Ayn Rand: Objectivism and Capitalism

[Winifred]

Thought I'd open up a venue for discussing this controversial author more generally thn just Atlas Shrugged. I'm just starting to listen to a collection of Rand's and others' essays called Capitalism.

[intellectualammo]

Thought I'd open up a venue for discussing this controversial author more generally thn just Atlas Shrugged. I'm just starting to listen to a collection of Rand's and others' essays called Capitalism.

Is it titled, Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal?

For starters, if people are interested in learning about capitalism, this is a quick and easy site to explain a bit more about the capitalism that Rand supports, which can also be called laissez-faire capitalism for added emphasis:

http://capitalism.org/

The free market is pretty much the relationship between producers, business, workers, consumers, individuals. Anything that happens in the free market that violates an individuals rights, that particular individual can appeal to the government, which it's sole purpose in existence is to uphold and protect an individuals rights - and that's it. It essentially leaves one alone with the liberty to pursue one's own happiness in life. The free market does NOT have any governmental intervention in it, unlike what you see today in the economic realm in the US, which is called a mixed economy, because it is a mix of freedom and controls. I think, the free market has it's own built in self-regulatory device and does not need the government at it's controls. The relationship between producers, business, workers, consumers, individuals are enough to regulate it in that sense. Ayn Rand's philosophy is a philosophy of individualism, and this is the kind of politico-economic system that it requires for living life here on earth in a social context.

Prominent Objectivist Andrew Bernstein has done extensive work focusing on capitalism and his work here:

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51DXTMZ6ANL._SL500_.jpg

really expands more on the collection of essys on capitalism of Rand's. He is so very knwledgeable of history, provide so many facts and stats, there is no way I could even attempt to argue with the case he presents. If one wants to listen to him, one can find free video recordings, of the ARC Lecture Series (http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=reg_ls_index), and also the Ayn Rand Multimedia Library (http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=reg_ar_library) all free access online right now, here is one I'm listening to right now Global Capitalism: The Cure for World Oppression and Poverty, full of facts and figures:

http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=reg_ls_capitalism

I have much respect and admiration for this man. So seeing all the facts and figures in freer markets is important, because I hear people say, one recently to me even, that Ayn Rand's stuff looks good on paper, in theory, but in reality, in practice... Well, HELLO PEOPLE, look at the practical side of a a free market and what it does to the standard of living, etc. How can one argue AGAINST HISTORICAL FACTS? (like the video above, like the examples in the above book) Unlike other political-economic systems out there, the freer ones, the capitalist ones or close enough to it, are not only good for the individual but also for the good of mankind, " the common good" (if you think in terms of that). So I think the practical aspect of capitalism, not so much the philosophic and moral case for it, will interest more people perhaps, especially given the state of the economy as it is in the US right now, any solutions, anything that could work will more probably be taken into consideration than anything else, mainly due to pragmatic views, rampant pragmatism, but whatever, however it gets us to capitalism. Probably will get us there, or at least to a much more free market from the practical side of it FIRST, rather than through the theory side of it, the philosophic and moral side of it, is what I'm thinking.

There is an excellent journal of culture and politcs out there from an Objectivist perspective called The Objective Standard where you can read articles and even a blog that has weekly entries on things in the news that week, big name Objectivist intellectuals write many of the articles there, some you can read for fee, others you have to subscribe, but there is enough free content for one to pull a lot from, especially the blog:

http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/
Blog:
http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php

[Winifred]

The tape (from the library, of course) is Capitalism: the Unknown Ideal: http://www.amazon.com/Capitalism-Ideal-Ayn-Rand/dp/0786191929/ref=tmm_abk_title_0?ie=UTF8&qid=1303694551&sr=1-1

Too soon to comment, though.

[intellectualammo]

The tape (from the library, of course) is Capitalism: the Unknown Ideal: http://www.amazon.com/Capitalism-Ideal-Ayn-Rand/dp/0786191929/ref=tmm_abk_title_0?ie=UTF8&qid=1303694551&sr=1-1

Oh, good. It'd be easier to address anything you may want to bring up, when I am very familiar with the work already.


Too soon to comment, though.

