Government Functions

Political Philosophy
21

Premise A. The only proper purpose for person Y is to raise cattle.

Premise B. Raising one’s arm is an action which can contribute to raising cattle or can contribute to other things.

 

Conclusion 1)  Person Y should not “raise his arm” because it is not the same thing as “raising cattle”.

Conclusion 2)  Person Y should raise his arm because it is what makes raising cattle possible.

Conclusion 3) Person Y should raise his arm to the extent it helps raise cattle (his purpose) but raising his arm is not a requirement if he can do other things to raise cattle… it depends on what is most efficient, timely etc.

 

 

What is your conclusion?

22

What about a theme park, called Government Land? Or a spa? Perhaps running a record label, called Washington’s Headphones?

Sure, no problem, just as long as these enterprises are not operated at the taxpayers’ expense.

 

EDIT: Anyone voluntarily paying an attendance fee, or purchasing a license, does not qualify as a taxpayer, in this instance.

23

CWilliams –

 

Suffice it to say that there are two distinct stances on taxation among Objectivists, as per the old thread you linked to above, and many others. I suggest you read through the whole thing if you have the time.

 

The tl;dr for me is that Ayn Rand said that there is freewill, which is self-evident, and that cannot be logically squared with people imagining that in a “future world”, everybody will do the right thing and finance the government, or even a meaningful majority of them will. The argument against taxation, for me, is an argument against any realistically plausible government and thus an argument for anarchy, which we all agree is completely irrational. Others think volunteer financing would work just fine, and therefore taxation is immoral. Clearly we’re both making educated guesses on future human behavior.

 

I spend a lot of time admonishing Objectivists to think about the real world rather than stories and castles in the sky. How exactly would some future you have in mind work? Don’t evade the topic by thinking, “when education is no longer controlled by Socialists everybody will think better and everybody will do the right thing and it will all be okay somehow”. No, think through how it would all really work, in the real world, right now. Do the math and figure out how much it would cost before you dismiss the entire problem as insignificant and not to be worried about.

 

It’s hard, and takes some time (took me a couple of decades) but it’s the only way to fully understand what you are talking about vs. just staying in line with a mindless narrative and spending all of your time tearing down negatives instead of building up a positives.

24

Premise A. The only proper purpose for person Y is to raise cattle.

Premise B. Raising one’s arm is an action which can contribute to raising cattle or can contribute to other things.

 

Conclusion 1)  Person Y should not “raise his arm” because it is not the same thing as “raising cattle”.

Conclusion 2)  Person Y should raise his arm because it is what makes raising cattle possible.

Conclusion 3) Person Y should raise his arm to the extent it helps raise cattle (his purpose) but raising his arm is not a requirement if he can do other things to raise cattle… it depends on what is most efficient, timely etc.

 

 

What is your conclusion?

 

Conclusion 3, so in terms of my hypothetical situation ‘The government should operate other ‘functions’ to the extent it helps serve its purpose of protecting the rights of it’s citizens (Defense, Law & Order…) but if these other functions are not a requirement if it can do other things to protect its citizens.’

So i can draw the conclusion that just because a Government’s purpose is to protect the rights of its citizens it is not limited to only this function, providing additional functions do not hinder its primary function they are acceptable,

 

 

CWilliams –

 

Suffice it to say that there are two distinct stances on taxation among Objectivists, as per the old thread you linked to above, and many others. I suggest you read through the whole thing if you have the time.

 

The tl;dr for me is that Ayn Rand said that there is freewill, which is self-evident, and that cannot be logically squared with people imagining that in a “future world”, everybody will do the right thing and finance the government, or even a meaningful majority of them will. The argument against taxation, for me, is an argument against any realistically plausible government and thus an argument for anarchy, which we all agree is completely irrational. Others think volunteer financing would work just fine, and therefore taxation is immoral. Clearly we’re both making educated guesses on future human behavior.

 

I spend a lot of time admonishing Objectivists to think about the real world rather than stories and castles in the sky. How exactly would some future you have in mind work? Don’t evade the topic by thinking, “when education is no longer controlled by Socialists everybody will think better and everybody will do the right thing and it will all be okay somehow”. No, think through how it would all really work, in the real world, right now. Do the math and figure out how much it would cost before you dismiss the entire problem as insignificant and not to be worried about.

 

It’s hard, and takes some time (took me a couple of decades) but it’s the only way to fully understand what you are talking about vs. just staying in line with a mindless narrative and spending all of your time tearing down negatives instead of building up a positives.

