Taxes?

[DavidOdden]

Do you really think it would stabilize like that?

Yes. If the members of society are generally rational enough that we can actually have a government that is limited to its proper function and is supported by voluntary contributions, then the presence of some evaders would not have a significant effect. “Social evolution” works against range-of-the-moment thinkers who evade recognition of facts of reality, and they would not flourish in a free society (although certainly they could exist). The apparent profit of not paying for garbage collection, house or medical insurance, or paying to have your rights protected by the government, is illusory. In the case of personalized services like garbage collection or insurance, the consequences of evasion are concretized very quickly, whereas evading the fact that rights-protection must be paid for will be concretized only when society at large shifts from “acting rationally” to “acting irrationally”.

I don’t want to imply that once people’s philosophy has been changed to a rational one, that no further effort is necessary to maintain that philosophy (which is a prerequisite to a truly free society). It will always be necessary to teach the need for rationality; it’s just that a few irrational men do not automatically cause society to collapse.

[Jake_Ellison]

As evolution in the physical sense, social evolution also would find it’s own equilibrium…These moochers would grow more numerous as they have more resources to expand themselves.

That would probably be true in a zero sum game. If team X holds on to what they have, and team Y gives some of it away every year, team X will eventually win.

But it’s not true in a positive sum game, where everyone is producing. The irrational moochers would not be producing more than those who contribute to society, so they would not have more resources to expand themselves. In fact they will likely have fewer resources, since their short-sightedness and irrationality will likely lead to disaster in their personal affairs. The tiny disadvantage those who contribute to society would have is nothing compared to that.

Of course, if you’re suggesting that the rational people would be moochers, then the fact that you’re predicting the demise of a society of moochers contradicts that. The choice which leads to your long term destruction is not the rational one.

If this is what you’re saying, you’re confusing pragmatism for reason.

[TheEgoist]

By telling him that the government doesn’t own the country, and that private property is an absolute that should not be abused by the government. You don’t live by the permission of others.

[DavidOdden]

How does one respond when one is told that taxes are voluntary, because you can just leave the country?

The same way I would respond if someone said “There is no theft, it’s all voluntary donations to the robber, because you can just refuse to hand over the wallet”. A voluntary act is one that is not done in response to the initiation of force, and the test is, will they leave you alone if you refuse?

[AllMenAreIslands]

Do you really think it would stabilize like that? As evolution in the physical sense, social evolution also would find it’s own equilibrium. When you leave the choice to the people, these “few moochers” would profit while comparatively the honourable and loyal (to society) would take a loss. The social structure would not stay stable, while favouring mooching yet punishing loyalty. These moochers would grow more numerous as they have more resources to expand themselves social and physically. Thus they will being to have more “pull” in a social sense. They will influence others, with ease, using their own objectivist teachings of self-interest and self virtue.

What are you basing this ridiculous set of assumptions upon?

How would mooching be profitable or favored in a system of contract insurance? If two (or more) people enter a contract, shake hands on it, and conclude the contract successfully, there is no mooching. If the transaction runs into difficulties, the injured party can still sue (it would just cost more to do so.) The alternative is to lose out completely. It doesn’t have to involve others.

Perhaps you are thinking of police, armed forces to protect the country and so on. I think you under-estimate the value to the majority, who would elect to do something to contribute to the costs. Worrying about a handful of “moochers” who would not contribute even after having their lives saved by police is putting too much emphasis on such people.

I think if you treat people as having the basic ability to understand the value of proper government services, the vast majority would want to do their bit to help cover the costs. Those who would never choose to do so are probably criminals anyway. Just because society today seems full of moochers does not mean that most people would behave badly GIVEN A CHOICE.

Put it this way - the choice to pay for government services MUST be left to the individual citizens. There is no rational alternative.

[Zip]

What are you basing this ridiculous set of assumptions upon?

The assumption is built, in my opinion, on the basic premise of the collectivist/socialist/statist/theologist, and yes at their root they are all the same.

The premise is this. Man is a cruel brutish animal incapable of any reason or control if left on his own and to his own devices. Therefore he must be controlled, he must be chained and his individuality must become subservient to the will of the collective/the people/the state/god.

[crizon]

What are you basing this ridiculous set of assumptions upon?

How would mooching be profitable or favored in a system of contract insurance? If two (or more) people enter a contract, shake hands on it, and conclude the contract successfully, there is no mooching. If the transaction runs into difficulties, the injured party can still sue (it would just cost more to do so.) The alternative is to lose out completely. It doesn’t have to involve others.

Perhaps you are thinking of police, armed forces to protect the country and so on. I think you under-estimate the value to the majority, who would elect to do something to contribute to the costs. Worrying about a handful of “moochers” who would not contribute even after having their lives saved by police is putting too much emphasis on such people.

I think if you treat people as having the basic ability to understand the value of proper government services, the vast majority would want to do their bit to help cover the costs. Those who would never choose to do so are probably criminals anyway. Just because society today seems full of moochers does not mean that most people would behave badly GIVEN A CHOICE.

Put it this way - the choice to pay for government services MUST be left to the individual citizens. There is no rational alternative.

