Rand stated that position clearly in "Government Financing in a Free Society:"
[i]In a fully free society, taxation—or, to be exact, payment for governmental services—would be voluntary.[/i]
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.[/code]
Agreed - [u]If[/u] there was a totally free society and if people would volunteer to pay for all services. The current context is that Govt. must fund certain services and, as such, is not initiating force - we have no choice and those services are for our protection. And in this context, it is not an "Obj. position" that all taxation is immoral.
And in this context, it is not an “Obj. position” that all taxation is immoral.
Yea, but philosophy–especially Objectivist political philosophy–doesn’t necessarily deal with with things as they are at present, but things as they ought to be. And in the context of this being a philosophical forum that should be assumed to be the default position unless otherwise stated.
Yea, but philosophy–especially Objectivist political philosophy–doesn’t necessarily deal with with things as they are at present, but things as they ought to be. And in the context of this being a philosophical forum that should be assumed to be the default position unless otherwise stated.
But you are missing a point: the Rand statement was contextual, not a fundamental truism.
I have not seen it stated that all taxation is immoral out of that context.
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.
Ayn Rand wrote as much in “Government Financing in a Free Society”. It’s a basic Objectivist position that ALL taxation is IMPROPER. Go read and come back when you know something useful if you want to be included in the discussion.
As I live in Canada, with its method I did not pay for those hospital visits out of my own pocket.
Wait a second . . . you don’t pay ANY taxes? The company you work for doesn’t pay any taxes? If you do, you damn well DID pay for those medical bills “out of your pocket”–preemptively, and whether you needed any health care or not. This is the primary objection most Canadians had to the Americans that were crossing the border to get “cheaper” (i.e. government-subsidized) Canadian drugs–the Canadian taxpayers were paying for the Americans to get cheaper drugs.
There’s no such thing as “free” health care. Someone has to pay for it. The general Objectivist position is that it is the responsibility of the beneficiary of the WHATEVER it is to pay for it instead of demanding that whatever productive people happen to be around pay for it because they “owe” it to you for some reason. But the fact that it’s your responsibility to support your own life doesn’t mean that you can’t seek out charity, take out a loan, negotiate a payment plan, etc. etc. etc. The options aren’t “government insurance” OR “cash on the barrellhead”. This is a false alternative.
Many, many doctors work for free part of the time (just as most lawyers do pro bono work). They wouldn’t BE doctors if they didn’t enjoy helping sick people get better. What really bugs the heck out of them, though, are the hordes of entitled twats who clog emergency rooms (in the U.S.) with their drug-seeking and non-emergent complaints due to the enforced policy that the emergency rooms are not allowed to turn ANYONE away.
So I don’t see how this “I got hurt and I wouldn’t have had the cash to pay for medical care at the time” becomes a valid argument for “so I have the right to aim a gun at every productive person who just happens to live in the same country I do, stick my hand in their wallet, and take their hard-earned cash”.
But you are missing a point: the Rand statement was contextual, not a fundamental truism.
I have not seen it stated that all taxation is immoral out of that context.
You’re quite dense, then. A free society is a RESULT of (among other things) the citizens RECOGNIZING that taxation (and all other variations on the theme of rights-violation) is UNIVERSALLY immoral and putting an end to it on that basis. Once these evils have been abolished, you have a free society. You are literally putting the cart before the horse here and failing to recognize what is logically dependent on what else.
“Government Financing in a Free Society” is not saying that taxation is just dandy in a non-free society, it’s saying that there ARE non-taxation methods of financing a government and further demonstrating that taxation is NOT necessary (or moral) in ANY society.
Agreed - If there was a totally free society and if people would volunteer to pay for all services.
No, it would be a free society if the government stopped initiating force against citizens.
But you are missing a point: the Rand statement was contextual, not a fundamental truism.
I have not seen it stated that all taxation is immoral out of that context.
You should read the part about individual rights:
“The source of man’s rights is not divine law or congressional law, but the law of identity. A is A—and Man is Man. Rights are conditions of existence required by man’s nature for his proper survival. If man is to live on earth, it is right for him to use his mind, it is right to act on his own free judgment, it is right to work for his values and to keep the product of his work. If life on earth is his purpose, he has a right to live as a rational being: nature forbids him the irrational. Any group, any gang, any nation that attempts to negate man’s rights, is wrong, which means: is evil, which means: is anti-life.”
