remember) suggests a lottery as a possibility. That is a good method that could provide significant funds. However, the simplest non-coercive way to finance government is for government to charge fees for its services, such as contract enforcement, resolution of disputes in the courts, etc. Although it may sound odd, I also would not dismiss voluntary donations to government. A completely free society would be far, far wealthier than our society of today. It would be easy and non-sacrificial to donate to support government, much in the same way people donate millions today to support the public library or the opera, etc. A combination of these means, and others that will be devised would take care of the expense of funding the government.

I only joined this forum recently, but I would be surprised if this issue has not already been discussed at length in another thread. That might be interesting to read, as well.

[aequalsa]

I don't believe that the federal government owns "most of the land" of many states in the West. You might be right, but you'd have to prove it to me.

http://www.colorado.edu/libraries/govpubs/fedlands.htm

[BrassDragon]

As for the issue of taxation, I would recommend reading Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal by Ayn Rand where there is a discussion of government financing in a free society. The key point to realize is that government expenditures in a free society would be a very small fraction of what they are today. The first step is to bring down government expenditures so that there is no spending on anything except that which is necessary to protect our right to life and property from the threat of force. This means only spending it on the police, the courts and the armed forces. Once this is accomplished, a non-coercive form of financing could be devised and implemented.

Believe me, I know all about that stuff, and I agree that in the ideal system, taxes wouldn't be necessary. But right now, we live under a system in which taxes are necessary, and using eminent domain to acquire huge swaths of land upon which to build military bases is probably necessary, too, if we want to have large military bases.

aequalsa posted a link that shows lands managed by the Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), and National Park Service (NPS). I don't consider those lands to be "owned" by the government in the proper sense; really, they just say "nobody can use this for anything, because we want to protect the environment." For example, those lands can't be used to build military bases (which is why this is relevant to the argument).

EDIT: Well, though my gut reaction was they they don't count as "owned" (and indeed, the feds would say they are managed for the public and owned by all people, etc.) I guess by the definition of property I subscribe to, the government does own the lands.

Edited January 28, 2007 by BrassDragon

[DavidOdden]

The overriding question is, if violation of rights is necessary to protect them, should rights be violated?

What is the evidence that it is necessary? You can't just slap the word "military" on something and then declare "Well, in that case, rights violations are okay". Read "Government financing in a free society" for an answer (in the negative) to the question of taxation. The same principles apply to the acquisition of land: it should be purchased, not stolen. If you disagree with Rand's position, you should explain why you think she's wrong. The bottom line is that it is never "necessary" to violate one man's rights in order to protect another man's rights (see also "The 'conflicts' of men's interests").

[BrassDragon]

What is the evidence that it is necessary? You can't just slap the word "military" on something and then declare "Well, in that case, rights violations are okay". Read "Government financing in a free society" for an answer (in the negative) to the question of taxation. The same principles apply to the acquisition of land: it should be purchased, not stolen. If you disagree with Rand's position, you should explain why you think she's wrong. The bottom line is that it is never "necessary" to violate one man's rights in order to protect another man's rights (see also "The 'conflicts' of men's interests").

I have read "Government financing in a free society." Rand recommends government rely on donations or other non-coercive forms of revenue generation, and I think that's the optimal situation. But what if, for example, not enough donations could be garnered, and a world war was looming? I don't think this is a case of making up an unrealistic example, and in this case, I think government should tax. I don't think this is a violation of rights per se. Rights are the means of subordinating society to moral law. They are a legal principle, not absolutes. There is an ideal set of rights that subordinates society to moral law in the optimal way, but the optimal situation may not be possible if, for example, there aren't enough donations.

I feel that to actually insist that government never initiate force against an individual would be to insist on anarchy. And of course, when the government says "I am the only one who can be the government," it is using force--it is inherently coercive. But my point is, to misapply the concept of rights and say the government has a moral imperitive to wither rather than tax, would be to conflate anarchist principles with Objectivism.

As for the military base question - if the government can find large enough swaths of land and buy them voluntarily, I think they should. I don't know that there's necessarily always a large enough swath of land voluntarily for sale in the area where the government needs it. With the OLF thing, which I'm more familiar with, I know they needed something south of the Oceana air station in Virginia, and a place where there are no lights at all, so aircraft carrier landings could be simulated, and also close to the coast. I think they found the least populated place where the land was least valuable, and people still weren't willing to sell.

EDIT: I just did some checking to make sure my language is correct in a very specific sense. I realize Rand wrote that rights come from the law of identity, not from congressional law. I agree with that, but it is still the case that a prerequisite to protecting rights in the real world is a government and a military. There is still a necessary distinction between "Individual Rights" and rights as implemented through the legal system.

Edited January 28, 2007 by BrassDragon

[Galileo Blogs]

But what if, for example, not enough donations could be garnered, and a world war was looming?

I answered your question here. That thread directly addresses your question.

[DavidOdden]

But what if, for example, not enough donations could be garnered, and a world war was looming? I don't think this is a case of making up an unrealistic example, and in this case, I think government should tax. I don't think this is a violation of rights per se. Rights are the means of subordinating society to moral law.

