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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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?
Why does Objectivism care about the will of the majority?
This is not about the will of the majority. We’re talking about a situation where the majority has already decided to end the welfare state. That is the only presumed reality in which your question would arise.
The issue is whether we should be cognizant of the past. It would be unjust to let voters simply walk away from all the promises they have made. This is where you come back saying: it would also be unjust to let the situation continue. Both are true: either way there are injustices to some people or to others. That’s exactly why it is moral to have a transition: so that the costs are borne more fairly. The relevant legal concept here is estoppel. What exactly this means would vary with the type of welfare program we’re talking about, and also on the nature of the participant.
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 _.
If a dictator is worried about tax collectors overthrowing his system he is doing it wrong. The IRS is a competely insignifigant portion of the population.
The goal is to stop the violence for good. However we have limited resources, and there are negative consequences for ending violence. So the choice becomes “what violence can we get rid of, when and how”. I would say that we should get rid of the most violent systems immediately. The abuse of sex workers and the drug war needs to end immediately as those systems cause some of the greatest violence in our society. Secondly, reforming the courts, police, and military would be proper. After this we would target controls that support businesses and the wealthy, and then last we would target controls that were intended to support labor interests.
We live in an unprincipled plutocratic system. People vie for their own interests through power games rather than competition and trade. Instead of being allowed a fair chance in a free economy, the poor are led by people claiming to represent their interests. I don’t think they are the problem voting block in America. The war of all against all won’t be ended by screwing over the weakest among us.
…but no one can force anyone to belong to it. That’s an individual choice each one of us freely makes for ourselves, and each of us gets what we deserve as the consequences of our choice… no matter what we choose.
People vie for their own interests through power games rather than competition and trade.
…not all of them. There are still some American Capitalists left in America.
Instead of being allowed a fair chance in a free economy, the poor are led by people claiming to represent their interests.
Leaders of the poor have exactly the same moral values as the poor they lead. It couldn’t be any other way. People who lead themselves cannot be led because there are no shared values to make it possible.
…but no one can force anyone to belong to it. That’s an individual choice each one of us freely makes for ourselves, and each of us gets what we deserve as the consequences of our choice… no matter what we choose.
…not all of them. There are still some American Capitalists left in America.
Leaders of the poor have exactly the same moral values as the poor they lead. It couldn’t be any other way. People who lead themselves cannot be led because there are no shared values to make it possible.
I don’t think that all poor people argue for the welfare state or the protections they have for them. However most people make use of the government’s services in some way. I would say almost everyone does. These services are a product of this conflict between voting blocks and special interests. Sure they could go live in the woods and not talk to anyone, but there isn’t any reason why they should do that. There are very very few groups that don’t play the politics game.
I don’t think that the leaders of the poor have the same moral values. It is very possible to decieve others. It is also possible to propose something that claims to meet their moral values while not actually achieveing them. Sure it is their fault for their bad ideas, but the people who they put their trust in don’t operate in good faith. I don’t think that the democratic leadership care about poor people, even in terms of class warefare.
I actually used the term “American Capitalist producer” to denote that being a productive Capitalist is an American value.
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.
I don’t believe you. There is no such thing as American values without answering the question: value to whom and for what - which you haven’t done yet.
Ok…then you deny the reality of the huge government bureaucracy created by irresponsible people who failed to govern themselves.
There is no such thing as American values without answering the question: value to whom
That’s a silly question. Do you really need to be told that living by American values is of value to the Americans who live by them?
and for what - which you haven’t done yet.
If you don’t see the beneficial purpose of decency, responsibility, productivity, solvency, and frugality, which form the foundation of American Capitalism, then there isn’t much more that needs to be said.
There’s nothing for them to argue when they can simply vote it into existence.
Well for one they need to be convinced to vote in the first place. Advocacy among peer groups causes this as much as advocacy towards different groups. I have met people from all “classes” advocate for most forms of government. Then there is the fact that moost of the people who percieve themselves as having benefited themselves from certain legistlations did not even vote for them.
There are not a lot of people today who voted for social security for example. Most people still attempt to get what they can out of the system when time comes to collect.
Well for one they need to be convinced to vote in the first place.
There is no more persuasive incentive than a big government that will give you free things. It appeals to the basest of vices… the demand for unearned entitlement.
Advocacy among peer groups causes this as much as advocacy towards different groups. I have met people from all “classes” advocate for most forms of government.
Good point. I’d never underestimate the political clout of public union looters who parasitically feed as paid servicers of government transfer of wealth programs. But then, they are also getting exactly the government they deserve. In California, the looters have formed an unstoppable political alliance with the moochers. The result? The state is bankrupt.
Then there is the fact that moost of the people who percieve themselves as having benefited themselves from certain legistlations did not even vote for them.
Of course not… they vote to elect the looters who do vote for them.
There are not a lot of people today who voted for social security for example. Most people still attempt to get what they can out of the system when time comes to collect.
Social Security used to be an system of personalized accounts where money is extracted from every workers paychecks for 20 to 40 years, and then their own money is given back to them when they are retired. Problem is that the government plundered that program and squandered it on other programs. Much of Social Security has now morphed into a disability program and the moochers are flocking to turn that safety net into a trampoline…
“A record 5.4 million workers and their dependents have signed up to collect federal disability checks since President Obama took office, according to the latest official government data”
…and that was only as of April this year.
Notice that there is nothing in this situation that is faintly related to American Capitalism.