But you are missing a point: the Rand statement was contextual, not a fundamental truism.
How’s this statement: "Since Man has inalienable individual rights, this means that the same rights are held, individually, by every man, by all men, at all times. "?
Are you saying it’s not a violation of rigths if I take half your money?
Jake_Ellison
No, it would be a free society if the government stopped initiating force against citizens.[/code]
Yes; but I said that there is an alternative to taxation "If there was a totally free society and if people would volunteer to pay for all services." Since that has never been the case....
[code]Are you saying it's not a violation of rigths if I take half your money?
Your discussion of rights does not apply as I presented the situation.
Of course - in your ex. - that would be a violation. But Govt. taxing for essential services for our protection should not be a moral issue. I am as strong a proponent of indiv. rights as anyone; but I can’t say - as an anarchist would - that I have a right to not pay for said protections.
The article discussing “Government Financing in a Fully Free Society” says that eliminating taxes is the last step in becoming totally free. And “The Nature of Government” notes that Govt. holds a monopoly on the legal use of physical force and must provide the essential services we have discussed. Since it is not possible to do so without taxation in our society, one cannot call such taxes immoral.
Furthermore, we need a fundamental distinction between those taxes and all others that are irrationally imposed.
Your discussion of rights does not apply as I presented the situation.
Having any portion of your money stolen by the government most certainly is a violation of one’s rights.
But Govt. taxing for essential services for our protection should not be a moral issue.
The government stealing for any reason from it’s citizens is also most definitely a issue. One of the greatest in the history of the world.
I am as strong a proponent of indiv. rights as anyone; but I can’t say - as an anarchist would - that I have a right to not pay for said protections.
http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/style_i…/rte-italic.png
Nobody is saying that they wouldn’t pay for their protection by the government just that it should only be voluntary otherwise it is theft and theft is most certainly a moral issue. This position isn’t even remotely “anarchist” which would involve either no government, competing “governments”, or some crazy privatization of the police, etc.
Since it is not possible to do so without taxation in our society, one cannot call such taxes immoral.
This is just completely wrong. That’s like saying 150 years ago that crops have always been harvested using slave labor; the whole agricultural system is run using slave labor; men need the fruits of agriculture; therefore we can’t call slave labor immoral. It’s a complete non sequitur.
Furthermore, we need a fundamental distinction between those taxes and all others that are irrationally imposed.
You are now missing the point here. All taxes are irrationally imposed because they are immoral. Why are all taxes immoral? Because they violate property rights. Any violation of an individuals property rights for any reason at any time is immoral.
Your discussion of rights does not apply as I presented the situation.
Your claim was that Ayn Rand wasn’t against taxation, except in the one context of an ideal society. I presented quotes that prove she was against all violations of rights, in all contexts, and taxation is undoubtedly a violation of rights, as she defined it. That is Ayn Rand’s position, and the Objectivist position.
If your opinion is that it’s wrong, then you need to specify that when answering questions on this board. I have no desire to argue that point with you (because there are no new arguments, I’ve heard them all), only the question of what Ayn Rand’s position is.
The act of taxing people is wrong, and the alternative is to not tax them, not to expect them to pay voluntarily before you stop taxing them. I do not owe you anything before you stop taxing me. If you stop taxing me and then I die, so be it. If you stop taxing me and then you die, because you can’t afford your own protection, and need my contribution, so be it. Neither scenario gives you the right to force me to pay for my protection, or yours. That is my position, and I’m not open to convincing. At this point, the quote I already presented, and I’ll post again, also proves that it is Ayn Rand’s position:
“Since Man has inalienable individual rights, this means that the same rights are held, individually, by every man, by all men, at all times.”
Furthermore, we need a fundamental distinction between those taxes and all others that are irrationally imposed.
Rational taxation is a contradiction in terms. Objectivism does have a fundamental distinction between rational and irrational human interactions: all human interactions which rely on the initiation of force are irrational (they literally disregard a man’s rational faculty). A claim that men should be taxed until they volunteer to pay is by definition irrational. Taxation, like all initiation of force, dismisses the rational faculty of the person producing the wealth obtained: it is irrational.
