Separation of Economy and State

Political Philosophy
1

I’m not fascist, but someone who has asked how the state plans to fund a police force if there is a separation of economy and state. I pointed him towards Ayn Rand’s quotes in the lexicon on taxation (My link), but AR really leaves it for others to figure out the details. That’s not that satisfying of an answer. What would Objectivism say about funding the Police, courts, and other legitimate functions of the government? How do you do this?

Another question was asked of Objectivism, “who owns the air?” Here was my response…

She never answers a question like this one directly, but I think enough information is available to draw a conclusion. Is breathing necessary to sustain life? Depending on how ridiculous you want to be the answer should be yes.

“A “right” is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man’s freedom of action in a social context. There is only one fundamental right (all the others are its consequences or corollaries): a man’s right to his own life. Life is a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action; the right to life means the right to engage in self-sustaining and self-generated action—which means: the freedom to take all the actions required by the nature of a rational being for the support, the furtherance, the fulfillment and the enjoyment of his own life. (Such is the meaning of the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.)” – Ayn Rand (My link)

If “ownership” means the right to determine the use and disposal of material goods, then we (individually) own whatever air happens to be filling our lungs at the moment. Scuba divers own the air in their tank. If you built an isolated environment like in the Bio-Dome movie, then you’d own that air. To declare that one entity owns the air, is like claiming that that entity is the owner of the planet at which point they can evict all unauthorized participants—a global (or world) government is the sole entity that has the potential to achieve such a feat.

Right to life suggests that air cannot be denied to others because one claims to own it. Ownership also suggests that you can protect what you own, so how can one feasibly deny air to unauthorized users? I understand that this may seem like a slippery slope like how can you deny life sustaining food (for example) to someone who is hungry and will eventually die without it, but air is different than food. For one thing, how do you deny air to someone who is surrounded by it? You would have to basically claim the ownership of their diaphragm and demand that it stop functioning. Food on the other hand, needs to be discovered, cultivated, hunted, etc., so in other words food requires thoughtful action. Therefore, denying someone your own food is not denying them the thought process of attaining food, it’s denying them the product of your thoughtful effort. They are still free to conduct their own thoughtful action to acquire their own food to sustain their own life.

Any thoughts?

Moderators, as other questions come up, can I post them here or do you prefer I start a new topic?

2

Separation of economy and state is no different than separation of church and state. It means only “Congress shall make no law” concerning economic life of its citizens. It does not mean that the governmental agents are in a different dimension than “the economy.” Just that the legal code recognizes the lack of authority in individual action concerning legitimate exercise of one’s private property.

As far as how government economizes, it does so like any other bureaucracy. Under the principles that Rand lays out for her vision of a proper political system, it is true that her government would not function as a commercial enterprise. She considers market operation of the government impossible, because it has a monopoly on the use of physical force. Rand considers the objectives of government indispensable: protecting the lives and property of the people, making it possible for them to pursue their lives independently. But law and justice, and the police apparatus of enforcement, is not to be bought and sold the way consumer’s goods are. Therefore, under an Objectivist government they have no prices on the open market. There is no economic calculation within the government. Under the budget system, the administrators of governmental agencies execute the instructions given to them by their superior, and they are limited the funds assigned to them in their tasks.

Political philosophy does not need to figure out the exact means of funding, whether it be a donation system of some kind or a fee system, or what. It only needs to state the principles to be employed, and the principle guiding the method of funding need only be “no one may initiate the use of force.” Within that, there are any number of programs and methods to be employed to get money from one group of people (the citizens) to another group of people (the government’s revenue officers) without using violence.

As far as who owns the air… whoever homesteads it. There is no difference between air and land except one is solid and the other isn’t. Wherever there is spatiality, and man can make use of and exist this space, there is cause for property rights. For example, how tall of a building can I build? Determination of how high on the z-axis I am allowed to go is a legitimate question for jurisprudence.

3

I agree about your clarification on the meaning of separation of church and state. I’m starting to discover that philosophy of law explains how to implement the principles under the philosophy of politics.