I don't have a lot to add to what GB said on this point (like that ever stopped me). I cannot even conceive of America being so morally dead that people would not understand that Adolf Hitler's advancing armies intended to take oven and enslave our country, that we would not all act to preserve our lives. I can imagine the American population getting sick and tired of the utterly empty government rhetoric about how it is necessary to destroy the American economy to set the Iraqi rabble on the road to freedom. If there were no taxation and war had to be supported with voluntary donations, I am betting that Operation Desert Squander would have come to an end years ago.

You're apparently arguing that I don't have a right to the product of my mind, i.e. my wealth is not mine by right, it is mine only to the extent that society does not have a greater claim on it. The conflict between my rights and society's rights may be somehow limited, but it seems to me that you are saying that when my rights conflict with those of society, those of society must prevail. I'll let you consider whether this is really what you want to say.

I feel that to actually insist that government never initiate force against an individual would be to insist on anarchy.

I really can't figure out what causes you to say that.

As for the military base question - if the government can find large enough swaths of land and buy them voluntarily, I think they should.

The question is whether the nation would fall prey to alien invaders if the government doesn't confiscate a large chunk of Colorado. Since that has not happened so far, this could only be true if there is a secret invasion of billions of troglodytes from the center of the Earth, which they aren't telling us about. In other words, I'm questioning the assumption that every time the military says "We want that land" that they actually need that land. What is the proof of need? None has been given.

I think they found the least populated place where the land was least valuable, and people still weren't willing to sell.

The government is also in the habit of offering bottom dollar, since they know that ultimately they have the power of eminent domain and can steal the land. They are also in the habit of condemning, confiscating, and then not even using people's land, but that's a whole 'nother topic for discussion.

[BrassDragon]

I don't have a lot to add to what GB said on this point (like that ever stopped me). I cannot even conceive of America being so morally dead that people would not understand that Adolf Hitler's advancing armies intended to take oven and enslave our country, that we would not all act to preserve our lives. I can imagine the American population getting sick and tired of the utterly empty government rhetoric about how it is necessary to destroy the American economy to set the Iraqi rabble on the road to freedom. If there were no taxation and war had to be supported with voluntary donations, I am betting that Operation Desert Squander would have come to an end years ago.

If there were no possibility of draft or taxation for war, I think a war could conceivably come up that would be strategically important to American interests, but that not enough people would volunteer for / support monetarily (especially the latter). However, if someone is directly threatening the "homeland," I think we'd be OK.

You're apparently arguing that I don't have a right to the product of my mind, i.e. my wealth is not mine by right, it is mine only to the extent that society does not have a greater claim on it. The conflict between my rights and society's rights may be somehow limited, but it seems to me that you are saying that when my rights conflict with those of society, those of society must prevail. I'll let you consider whether this is really what you want to say.I really can't figure out what causes you to say that.

This is where you're misunderstanding me. Freedom should be free (well, it would be nice), but it isn't. You have a right not to have force initiated against you, but that's not some magical property that means it won't happen. Government has to be established to protect your rights, and government can't operate without funding. A military is necessary to protect your rights, and a military can't operate without funding. Where is that funding and manpower supposed to come from? Ideally, it would be voluntary; but what if there aren't enough volunteers? Debates I've seen on this topic seem to focus on Objectivists showing that there would always be enough volunteers, but I think that's a leap of faith.

The question is whether the nation would fall prey to alien invaders if the government doesn't confiscate a large chunk of Colorado. Since that has not happened so far, this could only be true if there is a secret invasion of billions of troglodytes from the center of the Earth, which they aren't telling us about. In other words, I'm questioning the assumption that every time the military says "We want that land" that they actually need that land. What is the proof of need? None has been given.The government is also in the habit of offering bottom dollar, since they know that ultimately they have the power of eminent domain and can steal the land. They are also in the habit of condemning, confiscating, and then not even using people's land, but that's a whole 'nother topic for discussion.

Well, it's fine to question the military's assumptions. But it is quite possible that, say, the government needs a place to practice landing Super Hornets on aircraft carriers that is near the coast, below Virginia, where there is little to no development, and that there are no suitable sites they can buy without using eminent domain. I mean, it souds reasonable to me. If practicing landing on aircraft carriers is a prerequisite for us having our rights protected, then, well, it seems that the best option is to use eminent domain to acquire the land and (hopefully) pay the landowners a relatively high price. So, the point is, to me, it seems that we can't categorically rule out the use of eminent domain to build military bases. It seems that there's nothing that special about a huge tract in Colorado; but you'd have to take it on a case-by-case basis.

I'd really like to be able to believe that the government can both exist and act morally all the time, but again, I'm having trouble imagining how the government can uphold rights without running into problems that cause the violation of some rights to be necessary.

What it boils down to is this: If taxation were necessary to have a government and military that provides basic defense, would it be OK to tax?

[mweiss]

Let me turn your question around: "Is it okay to harm the few, for the sake of the many?"

Think about the implications of that in the context of individual rights.