That's cool. Seems like it might lead to a lively civil discussion. Some of the essays are available online for free to read, which listening to an audio might be a bit troublesome, at least I find it to be when trying to understand some things I'm not really familiar with. I'm always like "Wait, what?" :confused: And then have to either read the text on my Kindle 2's (when I had them that is) or rewind tapes. I find Objectivist essays get right to the essentials of issues and things quickly and easily. Some things I had to read or listen to over and over again, ask questions and so forth. Feel free to ask away if you have any questions or just talk away about things, though I am obviously no authority on O'ism, laissez-faire capitalism, but I do know a lot of sources, or the go-to people that can help in trying to understand something better if I can't help.

[Jez]

Anything that happens in the free market that violates an individuals rights, that particular individual can appeal to the government, which it's sole purpose in existence is to uphold and protect an individuals rights - and that's it. It essentially leaves one alone with the liberty to pursue one's own happiness in life

Which are also the founding principles of the US and our Constitution. It's not just Rand's "kooky" idea.


Well, HELLO PEOPLE, look at the practical side of a a free market and what it does to the standard of living, etc. How can one argue AGAINST HISTORICAL FACTS?

Ha, well, yes. It is obvious. Guess what ushered in the Great Depression? That would be a deviation from free market capitalism and an increase in government regulation! But, ya know, the truth of history isn't as popular as the "Evil Capitalists" re-write. How do they ignore historical facts? Easily, apparently. Horrifying and bewildering, but undeniably true.

[intellectualammo]

Which are also the founding principles of the US and our Constitution. It's not just Rand's "kooky" idea.

Right, that's why I wanted to word it that way. A constitutional government LFC would have, without the flaws of our US Constitution, buit for the same purpose, goal. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. What Rand did bring to capitalism, which from my understanding it did not have before properly, was the real moral defense of it, rather than just the practical aspect of it and the like.


Ha, well, yes. It is obvious. Guess what ushered in the Great Depression? That would be a deviation from free market capitalism and an increase in government regulation! But, ya know, the truth of history isn't as popular as the "Evil Capitalists" re-write. How do they ignore historical facts? Easily, apparently. Horrifying and bewildering, but undeniably true.

The ARC (Ayn Rand Center) part of the Ayn Rand Institute, they do a very good job at arguing WITH FACTS the primary causation of it and the recent financial crisis, with how governmental intervention in the economy is primarily responsible for the recent financial crisis and that one, as well as many other such economic woes. This is their page: http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=arc_financial_crisis

ARI really is working to advance the ideas of Rand/Objecivism, which can really be seen with Yaron Brook as the executive director, there is not only a California ARI, but also in Washington, Chicago I think, and will be in your NYC area. Seems like ther is a lot of focus on the political-economic aspects of it, which given what's going on in the world, there's why. I think this film is coming out a good time on Atlas Shrugged, although one can argue it's been high time for it!, and with each probable release of the Parts of it, it will continually bring more attention to her novel, ideas, mentions of them, mentions of what the novel is about, what the film about, more people that might not have known anything about the things that's covered in the film novels, will be introduced, it will get some people hopefully more and more serious about issues and things, especially since they might want to really find out what thehell is goin on with the world today, get convos going, get her ideas and others ideas out there. Numbers afterall are important in the kind of democracy we are in, so it can help greatly in that, besides all the information and facts one would, I think, be very hard pressed to argue against.

[Jez]

Right, that's why I wanted to word it that way. A constitutional government LFC would have, without the flaws of our US Constitution, buit for the same purpose, goal. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. What Rand did bring to capitalism, which from my understanding it did not have before properly, was the real moral defense of it, rather than just the practical aspect of it and the like. Do you mind expanding on all of this?




The ARC (Ayn Rand Center) part of the Ayn Rand Institute, they do a very good job at arguing WITH FACTS the primary causation of it and the recent financial crisis, with how governmental intervention in the economy is primarily responsible for the recent financial crisis and that one, as well as many other such economic woes. This is their page: http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=arc_financial_crisis Thanks for the link! :)


