(Yet another first post, dipping my toe in the water to see if my head gets bitten off, etc.)
On another Objectivist forum, a discussion led to two points of view being expressed about how morals impact politics. As best as I can currently explain them, they are:
A) Initiation of force is always bad. Taxation is always initiation of force. Therefore, taxation is always bad, no matter what that taxation may fund, including the saving of lives.
B) Life (particularly one’s own life) is the moral standard. That which saves lives (especially one’s own life) is good. “Proper government”, limited to protecting individual rights, is one tool that can be used to save lives/one’s-life. However, other tools also exist to help accomplish that moral standard, some of which conflict with the particular tool of limiting government. For example, if it can be clearly be demonstrated that a number of lives can be saved via a program funded by taxes, then it is reasonable to consider the program.
Perhaps A could be called a ‘hard Objectivist’ position, and B a ‘soft Objectivist’, in that it agrees with the former on the goals, but not necessarily on the methods to achieve those goals. Then again, perhaps I’m missing out on something entirely, and am completely misinterpreting something fundamental about Objectivism that would make this whole question moot.
(Yet another first post, dipping my toe in the water to see if my head gets bitten off, etc.)
On another Objectivist forum, a discussion led to two points of view being expressed about how morals impact politics. As best as I can currently explain them, they are:
A) Initiation of force is always bad. Taxation is always initiation of force. Therefore, taxation is always bad, no matter what that taxation may fund, including the saving of lives.
B) Life (particularly one’s own life) is the moral standard. That which saves lives (especially one’s own life) is good. “Proper government”, limited to protecting individual rights, is one tool that can be used to save lives/one’s-life. However, other tools also exist to help accomplish that moral standard, some of which conflict with the particular tool of limiting government. For example, if it can be clearly be demonstrated that a number of lives can be saved via a program funded by taxes, then it is reasonable to consider the program.
Perhaps A could be called a ‘hard Objectivist’ position, and B a ‘soft Objectivist’, in that it agrees with the former on the goals, but not necessarily on the methods to achieve those goals. Then again, perhaps I’m missing out on something entirely, and am completely misinterpreting something fundamental about Objectivism that would make this whole question moot.
The “soft Objectivist” position is simply a case of trying to use good ends to justify evil means. It is no more acceptable to steal in order to save lives than it is to murder in order to gain/save wealth.
The point that your question misses is that there are ways to save those lives that do not involve taxation. Aside from the fact that taxation is an initiation of force, and therefore immoral, in the absence of taxation resourceful caring people will develop any of a number of force-less options to provide the exact same services.
On another Objectivist forum, a discussion led to two points of view being expressed about how morals impact politics. As best as I can currently explain them, they are:
A) Initiation of force is always bad. Taxation is always initiation of force. Therefore, taxation is always bad, no matter what that taxation may fund, including the saving of lives.
B) Life (particularly one’s own life) is the moral standard. That which saves lives (especially one’s own life) is good. “Proper government”, limited to protecting individual rights, is one tool that can be used to save lives/one’s-life. However, other tools also exist to help accomplish that moral standard, some of which conflict with the particular tool of limiting government. For example, if it can be clearly be demonstrated that a number of lives can be saved via a program funded by taxes, then it is reasonable to consider the program.
A: Too hard an interpretation. Taxation for our protection - as the only practical means of paying for protection - cannot also be considered force. That would be an anarchist position; i.e. any central Govt. is force.
B: Too loose. The fundamental ways of protecting all - military, police, courts - are proper functions of Govt.
Any other “program” could be employed by individuals or businesses and does not require, and cannot be the responsibility of, Govt. If you don’t stick to fundamentals and allow such pragmatic expansion of Govt., then there is no line to draw.
A: Too hard an interpretation. Taxation for our protection - as the only practical means of paying for protection - cannot also be considered force. That would be an anarchist position; i.e. any central Govt. is force.
That’s not what that says. It says taxation is immoral, because it is an initiation of force, not that any central government is force. A is the Objectivist position. B is the non-Objectivist “libertarian” or “conservative” position. Zip pretty much said it. There are ways to fund legitimate services without taxation or the initiation of force. So saying violating rights is necessary to protect rights is an ethical contradiction and a false alternative.