Well i think you are making assumptions, that are not proven either.

Why do you think that it that there will be enough to guarantee legal security?

Right now people might donate enough money for it to work, but people don’t donate money to help disabled people or children in africa to increase or secure their own wellbeing but because of their conscience resulting from our current “morals”.

These morals might very well change. Looking through history one can find very different sets of ethics and morals. Donating for charity is considered a good thing today, but it doesn’t mean it will stay that way. Especially an objectivist society, that promotes egoism, could change these current morals, that it relies on.

A reasonable man, who thinks that other people will donate enough or that if they don’t his own contribution will not change it anyways, might not pay, since a new car will increase his personal happiness more than a payment to the government.

[AllMenAreIslands]

Zip, I think you’re partly right, but it’s perhaps more that because some people would not make choices in accordance with a particular agenda, everyone has to be forced.

Well i think you are making assumptions, that are not proven either.

Why do you think that it that there will be enough to guarantee legal security?

Right now people might donate enough money for it to work, but people don’t donate money to help disabled people or children in africa to increase or secure their own wellbeing but because of their conscience resulting from our current “morals”.

These morals might very well change. Looking through history one can find very different sets of ethics and morals. Donating for charity is considered a good thing today, but it doesn’t mean it will stay that way. Especially an objectivist society, that promotes egoism, could change these current morals, that it relies on.

A reasonable man, who thinks that other people will donate enough or that if they don’t his own contribution will not change it anyways, might not pay, since a new car will increase his personal happiness more than a payment to the government.

Crizon, my assumptions are borne out by the behavior of corporations, which seek to protect themselves by buying insurance of many kinds, by hiring lawyers to represent their interests, just for a couple of examples. Companies will buy the insurance if they understood that it is cost-effective to do so, for example, in order to fast-track their route thru the courts in the event of a dispute. Individuals are just as welcome to protect their interests this way. Making it desirable for individuals & companies/groups to buy court/contract insurance is how government can properly provide itself with funding.

Don’t forget - a rational government is one that is involved in the retaliatory use of force. A proper government is not involved in the provision of health, education, social security, road building/maintenance and so on. There’s no need for a proper government to raise funds to provide those services because that is not the proper job of government.

In any event, the onus to sell the concept of government services is on those who are going to provide the services. The root problem with today’s government systems is that that step is not just ignored, it’s completely thrown out. Government is permitted by law to steal from the citizens, to take its funding by force.

Your “what-if” scenarios of morals changing or people preferring to spend their money in “other ways” are irrelevant. Even if it were true that all of a sudden, people would change how they live their lives, that is no justification for government initiation of force.

Government is going to have to make do with what funds it can raise by voluntary means, whether by offering services at a reasonable price, or by enticing people to buy government lottery tickets for a particular purpose, or by simply asking for donations. People are capable of rational decisions and if those decisions aren’t resulting in revenue for the government, then the government has to re-think its strategy. The only thing government cannot have the right to do is initiate force. It cannot compel people to support it, for that is what’s wrong with the system now.

[Jake_Ellison]

Well i think you are making assumptions, that are not proven either.

Why do you think that it that there will be enough to guarantee legal security?

Why do you think people are voting to have taxes as high as 50% of their income today?

People act in accordance with their morality, despite your claim that they don’t.

Donating for charity is considered a good thing today,…

So why aren’t people donating?

Oh they’re selfish?

Well, if they’re selfish, that literally means they think it is not a good thing to give crap away to strangers for no good reason, so who exactly are these “they” , thinking that donating to charity is a good thing?

How do you explain this discrepancy between ethics and what people do? Why would someone do something contrary to their own ethics, if they were honest about it?

A reasonable man, who thinks that other people will donate enough or that if they don’t his own contribution will not change it anyways, might not pay, since a new car will increase his personal happiness more than a payment to the government.

A reasonable man would adopt an ethical system that makes possible his long term survival and happiness, and act in accordance with it. A reasonable man would have no trouble understanding why he cannot expect from others what he isn’t prepared to do himself. A reasonable man would be proud of not being a moocher-that would be a much greater source of pride for him than another fancy car. (obviously, the defense and law enforcement budget of this country wouldn’t require people giving up their one and only car, it would cost a small percentage of what we pay today, nowhere near the price of a car for a person of average income–your example, of a person paying the price of a car, implies that they’re rich, and already have a car)

It would take a particularly despicable and irrational man to try and ignore his own role in society and dismiss pride as a whim, choosing to rely on other people’s work and virtues for his safety, rather than his own. Such a man would not be caught paying taxes either, or working for a living in today’s society, he would instead be suckling on the end of a welfare check, or at the helm of our government enjoying his day in “power”:

[crizon]

First of all:

I was notified by a moderator that I’m not allowed to argue against Objectivism (in a sense) by the forumrules in this subboard and i respect that. So let’s interpret my responses as a way to find the answer to the question about objevtivism. If that’s not ok, please notify me and I will stop responding.

I think we have to clear a few things again. When we are talking about this hypothetical world were there are no forced taxes, are we talking about an ideal objectivist society? Does that include the fact that every member of this society is an objectivist and always acts that way?