That is the Objectivist position, and that is the fundamental distinction. Any other, more specific distinction would not be fundamental.
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?”
You would have to leave the country to find someone who is set up to accept whatever payment you want to make, certainly cash payment. And were a Doctor or hospital to take your money to provide timely service, that action would violate the Canadian Health Act (oh the irony) as it ensures that everyone goes on the same list for treatment. What’s that old quote about an equal share of misery?
So you are arguing a utilitarian point of view then. The greatest benefit for the greatest number.
Not… exactly.
Around a year ago, I read “An Intuitive Explanation of Bayes’ Theorem” at http://yudkowsky.net/rational/bayes (and the related documents and community forums, such as “Twelve Virtues of Rationality” at http://yudkowsky.net/rational/virtues ), and began seriously thinking about what statistics (especially Bayesian ones) implied about truth; and the book “Mind Hacks” (companion site http://www.mindhacks.com/ ), which demonstrates, in extremely practical forms, some of the limits to human rationality and cognition. From what I’ve been able to learn of Objectivism (using http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/ as a main source for at least the overall structure, if not necessarily the details), it is effectively impossible for me to be as rational a person as I would need to be to properly follow Objectivism; thus, I have been thinking about ways to enhance my life (as my moral standard) in ways that compensate for my mental deficiencies, such as by figuring out various rules-of-thumb that are sufficiently useful, and can be applied in many situations without needing to spend too much time thinking about them. One such rule-of-thumb is “a rising tide lifts all boats”; that is, improving the general quality of life, especially for the poorest segment of a society (which I’m willing to file myself under), is likely to improve my own quality of life. It’s not an absolute, there are many edge cases and exceptions and so forth - but it’s worked well /enough/ for my purposes, so far.
Oh, and… http://www.ottawacitizen.com/health/Cage+f…6339/story.html
If that’s what you’re using as a reference, then you might wish to peruse http://lefarkins.blogspot.com/2010/01/unte…ble-moment.html , which rebuts that particular celebrity’s statements.
It’s sad how effective their propaganda has been… Do you actually think that happens at hospitals in America?
My understanding of US health care is that for the uninsured (which, for the sake of argument, we can assume I would be among), outside of emergency rooms, if someone cannot pay the medical bills for a particular treatment, they will not receive that treatment.
As for American vs Canadian health care, it might be best, for this thread, to skim http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of…th_care_systems and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_Canada , and assume that I’ve trumpeted all the numbers which back my point of view, you’ve trumpeted the numbers backing yours, and if we want to discuss the matter further, to start a new thread on the topic.
Now, back to taxation…
What says all taxation is immoral? Where is there stated such an Objectivist position?
http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Politics_Taxation.html certainly seems to indicate that that is the Objectivist position. I could also refer you to the forum in which the earlier conversation took place, and that position was stated as being the Objectivist one, if you wish.
Wait a second . . . you don’t pay ANY taxes?
I fill out the income tax forms annually; however, due to my income bracket, none of my income is taxed. Due to certain minor tax credits, I usually end up receiving about a hundred or two dollars in rebate each year.
I do pay sales taxes on bought items, which is the only tax I can think of that I pay directly (as opposed to paying someone who pays taxes for something, which kind of blurs the whole point, so I’ll cheerfully ignore it for now).
To every other post I’m not directly replying to: Thank you; I’m learning quite a lot from what you’re writing.
One such rule-of-thumb is “a rising tide lifts all boats”; that is, improving the general quality of life, especially for the poorest segment of a society (which I’m willing to file myself under), is likely to improve my own quality of life. It’s not an absolute, there are many edge cases and exceptions and so forth
No shit. One of those edge cases is every single communist and socialist country in the World, where the poorest segments of society are generally affected first by the general moral and economic decline of society. This applies to socialist democracies such as Venezuela or France (where young people in general are 20%+ unemployed, young Muslims 50% and living in abject misery), just as it applies to hardcore communist countries where tens of millions died from hunger and malnutrition.