ARI really is working to advance the ideas of Rand/Objecivism, which can really be seen with Yaron Brook as the executive director, there is not only a California ARI, but also in Washington, Chicago I think, and will be in your NYC area. Seems like ther is a lot of focus on the political-economic aspects of it, which given what's going on in the world, there's why. I think this film is coming out a good time on Atlas Shrugged, although one can argue it's been high time for it!, and with each probable release of the Parts of it, it will continually bring more attention to her novel, ideas, mentions of them, mentions of what the novel is about, what the film about, more people that might not have known anything about the things that's covered in the film novels, will be introduced, it will get some people hopefully more and more serious about issues and things, especially since they might want to really find out what thehell is goin on with the world today, get convos going, get her ideas and others ideas out there. Numbers afterall are important in the kind of democracy we are in, so it can help greatly in that, besides all the information and facts one would, I think, be very hard pressed to argue against.:p I think you're an optimist. Or maybe I'm just super jaded by this point. The thing is they don't even try to argue against facts. They use other methods. They flat out ignore the truth. They twist everything around. Facts matter very little to them. Just look at Sarah Palin. She never said anything about seeing Russia from her house. That was a comedian, and yet many, many people attribute that quote to Sarah Palin. The media creates the "truth" and that's the version the majority of people believe. Any true facts to the contrary are ignored. They don't think for themselves. They approach everything with an appeal to the majority, and they get their impression of the majority view from the media, even though this viewpoint is usually a false majority view.

They have a stranglehold on the media and the education system and they use them to spread lies. How many people believe the civil war was fought over slavery? Look at the insanity surrounding global warming! Lies are believed more readily than the truth, and no amount of showing facts will change their beliefs because they do not use logic and reason to come to their conclusions. Look at the health care bill! The numbers simply don't add up, yet they pull in a few sob stories and the truth no longer matters.

We're also not a democracy, though they're trying really hard to change that.

Sorry if I sound depressing.

[intellectualammo]

Do you mind expanding on all of this?

As far as I know, the government in LFC would have a constitution to restrict it's power to only upholding and protecting individual rights. The US Constitution has something in it (I'd have to look at it) that allows for too much stretching of it, or rather allows it into the economic realm, which is the flaw I'm talking about or loop holes or whatever. I have very little knowledge of this particular area, mind you so I want to be careful what I say, but I think it has to do with interstate trade I think, wait it's called the Commerce Clause. But anyways, capitalism in all it's history of thought never had the proper moral/philosophical backing until Rand, I gather. Now, it may very well have been argued from the practical aspects of it's application in the marketplace, which is most likely why some of it's elements are introduced into the marketplace, but as far as it being a moral social system for man, that's all Rand. Some might have argued for capitalism from a religious standpoint, but not from a moral one. Something in the bible about prospering I thnk I see brought up, at least the twins at work bring that up when they starts saying how they are for a more capitalist type system. But that most certainly is NOT it's proper moral backing that Rand gives to it, not from any otherworldly delusions or whatever, but derived from man's nature itself.


Thanks for the link! :)

You're welcome.


:p I think you're an optimist. Or maybe I'm just super jaded by this point. The thing is they don't even try to argue against facts. They use other methods.

It is funny or rather sad when one encounters people trying to employ some type of logic and reason to those things, especially in regards to religions.


They have a stranglehold on the media and the education system and they use them to spread lies. How many people believe the civil war was fought over slavery? Look at the insanity surrounding global warming! Lies are believed more readily than the truth, and no amount of showing facts will change their beliefs because they do not use logic and reason to come to their conclusions. Look at the health care bill! The numbers simply don't add up, yet they pull in a few sob stories and the truth no longer matters.

Right, as well as other things, like religions. Faith and belief and altruism over logic and reason is the underlying issue in these examples.


We're also not a democracy, though they're trying really hard to change that.

Right, a constitutional republic w/democratic process.

[Jez]

As far as I know, the government in LFC would have a constitution to restrict it's power to only upholding and protecting individual rights. The US Constitution has something in it (I'd have to look at it) that allows for too much stretching of it, or rather allows it into the economic realm, which is the flaw I'm talking about or loop holes or whatever. I have very little knowledge of this particular area, mind you so I want to be careful what I say, but I think it has to do with interstate trade I think, wait it's called the Commerce Clause.

Ah, there are a few phrases that make me automatically cringe. "Commerce Clause" is one of them, right up there with "General Welfare Clause." The way those two were twisted from their original intentions is sickening. The purpose was not to "regulate" as we understand the word now, but to make "regular" or "like." It goes back to the tendency for the states in those early days to revert to a more separate confederacy rather than a unified country. It sets a unified currency, among other similar things, and simply sets the "government" in this regard at the federal level instead of the state level. It did NOT give the government the power to legislate regulations in the way they have subsequently interpreted. As written and intended, it was necessary for the survival of the country (as shown through the failed Articles of Confederation). For a pure anarchist I can see why it would be a sticking point, but it did not disrupt free trade.