B.) Life (particularly one’s own life) is the moral standard. That which saves lives (especially one’s own life) is good. “Proper government”, limited to protecting individual rights, is one tool that can be used to save lives/one’s-life.
That would most definitely not be an Objectivist’s position.
One’s own life is the highest value for that individual. When you say “particularly”, it must be understood as “specifically” and primary. So, “that which saves live s” (plural) certainly does not follow universally.
Also, life as the moral standard isn’t limited to just not being dead. That right to life includes one’s ability to freely make his own choices in all cases that those choices do not conflict with other’s right to their life. Forced taxation violates one’s right to choose freely, so it is violating that primary right. Think of it this way: If having your life saved is of value to you, then why would government have to force you to pay for that service?
Make sense? If that premise (B.) was actually sound, then there would be no logical need for force.
A proper government would be limited to protecting individual rights AND hold the monopoly on retaliatory force. No forced taxation would be required if the government were properly limited. The reason that is so hard to imagine is because we’re so far from that ideal that it seems totally alien.
But I think of it like this: Imagine a proper government where the only funds required for it to run go to Defense, Police and Law Courts. In a free-market capitalist country with no taxes those services would be demanded and valued properly. If the need did not get filled voluntarily by those who had most to lose, the society would collapse and all people would abandon it to go somewhere else to be FORCED to pay substantially more (to cover a bunch of other govt’ services). I would pay a fair price to live in that society.
B) Life (particularly one’s own life) is the moral standard. That which saves lives (especially one’s own life) is good. “Proper government”, limited to protecting individual rights, is one tool that can be used to save lives/one’s-life. However, other tools also exist to help accomplish that moral standard, some of which conflict with the particular tool of limiting government. For example, if it can be clearly be demonstrated that a number of lives can be saved via a program funded by taxes, then it is reasonable to consider the program.
You’re making a jump here from life as the standard to “number of lives”, which implies the lives of other. If I adopt life as my standard of value, we’re speaking of my life. “Other people’s lives” is not the standard.
Rudmer: To make sure that I understand the point you’re making, are you saying that if you were faced with the classic ethical problem, of either stealing something or dying (with no wiggle room), you are saying that stealing is the immoral choice and dying is the moral choice?
Zip: I was careful to avoid mentioning that aspect, as, in the previous discussion, the point was raised that evidence can be presented that the government-supplied, tax-funded program actually did better, saving/extending more lives, than the privately-funded version of the program; and thus, those arguing the A position were claiming that tax-funded programs are moral /even when/ “force-less options” to provide the exact same services result in more deaths.
TLD, 2046: The A-arguers from the earlier conversation seemed to be of the opinion that if government was reduced to protecting rights, then it would be able to be funded by trust funds, user fees, donations, and flat citizen fees, as described at http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Poli…Government.html .
freestyle, softwareNerd: As what’s been described as a “vulgar empiricist”, I tend to equate saving greater numbers of lives as tending to be related to statistically increasing my own chances of living. However, this opens up the whole can of worms of whether Objectivism is compatible with Bayesian probability theory, which is likely enough to head in an entirely different direction that it probably deserves its own thread, if anyone wants to start (or resurrect) one on that topic.
freestyle, softwareNerd: As what’s been described as a “vulgar empiricist”, I tend to equate saving greater numbers of lives as tending to be related to statistically increasing my own chances of living.
If I send money to starving folk in Sudan, how does that improve my chances of staying alive? At any rate, Objectivism advocates life as the standard of value, not “staying alive” as the standard of value.
Rudmer: To make sure that I understand the point you’re making, are you saying that if you were faced with the classic ethical problem, of either stealing something or dying (with no wiggle room), you are saying that stealing is the immoral choice and dying is the moral choice?
One of the most significant points that Ayn Rand made was the fact that this should not be the “classic ethical problem.” The ethics she created was intended to govern, mainly, ordinary life situations. The premier ethical problem should NOT be an extremely unlikely, life-or-death situation, but rather the situation of everyday life. During every day life, living by your own effort is the best course for you to take in order to further your own life. Theft is both impractical and immoral. Her rules against theft are intended to govern normal conditions; this is what the Objectivist ethics spends most of its time and effort on, because its purpose is to be useful in helping people to live properly.