I was thinking he meant the air we breathe. Air is different than land, in that the particles migrate with the winds. If a man does not own any property than does he still have a right to breath? That was his point I believe.

4

I agree about your clarification on the meaning of separation of church and state. I’m starting to discover that philosophy of law explains how to implement the principles under the philosophy of politics.

I was thinking he meant the air we breathe. Air is different than land, in that the particles migrate with the winds. If a man does not own any property than does he still have a right to breath? That was his point I believe.

Air that we breathe normally migrates because it is superabundant. Correspondingly, there is no economic value attached to it. Part of the reasons that give rise to property rights is the fact of scarcity. There is no conflict with regard to superabundant air in normal cases because it is non-rivalrous. Additionally, we do not expend creative effort to produce it. It is not an object of rights or of economic value until it becomes scarce and it requires human effort to produce, such as underwater or at a hospital (e.g. in an oxygen tank.) Then, that air belongs to specific people.

5

I knew this was coming…

response:

“Then explain, please, by what right may factories pollute the air, filling it with harmful chemicals such that in some places, such as industrialized cities in China, the air is so hazardous to breathe that it is a life-threatening hazard. Do you remember the Olympic Games in Beijing? They worked for months to reduce air pollution levels so that athletes would not collapse and DIE because of it. It would seem to me, that those factories are collectively denying the right to breathable air to MILLIONS of people. By what right?”.

I like these quotes from from AR

"As far as the issue of actual pollution is concerned, it is primarily a scientific, not a political, problem. In regard to the political principle involved: if a man creates a physical danger or harm to others, which extends beyond the line of his own property, such as unsanitary conditions or even loud noise, and if this is proved, the law can and does hold him responsible. If the condition is collective, such as in an overcrowded city, appropriate and objective laws can be defined, protecting the rights of all those involved—as was done in the case of oil rights, air-space rights, etc. But such laws cannot demand the impossible, must not be aimed at a single scapegoat, i.e., the industrialists, and must take into consideration the whole context of the problem, i.e., the absolute necessity of the continued existence of industry—if the preservation of human life is the standard.

“It has been reported in the press many times that the issue of pollution is to be the next big crusade of the New Left activists, after the war in Vietnam peters out. And just as peace was not their goal or motive in that crusade, so clean air is not their goal or motive in this one.” – AR (http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/pollution.html)

AND

"In Western Europe, in the preindustrial Middle Ages, man’s life expectancy was 30 years. In the nineteenth century, Europe’s population grew by 300 percent—which is the best proof of the fact that for the first time in human history, industry gave the great masses of people a chance to survive.

"If it were true that a heavy concentration of industry is destructive to human life, one would find life expectancy declining in the more advanced countries. But it has been rising steadily. Here are the figures on life expectancy in the United States (from the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company):

  • 1900—47.3 years
  • 1920—53 years
  • 1940—60 years
  • 1968—70.2 years (the latest figures compiled)

“Anyone over 30 years of age today, give a silent “Thank you” to the nearest, grimiest, sootiest smokestacks you can find.” Ayn Rand (http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/ecology-environmental_movement.html)

The the response to those…

Exactly [referencing my comment on the last quote that it’s coralation, not causation]. I could easily show that people who eat M&Ms have much longer lifespans than people who don’t eat M&Ms, but that doesn’t mean that eating M&Ms prolongs your life. It just means that eating M&Ms correlates strongly with living in a modernized society, where you’re likely to have twice the lifespan of someone who doesn’t live in a modern society.

Water and air pollution may be EXTREMELY detrimental to our health, and may be at the root of asthma, allergies, and other such problems being so prevalent in industrialized nations… but you’re essentially arguing that the negatives don’t matter because of entirely unrelated positives? We don’t NEED to pollute the air to have an industrialized nation. There are all manner of ways in which we could reap all the benefits WITHOUT all of these negatives. But you’re excusing the negatives and refusing to consider how drastic they may be, simply because for the moment, they are outweighed by positives when compared to the situation that existed centuries ago?

Yes, people are living longer, but that’s primarily due to advances in hygiene, medicine, and modern sensibilities regarding warfare. The low infant mortality rate in industrialized nations is due to superior doctors, not because of factories belching out pollution.