But anyways, capitalism in all it's history of thought never had the proper moral/philosophical backing until Rand, I gather. Now, it may very well have been argued from the practical aspects of it's application in the marketplace, which is most likely why some of it's elements are introduced into the marketplace, but as far as it being a moral social system for man, that's all Rand. Some might have argued for capitalism from a religious standpoint, but not from a moral one. Something in the bible about prospering I thnk I see brought up, at least the twins at work bring that up when they starts saying how they are for a more capitalist type system. But that most certainly is NOT it's proper moral backing that Rand gives to it, not from any otherworldly delusions or whatever, but derived from man's nature itself. A number of the founding fathers, among others, did argue from a moral standpoint (non-religious), as well as a functional standpoint. That isn't new to Rand. Though (to my awareness) Rand is the first to create a complete philosophy that so directly emphasizes the idea.


It is funny or rather sad when one encounters people trying to employ some type of logic and reason to those things, especially in regards to religions.

Right, as well as other things, like religions. Faith and belief and altruism over logic and reason is the underlying issue in these examples. Yes, though I have found liberalism to be as much a belief set as religion, and just as--and often more--irrational. The saddest part is they do not even attempt to apply any type of logic or reason. It is simply blind faith in the narrative they have been taught. Evidence to the contrary is ignored.




Right, a constitutional republic w/democratic process.
Sure enough. We'll be a full on democracy before too long. And that will be a terrible day.

[intellectualammo]

A number of the founding fathers, among others, did argue from a moral standpoint (non-religious), as well as a functional standpoint. That isn't new to Rand. Though (to my awareness) Rand is the first to create a complete philosophy that so directly emphasizes the idea.

Right, she gives the proper defense of it, which is what is new, to me. If one sees it as the proper defense, which one would have to take a look at her philosophy, the heirarchy in it, to see how she goes from metaphysics to man's nature to arrive where she does for man in a social setting. So yes, the philosophical f-r-a-m-e-work, system work, to support the moral justification for it.

From Peikoff's book, Ominous Parallels:


The political philosophy of America’s Founding Fathers is so thoroughly buried under decades of statist misrepresentations on one side and empty lip-service on the other, that it has to be re-discovered, not ritualistically repeated. It has to be rescued from the shameful barnacles of platitudes now hiding it. It has to be expanded—because it was only a magnificent beginning, not a completed job, it was only a political philosophy without a full philosophical and moral foundation, which the “conservatives” cannot provide.

[Jez]

That's a great quote, except for the very last part. They did provide a moral foundation. Rand just went through it all with a big sharpie marker and underscored it all and rewrote it with expanded emphasis to drive the point home. She was incredibly necessary, but her points are fundamental and exist, as they should, outside of her. I hope I dont' sound like I'm knocking her, because that's not what I'm trying to do at all.

[intellectualammo]

That's a great quote, except for the very last part. They did provide a moral foundation. Rand just went through it all with a big sharpie marker and underscored it all and rewrote it with expanded emphasis to drive the point home. She was incredibly necessary, but her points are fundamental and exist, as they should, outside of her. I hope I dont' sound like I'm knocking her, because that's not what I'm trying to do at all.

No, no, it's cool.

This quote of Ayn Rand's is exactly what you are talking about, but Peikoff is still right, because he said not the FULL philosophical and moral foundation. THAT would be Rand. Here's how she speaks (beautifully) of the morality of the Founding Father's:


The most profoundly revolutionary achievement of the United States of America was the subordination of society to moral law. The principle of man’s individual rights represented the extension of morality into the social system—as a limitation on the power of the state, as man’s protection against the brute force of the collective, as the subordination of might to right. The United States was the first moral society in history. All previous systems had regarded man as a sacrificial means to the ends of others, and society as an end in itself. The United States regarded man as an end in himself, and society as a means to the peaceful, orderly, voluntary co-existence of individuals. All previous systems had held that man’s life belongs to society, that society can dispose of him in any way it pleases, and that any freedom he enjoys is his only by favor, by the permission of society, which may be revoked at any time. The United States held that man’s life is his by right (which means: by moral principle and by his nature), that a right is the property of an individual, that society as such has no rights, and that the only moral purpose of a government is the protection of individual rights.