If you’re planning on ensuring your long term well being by attacking and destroying your betters, instead of doing your best to find a place for yourself living in harmony with them, I assure you, you’ll be the first to be discarded once everything goes to Hell, as it invariably does. Sounds like you’re almost homeless as it is: what are you going to do when the people you are so self righteously robbing all leave Canada?
No shit. One of those edge cases is every single communist and socialist country in the World, where the poorest segments of society are generally affected first by the general moral and economic decline of society. This applies to socialist democracies such as Venezuela or France (where young people in general are 20%+ unemployed, young Muslims 50% and living in abject misery), just as it applies to hardcore communist countries where tens of millions died from hunger and malnutrition.
If you’re planning on ensuring your long term well being by attacking and destroying your betters, instead of doing your best to find a place for yourself living in harmony with them, I assure you, you’ll be the first to be discarded once everything goes to Hell, as it invariably does. Sounds like you’re almost homeless as it is: what are you going to do when the people you are so self righteously robbing all leave Canada?
(I hope you don’t mind if I treat your question’s “when” as if you wrote “if”, as I’m not nearly so certain as you seem to be that the assumptions underlying your question are facts.)
Your question may be phrased rhetorically, but I have, in fact, had to consider and plan for such a situation. I hope that you will be willing to take me at my word that I am, in fact, earning as much as I am physically and mentally capable of, and have done as much as possible to minimize my expenses - for example, I have made arrangements for an internet connection that doesn’t cost me any cash. If events happen to turn unworkable the various workarounds, kludges, hacks, and so forth that I use to get by, and I am unable to arrange for replacements, to the degree that I am no longer able to afford even my current room and board, then, obviously, I will become homeless. I already own a copy of “Surviving on the Streets: How to go down without going out” by Ace Backwords, (available from various sources, listed at http://www.bookfinder.com/search/?author=b…st=sr&ac=qr , for about $30+) and I’ve volunteered to help with things such as a local “Out of the Cold” program; so I know that I can stay alive, to a certain degree, in such a situation, but they’re not circumstances I would enjoy, and without even my present meagre reserves, my life would become unpleasantly perilous, with measurable odds of perishing in any given winter.
I’m not an uber-rational, hyper-competent Objectivist super-man, striding boldly into the future, self-sufficient in every way; never harmed by third-party externalities; able to read contracts at a glance and having every piece of information necessary to find where I’d be screwed over; able to detect building design flaws, medical fraud, contaminated food, and so on, and able to take such companies to court to hold them liable and argue my own case. I’m just a guy trying to get by as best I can given the circumstances I’m in. I think that learning more about Objectivism will help me do that, even if I don’t end up becoming a full-fledged Objectivist myself, so here I am.
I think I’ve done my best to answer your question; if I’ve misinterpreted it, or failed to elaborate on a point you want me to, just let me know, and I’ll do my best to correct my lapse.
You write far too well for someone who is actually on the verge of considering himself incapable of producing enough to sustain his own life or should be seriously considering himself to be incapable of increasing his own productiveness to a level that affords a decent standard of living.
In your particular actual case, in current actual society, there are a myriad ways the government may directly or indirectly be creating conditions that are as you describe. Minimum wage laws and other labor regulation in particular come to mind. However the circumstances that would lead a person with the mental acuity and expression capability you have demonstrated in this thread to actually be unable to find productive work in a free society are exceptional enough that the fact that such a person would have to rely on charity is no argument against the absence of taxation and tax funded entitlements.
'EC'
Having any portion of your money stolen by the government most certainly is a violation of one's rights.[/code]
You can't ignore my entire argument and continue to call it "stolen."
[code]Nobody is saying that they wouldn't pay for their protection by the government just that it should only be voluntary.
Yet it is not possible in our system. You are putting the cart before the horse.
This is just completely wrong. That's like saying 150 years ago that crops have always been harvested using slave labor; the whole agricultural system is run using slave labor; men need the fruits of agriculture; therefore we can't call slave labor immoral. It's a complete non sequitur.
Bad analogy: Govt. has a right to provide essential services at our cost; it just happens that it is not able to do so without taxation (unless in the unattainable context). There is no right to enslave.
[i]You[/i] are now missing the point here. [i]All[/i] taxes are irrationally imposed because they are immoral. Why are all taxes immoral? Because they violate property rights. [i]Any[/i] violation of an individuals property rights for [i]any[/i] reason at [i]any[/i] time [b]is[/b] [i]immoral[/i].