However, admittedly situations arise where living by your own effort is, temporarily, impossible (e.g. you’re lost in the woods, starving or freezing, and you come upon an empty cabin). In talking about these “lifeboat situations,” one’s primary moral imperative is to survive and return to normal conditions where one can provide for oneself. Reimbursement is certainly morally imperative when the emergency situation is confined to you (as it is in my example); with widespread emergency (e.g. a hurricane) that question is less simple.
In any event, taxation is not meant to be an emergency-situations-only thing. Taxation occurs continuously in modern-day America. Incorporating theft into everyday life like that is always wrong, in the Objectivist ethics.
As others in this thread have already implied there is no such things as “hard” or “soft” Objectivism–just Objectivism, and the second argument is simply incompatible with it.
Perhaps A could be called a ‘hard Objectivist’ position, and B a ‘soft Objectivist’
I suppose so, in the sense that B is not really the Objectivist position. The main problem, as I see it, is that philosophy is a pretty fine-grained enterprise aimed at identifying the correct principles, so a little bit of imprecision, error, or sloppiness gets multiplied a million-fold with disasterous results.
As others have noted, it is not that “lives, abstractly” are the moral standard, rather, it is your life – your life is the moral primary, and yet you’re subordinating your life, trying to derive an effect on your life as something that will maybe emerge from an effect on other people’s lives. That which “saves lives” is, similarly, not the primary principle; that implies that your own integrated well-being is subordinate to rescuing other people from death. Furthermore, just applying the notion to yourself, “saving your own life” is the wrong standard – that’s the “slab-avoidance” standard (which is not the Objectivist standard). It’s not just “am I breathing”, but “Am I existing, in the way that is proper for me as a man”. “Proper government” means a government that does what is in the nature of governments to do – and that would be “control the use of force”. In other words, “proper government” does not do “whatever is necessary to save lives”.
I’m about to sign off for the night, but since it seems likely to be relevant to the discussion…
Due to various circumstances I’d prefer to keep private, after I’ve taken care of rent and groceries, I have an income of about $100 per month to cover everything else. Several times in my life, I have had to visit the local hospital, and if I had not received such medical care, I would near-certainly be dead. As I live in Canada, with its method I did not pay for those hospital visits out of my own pocket. From what I’ve been able to learn of the American health care system, if I lived across the border, I would not have been able to pay for those hospital visits, and thus would not have received that medical care, and thus would not be alive to be writing this post.
Thus, from my admittedly naive view of Objectivism (which is improving with every post I read here, and for which I thank you), it would seem that if I followed Objectivist principles, then from the point of view of rational self-interest, I have reason to either prefer the Canadian health care system to the American one and stay alive; or to declare that sheer survival is insufficient to living a “proper” existence and allow myself to expire rather than continue to take advantage of a government-funded life-saving program.
It is entirely possible that I am not an Objectivist simply because I am more concerned with short-to-medium term survival, of selfishly keeping my life in particular as my moral standard, than the more abstract principles of being willing to die for the sake of the principle of rejecting a system containing taxation. Still, there is a high level of correlation between my beliefs, and what I’ve been able to interpret of the Objectivist point of view, my main point of disagreement being something along the lines of disagreeing whether the tools described by Objectivists as fulfilling the moral goal being the /only/ ways to achieve those goals. Put another way, I have a Bayesian’s typical skepticism of claims of absolutes.
All that said, I’m enjoying learning more about Objectivism here, I’ve changed my mind before to improve my beliefs and am likely to again in the future to improve them further, and I look forward to reading the replies to this thread come the morrow.
From what I’ve been able to learn of the American health care system, if I lived across the border, I would not have been able to pay for those hospital visits, and thus would not have received that medical care, and thus would not be alive to be writing this post.
Your facts are wrong. If you were in the U.S. you would have been treated, and the chances are you would have got faster, better, and more luxurious service than in Canada. (I have enough experience with the system to vouch for 5-star treatment in hospitals.)
Anyhow, the U.S. example is not a good one because you’re comparing two systems that are both heavily antithetical to Objectivist politics.
Zip: I was careful to avoid mentioning that aspect, as, in the previous discussion, the point was raised that evidence can be presented that the government-supplied, tax-funded program actually did better, saving/extending more lives, than the privately-funded version of the program; and thus, those arguing the A position were claiming that tax-funded programs are moral /even when/ “force-less options” to provide the exact same services result in more deaths.