That's from her essay "Man's Rights" from The Virtue of Selfishness. So, that is not a FULL philosophic and moral foundation, because it deals primarily with political philosophy, so of the 5 branches of philosophy, Metaphysics, Epistemology, Ethics, Politics, and Aesthetics, only one branch primarily was dealt with - Politics. A bit of Ethics, too. But SHE gave capitalism it's FULL philosophic and moral basis.

Now when you spoke of her expanded emphasis, this is evident in the above quote, right here for one example:


The United States held that man’s life is his by right (which means: by moral principle and by his nature),

Putting it in more philosophical terms, with expanded emphasis on the ethical branch and metaphysical one.

[Jez]

Yes,I guess. I feel like we're talking a little in circles and not quite on the same page though. I think you should really read more of the FF's original writings before determining what they did and didn't say though. :)

[intellectualammo]

Yes,I guess. I feel like we're talking a little in circles and not quite on the same page though. I think you should really read more of the FF's original writings before determining what they did and didn't say though. :)

I will try to more.

Just checked out the Constitution in whole though.

The part of the Contitution that houses the most issues I have with it, is definately Article 1 Section 8, since I think there should be a clear separation of government/state and that of economics. But, at the time it was written, I have to take it into consideration, the context of it at the time.

[Jez]

Read the Federalist papers, to start. They outline more specifically what the writers meant. There is a clear separation, if you understand where the founders were coming from. Their meaning is very clear, but they didn't, and couldn't, have foreseen all the ways people would twist what they wrote and ignore the explanations. The average person was expected to have an understanding of these things. They didn't write a black list of things the government couldn't do. They wrote a list of things the government could do, and if it wasn't specifically on that list (like interfering with the economy or directly regulating businesses), then the government couldn't do it. So it is unnecessary for them to write a separation because they never granted the power to be involved.

[intellectualammo]

Read the Federalist papers, to start. They outline more specifically what the writers meant. There is a clear separation, if you understand where the founders were coming from. Their meaning is very clear, but they didn't, and couldn't, have foreseen all the ways people would twist what they wrote and ignore the explanations.

Thanks, Jez! I'll check them out when I have time.


They didn't write a black list of things the government couldn't do. They wrote a list of things the government could do, and if it wasn't specifically on that list (like interfering with the economy or directly regulating businesses), then the government couldn't do it. So it is unnecessary for them to write a separation because they never granted the power to be involved.

When I see this written into the Constitution, I see govenment able to interfere with the economy, so I see no CLEAR separation:

(from Article 1 Section 8)

on TAXATION:


The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

on REGULATION:


To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;


To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof,

on OWNING PROPERTY (which in LFC, government would NOT own property, public roads, would be privitized)


To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

[Jez]

Guess we disagree on those points. I think they are necessary. Some things are necessary (taxes, owning property, establish borders and trade agreements, coin money) at a minimal level for any government to exist. You are advocating more of an anarcho-capitalism than anything else. To be fair, if they had done what you wanted then there wouldn't have been a country for long (hence, the failure of the Articles of Confederation).

That idea may be nice in theory, but in practice they are impossible unless the world adheres to the same. Which it doesn't.

[intellectualammo]

Guess we disagree on those points. I think they are necessary. Some things are necessary (taxes, owning property, establish borders and trade agreements, coin money) at a minimal level for any government to exist.

Wow, we do indeed disagree.

Taxation is theft! Whether on income, goods purchased, or whatever.

If Robin Hood lunges at me from behind a bush just after I was paid for my hard work at the hospital one night, and takes some cash off of me, and says to me, "You know there are are people less fortunate than you, I am taking your money and giving it to them, HaHaHa!" And he sprints off in his tights with my money - he better HOPE I don't ever f'ing catch him! I've been excercising a lot lately, so I bet I could give him a good run for my money... Anyways, that is theft, right? He just robbed me, right?

OK, well, how come when 90 legistators get together and vote on taxing my earned income a certain percentage to go to the less fortunate, and it passes, many people do not see that as theft?

Come on. What's mine is mine. I earned it, not them. I, and I repeat, I, decide where my money goes. NOT you, not them, not Robin Hood or any other kind of thief out there.

In LFC, taxation would be abolished.


You are advocating more of an anarcho-capitalism than anything else.