Immoral only in that unattainable context. Today, they don’t violate rights.
Morality requires choices, and that choice does not exist.
'Jake_Ellison'
Your claim was that Ayn Rand wasn't against taxation, except in the one context of an ideal society. I presented quotes that prove she was against all violations of rights, in all contexts, and taxation is undoubtedly a violation of rights, as she defined it. That is Ayn Rand's position, and the Objectivist position.[/code]
One can theoretically be against taxation; but like I just said, given no choice in our society, Govt. must provide essential services via taxation. You assume that is a violation when it is not in this context.
[code]If your opinion is that it's wrong, then you need to specify that when answering questions on this board. I have no desire to argue that point with you (because there are no new arguments, I've heard them all), only the question of what Ayn Rand's position is.
I never said taxation is right in principle. But the services in this context do not represent a violation. Show a quote that contradicts that.
The act of taxing people is wrong, and the alternative is to not tax them, not to expect them to pay voluntarily before you stop taxing them.
This is an example of applying principles where they don’t apply. E.g. try paying for the essential services without taxation and see where you end up. It would be irrational not to collect taxes for them.
Rational taxation is a contradiction in terms. Objectivism does have a fundamental distinction between rational and irrational human interactions: all human interactions which rely on the initiation of force are irrational (they literally disregard a man's rational faculty). A claim that men should be taxed until they volunteer to pay is by definition irrational. Taxation, like all initiation of force, dismisses the rational faculty of the person producing the wealth obtained: it is irrational.
No distinction? You just made one!
And you contradicted Rand: she said taxation is the last thing Govt. can remove…, thus rational now.
Since Govt. has a proper monopoly on the use of force, such use cannot always be irrational.
'DataPacRat'
http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Politics_Taxation.html certainly seems to indicate that that is the Objectivist position. I could also refer you to the forum in which the earlier conversation took place, and that position was stated as being the Objectivist one, if you wish.[/code]
Again, theoretically yes. But that also says that "taxation is not necessary to pool our resources" and that is not true. Govt. forcing taxes to be paid for essential services if justified until all else is done to make us a completely free society.
I don't see any Obj. position per se on this issue. Context cannot be dropped.
But that also says that “taxation is not necessary to pool our resources” and that is not true. Govt. forcing taxes to be paid for essential services if justified until all else is done to make us a completely free society.
That’s false: the burden is on you to prove that claim.
I don’t see any Obj. position per se on this issue. Context cannot be dropped.
There is no dropping of context – you can’t spray invocations of “context” as some magical exception to the principles of Objectivism. There is no context where it is the proper nature of government to initiate force.
I hope that you will be willing to take me at my word that I am, in fact, earning as much as I am physically and mentally capable of, and have done as much as possible to minimize my expenses - for example, I have made arrangements for an internet connection that doesn’t cost me any cash.
I’ll take your word for that. But I know for a fact that you have the potential to be far more productive, and you choose not to be. You are obviously intelligent enough to acquire a skill that would get you a well paying job. You chose to aim low, and that is no one’s fault but your own. That particular choice also causes you to have no idea what Ayn Rand’s philosophy is. You are perfectly capable of reading the actual books she wrote, instead of taking the shortcut of some website, before deciding to launch into a cheap, sarcastic diatribe against our views. You just chose against it.
Not that I care. My only desire is to be completely insulated from the consequences of your poor choices. If I lived in Canada, that would be impossible. Which leads me to the clarification I would like to take you up on your offer for: if you are convinced you are right about human nature and morality, and what you read in those books you listed is the way to go, and I am wrong, and the idea of a moral, rational hero is a delusion for you to snipe at with sarcastic detachment, why are you in favor of a society in which you are in any way tied to people like me? In which your health depends on my contributions, and mine on yours? Why can’t we go our separate ways, let me voluntarily deal with doctors who wish to deal with me, on terms of our choosing, and you with doctors who wish to deal with you? Wouldn’t you and people like you apply the wonderful probability theorems you read about in your books to the production of goods and services, without the need to support us silly idealists in our delusion and failure?