Taxes?

Questions about Objectivism
1

I am just curious because I have thinking about this for a few days. Let’s just say that we live in a completely Objectivist society, and that the government’s only job is to provide police, military, and courts of justice. If their were no income taxes, sales taxes, or any form of forced taxation, how would the government pay for these things? My original idea was that paying taxes would be voluntary, but then I thought that if some people chose not to pay while others did and they all received the same benefits, wouldn’t those people be moochers? :pimp:

By the way, I am pretty new to Objectivism (page 750 of AS). So if I am way off on this please let me know. Thanks!

The "Ideal" Federal Govt. and What It Will Cost
2

My original idea was that paying taxes would be voluntary, but then I thought that if some people chose not to pay while others did and they all received the same benefits, wouldn’t those people be moochers? :pimp:

That’s right, but it’s not a problem that precludes living in a free society.

3

So taxation would be fine because it is actually being used only for defense, and justice?

4

There actually is an article on the subject of funding such an Objectivist government in the Virtue of Selfishness, which as you might be awere is one of Ayn Rands nonfiction books. Pretty sure that is the book it is in, someone will be bound to correct me if I recall incorrectly (havent got the book on me to check that fact).

I forget exactly what it is called as I have not read it in some time, but its something like “On the Nature of Government Funding”. A Google search should answer all your questions, or perhaps someone here will fill the gap in my memory there.

I beleive the general gist is that the exact means of government funding are not too important as long as the funds are raised in some vcluntary manner. This could take the form of voluntary taxation, Ayn Rand suggests government lotteries I think or such ideas. But anyway if you really want to read up on some suggestions, find the article I mentioned.

5

There actually is an article on the subject of funding such an Objectivist government in the Virtue of Selfishness, which as you might be awere is one of Ayn Rands nonfiction books. Pretty sure that is the book it is in, someone will be bound to correct me if I recall incorrectly (havent got the book on me to check that fact).

I forget exactly what it is called as I have not read it in some time, but its something like “On the Nature of Government Funding”. A Google search should answer all your questions, or perhaps someone here will fill the gap in my memory there.

Yes, it’s in VoS, but titled:

Chapter 15. Government Financing in a Free Society

6

Thank you intellectualammo.

Also this link might help answer the original questions and any related ones: http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/taxation.html

7

Thanks for the link!

8

So taxation would be fine because it is actually being used only for defense, and justice?

No, taxation wouldn’t be fine. It’s really not a fatal problem if there are a few moochers, so government financing would not need to be achieved by force.

9

No, taxation wouldn’t be fine. It’s really not a fatal problem if there are a few moochers, so government financing would not need to be achieved by force.

If the Government published a list of those who paid the voluntary taxes (an appropriate action, IMO, since the moochers are getting something for nothing), then those who pay taxes could also help control the problem by choosing not to do business with those who do not choose to support their own freedom.

10

If the Government published a list of those who paid the voluntary taxes (an appropriate action, IMO, since the moochers are getting something for nothing), then those who pay taxes could also help control the problem by choosing not to do business with those who do not choose to support their own freedom.

Is there a way to make a sticky out of this topic? It seems to come up a lot. :dough:

11

Is there a way to make a sticky out of this topic? It seems to come up a lot. :dough:

I don’t object to topics repeating themselves, personally.

12

So are all taxes in an objectivist society voluntary i.e. based on consumption?

13

I’m pretty sure that consumption taxes aren’t voluntary.

14

I’m pretty sure that consumption taxes aren’t voluntary.

The government is not as effective as possible, i think we all agree on that.

However, I have racked my brain around this question

My thoughts have been the following…

If i live in a community where me and my neighbours decide to be responsible for local services (garbage/roads/utilities/etc), it would make effiicient sense to have an individual responsible to manage such things in a cost effective, time efficient manner. Agreed? Lets call this person “an elected official”, etc.

The economies of scale and capitalism would eventually lead to a larger and larger community pooling their resources (by choice) for such services. And those who chose not to contribute - what would happen to them? These “moochers” would become such a financial, judicial, and time responsibility, a social network would have to be established to manage these moochers, in order for the others to remain productive, etc. Basically, the evolution of a culture and society are way more complex than the simplistic view that the government play those three roles in society.