Not at all. That would be capitalism WITHOUT government, from my understanding of it. Free market anarchists, some/all might be into private defense, which was a bit appealing to me, but no. I'm all for laissez-faire capitalism.


That idea may be nice in theory, but in practice they are impossible unless the world adheres to the same. Which it doesn't.

There is NO dichotomy between theory and practice in this. The government to exist, would be a constitutionally limited institution, that would be privately funded, and not through any sort of taxation, whether on income, on goods, services - NOTHING. The funding of it, is so far away it really isn't even of much point to discuss it all that much, but it could be voluntarily funded in many ways. Let me just say, those that have, most certainly will want to protect what they have and themselves from others that don't, so supporting the government as a defense for them, can definately be in their best self interests, there could also be contracts that could be insured in case something were to go wrong, and that money could help fund government, a lottery was proposed too, Rand brought such points up in her nonfiction. The problem of funding the government becomes way more simple and way less expensive, once we reduce it to it's PROPER size, serving it's ONLY purpose, protecting and upholding individual rights. Take away public education, Social Security, Medicare, Public Libraries, FDA, on and on and on. Do you know how much money people would then have? Do you know how little it would cost to fund the government, then?

The following is from capitalism.org:


The removal of all taxation would be the last step to implement in the transition to a free capitalist society. The costs of a proper government -- with an army (engaged only in self-defense and not imperialism), a court system, and a police force -- are very small, and easily paid for by voluntary financing methods. Such methods are used by nonprofit agencies, like churches, to raise billions of dollars.


Most people (not all) would voluntarily give 5 or 10% of their income to support a government that protects rights; practically no one would give 50% to 90% of their income to support a mixed economy/welfare state, which is why the government uses lethal force to physcially take it away from you.

There will of course be those that don't pay, so they benefit from those that do, and those that do, benefit so greatly in LFC compared to now, because it will be so much less expensive than what is being taken from them by force or imposed on goods by force, now.

People are free to start up programs, on education, retirement, whatever, but they cannot force anyone into it, and cannot force anyone into paying for it.

But, since we are in disagreement already, I am not sure if anything I just said will change that or not, but I'll just leave it the way it is, and just shut up, and continue discussing only if you'd like. If not, then it will just make us even more firm in our disagreeement and futile to discuss it, at least the taxation part of it. This part really isn't a humungous deal at all, considering how similar our views are and usually are in matters.

[Jez]

OK, well, how come when 90 legistators get together and vote on taxing my earned income a certain percentage to go to the less fortunate, and it passes, many people do not see that as theft? Yes, that is theft.



In LFC, taxation would be abolished. If that is the case, then I guess I don't support LFC.




Not at all. That would be capitalism WITHOUT government, from my understanding of it. Free market anarchists, some/all might be into private defense, which was a bit appealing to me, but no. I'm all for laissez-faire capitalism. What your advocating would very quickly revert to:
1) Anarcho-capitalism (yes, no government) because the government does not have the power to sustain itself,
2) A dictatorship or similar system with those individuals providing funding controlling the government, or
3) Conquered by a foreign nation



There is NO dichotomy between theory and practice in this. The government to exist, would be a constitutionally limited institution, that would be privately funded, and not through any sort of taxation, whether on income, on goods, services - NOTHING. The funding of it, is so far away it really isn't even of much point to discuss it all that much, but it could be voluntarily funded in many ways. Let me just say, those that have, most certainly will want to protect what they have and themselves from others that don't, so supporting the government as a defense for them, can definately be in their best self interests, there could also be contracts that could be insured in case something were to go wrong, and that money could help fund government, a lottery was proposed too, Rand brought such points up in her nonfiction.

A government run on private funds is a bought government. It will very quickly move to serve those who fund it and trample the rights of those who do not own a sizable piece of the government. Taxation is a necessary evil, but it also guarantees that the government cannot be bought by the highest bidder, which is exactly what would happen to a government run on private donations.



The problem of funding the government becomes way more simple and way less expensive, once we reduce it to it's PROPER size, serving it's ONLY purpose, protecting and upholding individual rights. Take away public education, Social Security, Medicare, Public Libraries, FDA, on and on and on. Do you know how much money people would then have? Do you know how little it would cost to fund the government, then? Very true.

Taxation would be minimal and would go to directly serve all of the people in ways that only directly protect their rights.