I actually feel that this leads me to other questions that might be best answered in a new Topic:

Can objectivism be disproved by reality? If so, then how?

Must reality be the exact objectivist ideal? If not, how close must it be?

I ask here, because maybe there is no reason to debate about it.

I feel, for you, being a reasonable man follows acting in a way that is ok with objectivism, which leaves not room for argument. So i use other words:

A man who uses what he knows about his environment and his ability to make choices in the best way, that he can at this point for this particular choice, who thinks that other people will donate enough or that if they don’t his own contribution will not change it anyways, might not pay, since a new car will increase his personal happiness more than a payment to the government.

Also i dont see the irrefutable connection between these two sentences:

A reasonable man would adopt an ethical system that makes possible his long term survival and happiness, and act in accordance with it. A reasonable man would have no trouble understanding why he cannot expect from others what he isn’t prepared to do himself.

Maybe the word ethical needs to go or you exactly describe it in a way that follows the next sentence, then i would question why reason follows ethics first and not firstly happiness and survival.

In other words, i think a reasonable person _would_ adopt a system that allow _his_ survival and happiness. That does not follow where the understanding that he can’t expect more or less from others than he is prepared to do himself.

IE a disabled person that is very well able to reason, but not able to work, would not adopt a system that is based on voluntary donations for his survival, since he can’t pay for the costs to keep him alive. This person might concludee that other people will see no reason to donate money for a stranger (him) and therefore would not adapt it.

His survival will be based on whether or not donating to disabled persons like him will make people happy or not.

[Zip]

I think we have to clear a few things again. When we are talking about this hypothetical world were there are no forced taxes, are we talking about an ideal objectivist society? Does that include the fact that every member of this society is an objectivist and always acts that way?

No but it does presuppose that there has been a fundamental shift in the main stream thinking that puts Objectivism and its ideals in place of the common philosophies and ideals of today.

I actually feel that this leads me to other questions that might be best answered in a new Topic:

Can objectivism be disproved by reality? If so, then how?

Must reality be the exact objectivist ideal? If not, how close must it be?

This should be in the debate forum.

In other words, i think a reasonable person _would_ adopt a system that allow _his_ survival and happiness. That does not follow where the understanding that he can’t expect more or less from others than he is prepared to do himself.

IE a disabled person that is very well able to reason, but not able to work, would not adopt a system that is based on voluntary donations for his survival, since he can’t pay for the costs to keep him alive. This person might concludee that other people will see no reason to donate money for a stranger (him) and therefore would not adapt it.

His survival will be based on whether or not donating to disabled persons like him will make people happy or not.

You are trying to sneak your own bias’ into this. The premise you are starting with is that we should be supporting another person. That’s it that’s all… point blank, no question, regardless of how much we value him, regardless of our own situation. There is no such compulsion.

The next thing you do is assume from your own bias that a disabled person can not support himself. Just because he may not be able to do physical labour that does not condemn him to a life of helplessness. I imagine you are familiar with Stephen Hawking, but he isn’t the only one, Rick Hanson, Steven Fletcher and many more afflicted with physical and mental disabilities. Work does not necessarily have to be physical, nor does it necessarily require a huge intellect.

Happy? Who said anything about happy? I wouldn’t donate to support a proper government because it makes me “happy” I’d do it because I would see the reason for it. I’d acknowledge that the only way for me to live in a truly free nation would be to support that nation so that it in turn would protect my individual rights.

[crizon]

You are trying to sneak your own bias’ into this. The premise you are starting with is that we should be supporting another person. That’s it that’s all… point blank, no question, regardless of how much we value him, regardless of our own situation. There is no such compulsion.

The next thing you do is assume from your own bias that a disabled person can not support himself. Just because he may not be able to do physical labour that does not condemn him to a life of helplessness. I imagine you are familiar with Stephen Hawking, but he isn’t the only one, Rick Hanson, Steven Fletcher and many more afflicted with physical and mental disabilities. Work does not necessarily have to be physical, nor does it necessarily require a huge intellect.

Happy? Who said anything about happy? I wouldn’t donate to support a proper government because it makes me “happy” I’d do it because I would see the reason for it. I’d acknowledge that the only way for me to live in a truly free nation would be to support that nation so that it in turn would protect my individual rights.

Where did i say that one should support another person?

I did not say disabled person who can do some work, but how can’t work. Hawking does not fit, but there are people who just can’t communicate well or fast enough to work effectively in any realistic scenario.

And donating for the government is a different story in this example, because, as you said, it is not based on the direct feeling of happiness.

[AllMenAreIslands]

I did not say disabled person who can do some work, but who can’t work. Hawking does not fit, but there are people who just can’t communicate well or fast enough to work effectively in any realistic scenario.

What I think you are implying here is that someone’s inability to provide for himself ought to be deemed to constitute a valid claim on those who can provide for themselves. Sorry, but no, it doesn’t. The proper course of action for such a person is to turn to charity. Such people are dependent on the voluntary contributions of others.

There is no justification for using force to compel the able to provide by law for those who cannot provide for themselves. There may be a powerful persuasive argument to be made to the able to contribute to a charity that helps such people, but that must be as far as it goes.