 

Thank you you have given me a lot to think about

25

It’s been a long time since I’ve read something that fits the term “floating abstraction” as well as what CWilliams is talking about.  Apparently, all voters have to do is “vote” for the government to “provide a service” and it magically happens.  I think he has been reading too much Rothbard.  A government does not provide a service.  It provides a system of laws to protect individual rights.  Using his scenario, the govt. would have to pass a law creating his system of schools (or whatever other “service” he deems some group wants), and such law would have to be applied to everyone, as any objective law would.  So his suggestion is outright contradictory: his voluntary service immediately becomes coercive.  

 

CWilliams asserts “a Government’s purpose is to protect the rights of its citizens” without providing any evidence as to why this is so or how it achieves its purpose, as if providing services is all that a government does, as if providing other voluntary services could possibly be within the purview of government action.

 

 

 

26

It’s been a long time since I’ve read something that fits the term “floating abstraction” as well as what CWilliams is talking about.  Apparently, all voters have to do is “vote” for the government to “provide a service” and it magically happens.  I think he has been reading too much Rothbard.  A government does not provide a service.  It provides a system of laws to protect individual rights.  Using his scenario, the govt. would have to pass a law creating his system of schools (or whatever other “service” he deems some group wants), and such law would have to be applied to everyone, as any objective law would.  So his suggestion is outright contradictory: his voluntary service immediately becomes coercive.  

 

CWilliams asserts “a Government’s purpose is to protect the rights of its citizens” without providing any evidence as to why this is so or how it achieves its purpose, as if providing services is all that a government does, as if providing other voluntary services could possibly be within the purview of government action.

 

For what it’s worth, you haven’t provided any detail either.

 

Also, a government that only provides a “system of laws to protect individual rights” and doesn’t have, say, an army and a police force and courts etc. etc, isn’t going to protect anybody’s individual rights…

27

Are you implying that armies and police and courts will be formed without laws?  I didn’t raise the issue so it’s not my responsibility to provide evidence of it or any detail for it.    

28

Are you implying that armies and police and courts will be formed without laws?  I didn’t raise the issue so it’s not my responsibility to provide evidence of it or any detail for it.    

If a government only provides the system of laws, well, clearly, it doesn’t have a means to do anything. It requires money. Then you also add in the need of property for lawmakers to convene, acquiring weapons, etc, so that is past what a government is narrowly supposed to do. You’re right, but the point is your answer doesn’t resolve the issue of what the -precise- limits of government ought to be.

29

Are you implying that armies and police and courts will be formed without laws?  I didn’t raise the issue so it’s not my responsibility to provide evidence of it or any detail for it.    

 

A government that only provides a “system of laws to protect individual rights” and doesn’t have, say, an army and a police force and courts etc. etc, isn’t going to protect anybody’s individual rights…

30

A government that only provides a “system of laws to protect individual rights” and doesn’t have, say, an army and a police force and courts etc. etc, isn’t going to protect anybody’s individual rights…

I’m not sure if you’re referring to what Crow said about what he said I said, but if  either of you are going to attempt to cite something I said, please cite it accurately.  Nowhere did I say or imply “only”.

31

You’re getting off topic.  The original question was “Basically my question is if no force is exercised why should government be limited, if i decide that it is in my rational self-interest to fund a basic education for children who otherwise couldn’t afford it (and enough others also decide this) would it become a justified function of government?”

 

My answer above stands to this question, and Crow’s and Eluol’s response to me is out of context of addressing the question.  I was not formulating a theory of the functions of government.

32

I’m not sure if you’re referring to what Crow said about what he said I said, but if  either of you are going to attempt to cite something I said, please cite it accurately.  Nowhere did I say or imply “only”.

 

Um, I just repeated myself after you misquoted me–emphasizing a critical word you seem to have missed. I thought that was obvious. I guess not.

33

You’re getting off topic.  The original question was “Basically my question is if no force is exercised why should government be limited, if i decide that it is in my rational self-interest to fund a basic education for children who otherwise couldn’t afford it (and enough others also decide this) would it become a justified function of government?”

 

My answer above stands to this question, and Crow’s and Eluol’s response to me is out of context of addressing the question.  I was not formulating a theory of the functions of government.

 

You accused the writer of “floating abstractions” which I usually take to mean somebody who makes very broad statements with no facts to back them up. You said he “had been reading too much Rothbard” without citing what he said relates to Rothbard or what that even means (since the statement alone is meaningless). You attack his position in vague terms–floating abstractions, to be sure.

 

And now you are accusing us of responding out of context. Irony much?