So you are arguing a utilitarian point of view then. The greatest benefit for the greatest number.
This is the ideal that leads Canadians to ditch the people who have very rare diseases for which incredibly expensive medicines are required. Oh, they still have to pay for healthcare just like everyone else, they just ALSO have to pay out of pocket because the “Universal” part of Canadian health care, well… it isn’t. Or how about the fact that in Canada it is illegal to have an MRI and charge people for its use outside of the medical pogrom (no, I’m not spelling that incorrectly). Or how about the fact that in Canada you can literally die waiting for treatment but can not (in Canada) pay to ensure you get treated?
Or how about the fact that in Canada you can literally die waiting for treatment but can not (in Canada) pay to ensure you get treated?
What happens if you do offer to pay? Are you arrested or maybe kicked out of the hospital? “Sorry sir, yes you are having a heart attack but you offered to pay for your services to selfishly put yourself first in line for treatment. Please let our security guard escort you out. The mounties are on their way. Eh?”
Several times in my life, I have had to visit the local hospital, and if I had not received such medical care, I would near-certainly be dead. As I live in Canada, with its method I did not pay for those hospital visits out of my own pocket. From what I’ve been able to learn of the American health care system, if I lived across the border, I would not have been able to pay for those hospital visits, and thus would not have received that medical care, and thus would not be alive to be writing this post.
…
Put another way, I have a Bayesian’s typical skepticism of claims of absolutes.
In a 20 year study of Life Expectancy*, the United States has the highest life expectancy in the world and is over 3 years longer than in Canada. (You may have time to move here to extend your life, statistically speaking of course).
*This study removed fatal injuries & accidents so as not to skew results of good or bad HEATH CARE treatment. (So, perhaps you may hold off on that move because of the greater risk of fatal accidents here.)
Also, had you been in the US you would have been treated anywhere you went even if you said you couldn’t pay. However, there’s obviously no way to tell if your finances would be better if you lived in the US, or if your employer provided health insurance. The US does not resemble anything close to an Objectivist society (although we had a great Supreme Court decision today) so I wouldn’t base your understanding of Objectivist principles on the current government and mixed economy of the USA.
But no, you most certainly would not be dead. And our government would force other people to pay for you. If you’re income challenged, we have Medicaid. If you’re young we have SCHIP. IF you’re between jobs we have COBRA. If you’re old we have Medicare. lol All the funds for this first get taken from the private sector and then are funneled through bureaucracy and then to those services. An Objectivist society would have left all the original funds in the hands of the private citizens in the first place.
if I lived across the border, I would not have been able to pay for those hospital visits, and thus would not have received that medical care, and thus would not be alive to be writing this post.
It’s sad how effective their propaganda has been… Do you actually think that happens at hospitals in America?
That’s not what that says. It says taxation is immoral, because it is an initiation of force, not that any central government is force. A is the Objectivist position. B is the non-Objectivist “libertarian” or “conservative” position. Zip pretty much said it. There are ways to fund legitimate services without taxation or the initiation of force. So saying violating rights is necessary to protect rights is an ethical contradiction and a false alternative.
What says all taxation is immoral? Where is there stated such an Objectivist position?
Your last statement is clearly not what I said, just what you conclude from your first assumption.
The premise A that we are talking about, which you were referring to.
Where is there stated such an Objectivist position?
Rand stated that position clearly in “Government Financing in a Free Society:”
In a fully free society, taxation—or, to be exact, payment for governmental services—would be voluntary.
Here there is a distinction regarding the presence of coercion. I’m concluding when you say “Taxation for our protection - as the only practical means of paying for protection - cannot also be considered force,” you are making a false statement.
If you mean “voluntary financing” when you suggest not “all taxation” is immoral, then I get what you are saying, but I don’t think taxation and voluntary financing can be the same concept under the same term. A tax is not a voluntary donation, but an enforced free, exacted pursuant to legislative authority against a taxpayer.
Your last statement is clearly not what I said, just what you conclude from your first assumption.
Yeah that is what I concluded. If you meant something else, sorry, but I agree with the others that A is the Objectivist position and not an anarchist position.