The complex social, intellectual, medical, educational, family, etc., resources just are not feasible in countries/cities/communities that have developed since the advent. I think using some of Rand’s philosophies, coupled with other reasonable approaches to living in a peaceful, productive capitalistic society may evolve. Human beings evolved to the point they are at today, and they will continue to evolve, as will philosophies in conjunction with further understanding and appreciation of the forces driving that evolution. If there was no follow-up or critical analysis on Darwin’s theory of evolution (and it is still a theory), or further understanding of other scientific findings, no progress in our understanding would be occurring. We can’t live in a vaccuum.

It’s fine and correct to say that the government should play those three roles, but the consequences of ignoring the importance of other elements could lead to other unimaginable issues.

I could come up with probably 5-10 other things that a community (city/country/etc) would benefit from having a centralized system in place run by “elected officials”, but I think I’ll leave that alone…

15

The government is not as effective as possible, i think we all agree on that.

However, I have racked my brain around this question

My thoughts have been the following…

If i live in a community where me and my neighbours decide to be responsible for local services (garbage/roads/utilities/etc), it would make effiicient sense to have an individual responsible to manage such things in a cost effective, time efficient manner. Agreed? Lets call this person “an elected official”, etc.

The economies of scale and capitalism would eventually lead to a larger and larger community pooling their resources (by choice) for such services. And those who chose not to contribute - what would happen to them? These “moochers” would become such a financial, judicial, and time responsibility, a social network would have to be established to manage these moochers, in order for the others to remain productive, etc. Basically, the evolution of a culture and society are way more complex than the simplistic view that the government play those three roles in society.

The complex social, intellectual, medical, educational, family, etc., resources just are not feasible in countries/cities/communities that have developed since the advent. I think using some of Rand’s philosophies, coupled with other reasonable approaches to living in a peaceful, productive capitalistic society may evolve. Human beings evolved to the point they are at today, and they will continue to evolve, as will philosophies in conjunction with further understanding and appreciation of the forces driving that evolution. If there was no follow-up or critical analysis on Darwin’s theory of evolution (and it is still a theory), or further understanding of other scientific findings, no progress in our understanding would be occurring. We can’t live in a vaccuum.

It’s fine and correct to say that the government should play those three roles, but the consequences of ignoring the importance of other elements could lead to other unimaginable issues.

I could come up with probably 5-10 other things that a community (city/country/etc) would benefit from having a centralized system in place run by “elected officials”, but I think I’ll leave that alone…

It’s pretty late, so I may be misreading, but if you’re saying that there are some things that the government should do/can do better other than the big 3…

What are they? What could private industry not do (other than the big 3) that government could (do better)?

If this is not what you meant to say, I apologize.

BTW, off-topic, the Theory of Evolution is “still a theory,” yes. It will always be “just a theory.” Similarly, gravity will always be “just a theory.”

Theory, in the science community, is a complex idea that has stood multiple tests. So a theory is actually much more impressive than a fact (and can also be improved). Sorry, just bugs me when people dismiss it by saying “it’s just a theory.”

16

I think the first mistake of the question is to presuppose that government needs some funding to begin with. If government were reduced to its propper function would there really be so much work that full-time officers are a necessity over voluntary workers?

If I understand correctly the only government employees would be judges, police officers and soldiers. Judges will be payed by those who seek a court ruling on something. Police officers are really only a neighbourhood watch with a set of specific rules of operation and some special training which is true for soldiers as well. Now what prevents those people who consider a police force as a good thing to pay for those special training and being a part-time voluntary police officer while they pursue their normal lives? There are even people who already pay for military training outside of the military.

In germany there exist voluntary fire departmens who work on pretty much that principle. While their equipment is being funded by taxes nothing prevents them from getting their equipment from insurance companies who have a great intrest in a working fire department and for which it would be good advertisement as well.

17

Why did Rand specify that Government was necessary?

Judges will be payed by those who seek a court ruling on something.

That creates a potential conflict of interest between the judges duty to neutrality and the obligation to the employer.