[softwareNerd]

What it boils down to is this: If taxation were necessary to have a government and military that provides basic defense, would it be OK to tax?

Since knowledge is not automatic, who would decide what is necessary? Are you assuming a context where some people think a defence is required, but they do not have the funds to mount such a defence? And, in this context, are you asking if it would be right for them to force their neighbors to contribute?

From your post above (and in another thread), I see that you're not so doubtful of volunteers coming forth to defend an attack on the US, but you're wondering if there would be enough volunteers to defend US interests. So, let's take an example: Hugo Chavez nationalizes billions of assets owned by US citizens. Would these citizens not want to finance the removal of Chavez? Today, such an endeavor might violate certain US laws; but good laws could discriminate in a way that allowed private initiatives under certain conditions and rules.

[DavidOdden]

If there were no possibility of draft or taxation for war, I think a war could conceivably come up that would be strategically important to American interests, but that not enough people would volunteer for / support monetarily (especially the latter).

What weight should "I can imagine..." have in having taxes or a draft? I don't understand what you mean by "American interests", so perhaps you can elaborate. Do you mean "my personal interests?" Or "the interest of each and every American". If the former, that's fine, but remember that I don't care about your interests (I'm not an altruist). What could be "in the interest of each and every American", except repulsing an attack from a foreign nation?

Debates I've seen on this topic seem to focus on Objectivists showing that there would always be enough volunteers, but I think that's a leap of faith.

It is equally a leap of unfaith or cynicism to think that there wouldn't. Again, I argue that imaginary scenarios have no case value.

But it is quite possible that, say, the government needs a place to practice landing Super Hornets on aircraft carriers that is near the coast, below Virginia, where there is little to no development, and that there are no suitable sites they can buy without using eminent domain.

More imagination? I think this would be the main argument I'd encourage you to work in. A rational government deals in fact, not imagination. What facts -- not imaginary scenarios -- show that the military needs to confiscate Colorado to practice aircraft carrier landings? Or whatever they have in mind? We categorically cannot tolerate eminent domain confiscations without there being even a whimpering of a justification.

If you want to be a sacrificial animal to protect my right to exist, I will accept your sacrifice. But I won't ask you to sacrifice yourself, and I won't sacrifice myself.

[Shinokamen]

I wonder if anyone in this area (other than me) has realized that it is futile to "say no," to armed robbers?

[BrassDragon]

I apologize for not keeping up with this thread (or really the forum in general) as I should have.

Since knowledge is not automatic, who would decide what is necessary? Are you assuming a context where some people think a defence is required, but they do not have the funds to mount such a defence? And, in this context, are you asking if it would be right for them to force their neighbors to contribute?

From your post above (and in another thread), I see that you're not so doubtful of volunteers coming forth to defend an attack on the US, but you're wondering if there would be enough volunteers to defend US interests. So, let's take an example: Hugo Chavez nationalizes billions of assets owned by US citizens. Would these citizens not want to finance the removal of Chavez? Today, such an endeavor might violate certain US laws; but good laws could discriminate in a way that allowed private initiatives under certain conditions and rules.

That's what I'm asking, and your example is a good one. Let's say Chavez needs to be taken out to protect the private property of US citizens in Venezuela (three major oil companies). Let's assume we have a government based on donations.

Who should pay for the invasion? Should the oil companies finance military action (by the US government) specifically? Or should they just hire a mercenary army and take care of the problem themselves? Please explain how you think this situation best be dealt with.

What weight should "I can imagine..." have in having taxes or a draft? I don't understand what you mean by "American interests", so perhaps you can elaborate. Do you mean "my personal interests?" Or "the interest of each and every American". If the former, that's fine, but remember that I don't care about your interests (I'm not an altruist). What could be "in the interest of each and every American", except repulsing an attack from a foreign nation?

With "I can imagine" I am presenting a hypothetical situation and trying to find what the moral thing to do is, which would be useful if that situation were to occur. If the hypothetical situation is impossible, then it's an invalid question. But if it's a valid situation (like, "What should I do if someone steals my lunch money - beat him up or tell the teacher?") then there should be a good answer of some sort, which might be useful to know.

By "American interests" I mean private property owned by individual Americans.

Edited February 5, 2007 by BrassDragon

[DavidOdden]

With "I can imagine" I am presenting a hypothetical situation and trying to find what the moral thing to do is, which would be useful if that situation were to occur. If the hypothetical situation is impossible, then it's an invalid question.

That is basically my point. It is not possible, not in America. You know, when Rand spoke of America as being the freest nation, she was speaking of "actual America", not "any possible future instantiation of the government that rules this piece of the earth". America could die (quickly or slowly), to be replaced with some socialist dictatorship or French-style nihilist suicidal squalorous hell-hole. In order for your scenario to come about, America would already have to be in the past tense. BTW, if America crumbles, I don't believe it will be because of foreign invasion, it will be rot from within, the result of thorough moral decay which leaves people to conclude "There is no reason to care if the Ratistanians invade our shores". Then invasion by the Rats would be justice. Rather than look for reasons to have the draft, we should look for reasons to love our country, and combat the reasons that would diminish that love.