I could use some help with this one.

6

The problem here is that the examples for ownership of air are instances of specific controlled usage in a well-defined enclosure. He then proceeds to suggest that saying one person able to own air is like being able to own the air of a planet. According to his own example, that is not true, he notices the difference. The atmosphere of the Earth is quite expansive and not a well-defined enclosure. So no, all people do not own all the air of the Earth. Property is a very specific kind of thing, and most of the time air cannot be claimed to be owned, save for things like the Bio-Dome or Scuba gear, because there is no defined area of usage.

Directed at 2046: Scarcity has nothing at all to do with property rights beyond helping in assigning some particular value when trading. Anything is an object of rights once it takes some role in you pursuing your life, and that applies to everything, and the reason intellectual property is valid. Intellectual property is not scarce at all in the sense of there being a finite limit to its usage, although it is scarce in how it requires effort. The way air can be property I think is a lot like how particular ideas can be property. Not all ideas can be claimed to be property, nor can all air be property. Merely taking note of something or touching something is not enough to claim something as property. What is needed is some unique and well-defined usage for some particular end, and if those criteria are met, you can control who does or doesn’t use your property. Talking about scarcity as giving rise to property rights only confuses matters and gives credibility to the idea that intellectual property is a violation of a person’s rights. The needs for existence are what give rise to property rights. Anything else is a secondary consideration.

“Yes, people are living longer, but that’s primarily due to advances in hygiene, medicine, and modern sensibilities regarding warfare. The low infant mortality rate in industrialized nations is due to superior doctors, not because of factories belching out pollution.”

This is true. All you have to do is point to this quote already mentioned: “As far as the issue of actual pollution is concerned, it is primarily a scientific, not a political, problem. In regard to the political principle involved: if a man creates a physical danger or harm to others, which extends beyond the line of his own property, such as unsanitary conditions or even loud noise, and if this is proved, the law can and does hold him responsible.” Rand’s point is that automatically blaming the industrialists only, while ignoring the rest of the context (government regulation), is wrong. Pollution is often a bad thing, but that doesn’t then mean introducing regulations like requiring the usage of certain technology to lower emissions is proper. If some factory spewed pollution over your home, and you prove that it’s a danger to you, then law will hold the factory owner responsible. What counts here are principles. If we want to talk about an application of property rights to issues of pollution, specific historical examples must be discussed.

7

I’m just not familiar enough with this to come up with a solid rebuttle. Any thought?

According to the World Health Organization, approximately 6.4% of all infant (ages 0-4) deaths in Europe are directly attributable to outdoor air pollution by particulate matter. Overall, anthropogenic fine particulate matter causes approximately 348,000 premature deaths each year, reducing life expectancies by an average of 1 year throughout Europe, with actual reduction rates as high as 2 years in some places. This is just direct causes, not indirect, and for just particulate matter in the air, not water pollution or other problems stemming from industrial waste. (There are parts of Europe where life expectancies are still 5+ years shorter because of radioactive pollution from Chernobyl, after all.)

Link: http://www.eea.europ…_1/chapter2.pdf

This link (My link, provided by softwareNerd) does a pretty good job, but it doesn’t address the above assertions directly.

8

I’m just not familiar enough with this to come up with a solid rebuttle.

What would you be trying to make a rebuttal about? I’m sure it’s true. No blame for anyone or anything is given, just a statement of fact.

9

I’m just not familiar enough with this to come up with a solid rebuttle. Any thought?

This link (My link, provided by softwareNerd) does a pretty good job, but it doesn’t address the above assertions directly.

The rebuttal would be to offset against the 1 to 2 year reduction in life expectancy the extension of life expectancy produced by the traffic and electrical power plants that create anthropogenic particulates.

Before the industrial era all homes were heated by fireplaces and indoor air pollution was much more intense. Present third world infant mortality due to indoor particulates from cook fires is a problem to this day. Capitalism is the cure to a very old problem.

10

Eiuol, he was using that to justify more power to the government to regulate and “save” people’s lives (1-2 years on average).

Grames, good argument, I used something similar and it seems to have worked.