Police officers are really only a neighbourhood watch with a set of specific rules of operation and some special training which is true for soldiers as well. Now what prevents those people who consider a police force as a good thing to pay for those special training and being a part-time voluntary police officer while they pursue their normal lives?

Again, potential conflict of interest.

In germany there exist voluntary fire departmens who work on pretty much that principle. While their equipment is being funded by taxes nothing prevents them from getting their equipment from insurance companies who have a great intrest in a working fire department and for which it would be good advertisement as well.

Yes, and Fire Departments aren’t a necessary function of Government. In fact, the Insurance company funded fire department is a great idea!

18

I think the first mistake of the question is to presuppose that government needs some funding to begin with. If government were reduced to its propper function would there really be so much work that full-time officers are a necessity over voluntary workers?

When the criminally accused has no assets, the judge cannot squeeze blood from the turnip. In general, it will not be the case that the victim of a crime must pay for someone else to conduct a criminal prosecution. Then it follows that if the prosecutor is wrong in his allegations and the accused is not proven to be guilty, the victim certainly should not be required to pay for the costs of an unsuccessful prosecution. If the prosecutor’s office is required to pay the judge’s salary, that office – a government one – must have money.

I don’t know what the costs of equipping police and soldiers is, but since we’ve moved past the days of muskets, I’m betting that logistical support including groceries could not be borne by the individual. Jet fighters tend to cost in the hundreds of millions of dollars, although Cessnas are cheaper but less effective.

I agree that costs of a limited government would be massively reduced, but they will not be zero. Not if the government is to actually perform its proper function.

19

Consumption taxes are certainly better than property taxes or taxes on work… however, they are not voluntary, in that you can not choose not to pay them when you buy something in a store… yet they can be considered volitional in the sense that you could, conceivably, avoid paying them by not buying any products or services, growing your own food and getting water from a stream etc.

It would probably not be necessary anyway, as it is in the self-interest of individuals to have a police department to reduce crime. I am sure that sufficient numbers of people would be willing to contribute something to ensure the government can provide police, military and courts. It is in their own interests to do so - of course, if they can get it for free, it is possibly in their interests to “mooch” off of the rest. However, the rich have more reason to fund a police force as they have more to lose from crime, (and they have more available capital) therefore, are more likely to pay taxes voluntarily.

20

The economies of scale and capitalism would eventually lead to a larger and larger community pooling their resources (by choice) for such services. And those who chose not to contribute - what would happen to them? These “moochers” would become such a financial, judicial, and time responsibility, a social network would have to be established to manage these moochers, in order for the others to remain productive, etc.

Um, why? What social network is required to “manage” people who don’t financially support the police? They live in the same geographical area so the laws still apply to them. They basically get the service gratis. This is not an anarchist version of government where the gov’t serves a population of people–a proper gov’t covers a geographical area. The size and scope of that government are limited by a.) the extents of the property of the people who become citizens of that gov’t, and b.) what those citizens can afford. It’s not necessary to *do* anything to people who don’t pay in money. Most of them are honest citizens and not a bother to anyone, they just have limited financial resources.

“Free riders” are not a problem in an Objectivist society because there’s no arbitrary rule out there that says everyone must pay cash for every conceivable benefit they receive. It’s like a loss leader in marketing–not everyone you give free samples to is going to buy your product, but enough do that it’s worth the money you spend on free samples.

There’s no reason why the gov’t has to rely on donations, either. Ayn Rand’s proposal of viewing the gov’t as a *paid* agent works fine for me–people pay a fee for services that are a matter of personal choice, like gov’t backing for contracts. You can just rely on a handshake agreement if you want, but then if someone breaks the agreement, you can’t litigate. So, in essence, credit card companies (and similar stuff) wind up financing the gov’t, and everyone with a credit card pays a little. In the U.S. today, that’s just about EVERYONE. Would you want to purchase insurance of any kind without knowing that you could litigate if the insurance company dumps you? Heck no. There’s another source of gov’t financing. The gov’t could hold a lottery or something along the lines of a 50/50 raffle.

People in this country give away embarrassing amounts of money. The financing of a proper gov’t is not a problem.