People are free to start up programs, on education, retirement, whatever, but they cannot force anyone into it, and cannot force anyone into paying for it. Agreed. This would still be the case with limited taxation to fund a government that is constitutionally restricted to only serve to protect individual rights.


But, since we are in disagreement already, I am not sure if anything I just said will change that or not, but I'll just leave it the way it is, and just shut up, and continue discussing only if you'd like. If not, then it will just make us even more firm in our disagreeement and futile to discuss it, at least the taxation part of it. This part really isn't a humungous deal at all, considering how similar our views are and usually are in matters.

Calm down. :) I don't think we ultimately disagree as much as you seem to think. And if we do, then we do. I appreciate the sentiment that you are supporting, but I do not see it actually functioning.

[intellectualammo]

What your advocating would very quickly revert to:
1) Anarcho-capitalism (yes, no government) because the government does not have the power to sustain itself,

A govenment based upon taxation cannot sustain itself, because it should not be in existence in the first place, because such funding is immoral in nature as it does not protect individual rights, it's very function and prpose, reason for existence. Morailty does not give it the power to sustain itself because it does not give it the permission to exist in the first place.


2) A dictatorship or similar system with those individuals providing funding controlling the government, or

Those that are providing the funding, are NOT controlling it in the sense that since they have big mony in it, that they get to use it for their own ends, like favor/lobbying/bribe wise. They won't get more protection, unless it's with insured contracts or whatnot, things of that nature, and if you don't insure them or whatnot, then if something goes wrong, you'd have to pay fully out of your own pocket, etc.


3) Conquered by a foreign nation

When a war/battle ensues, do we have any problems with getting people to fight them, enlist, when they are truly justifiable wars, moral ones? The same would happen with the funding of such efforts. If it's not really morally justifiable or whatnot, it just won't happen. No draft either. Vietnam would have gone a hell of a lot differently...


A government run on private funds is a bought government. It will very quickly move to serve those who fund it and trample the rights of those who do not own a sizable piece of the government.

Nope. Doesn't work like that. It's entire function is for defense, w/ checks and balances throughout. The government that does trample on rights is the one we have right now, that takes peoples money by force and redistributes it to educating other peoples kids, to older Americans, disabled Americans, health care, on and on and on. The constitution government would not allow just anyone, any group to rise like that. Our Constitution now has such checks and balances in it, well, for the most part. I see the government as self-defense writ large, and nothing else. I do not see how someone, anyone, any group could rise to power in such a government, it would not be possible with checks and balances and voluntary funding.


Taxation is a necessary evil

When people say that, they are saying that it is in fact EVIL. Jez, why is it evil? I'd like to focus on the evil part of it, because if something does NOT have the moral backing, it should NOT be in place. If it funding is NECESSARY, why can it not be done voluntarily, the nessesity of it would not change, but the MORALITY of it WOULD.


the government cannot be bought by the highest bidder, which is exactly what would happen to a government run on private donations.

"Highest bidder"? There are no "bids" for it.


Taxation would be minimal and would go to directly serve all of the people in ways that only directly protect their rights.

Taxation, as such, is a violation of tose rights. A voluntarily funded constitutionally limited government is not to violate rights like that. One system is immoral, one is not. There is no question for me and you that there needs to be a government, just a matter of how it's funded is our disagreement.


This would still be the case with limited taxation to fund a government that is constitutionally restricted to only serve to protect individual rights.

And that still is a contradiction in terms. You cannot go support individual rights and at the same time take by force money from people to support the very system that is supposed to protect against that.


Calm down. :) I don't think we ultimately disagree as much as you seem to think. And if we do, then we do. I appreciate the sentiment that you are supporting, but I do not see it actually functioning.

This is something I have encountered before, people not being able to see a system that is not based upon taxation function in practice since it really is a pretty radical view compared to how taxation is taken for granted or whatnot as it is pretty much today, just a quesiton of how much and to what ends, but not so much questioning taxation, as such.

I think that during a more transitional phase, it would probably become more and more clear, for example - say the actual taxes would be reduced, and basically we have the government rigth the way we want it to be, but it's still being funding through taxation on, say income only or soemthing like that, then perhaps soemthing for a trasition would be to have the consent of whatever percent to come out of ones income as the NECESSITY of the governemt surely would be enough where many people would consent to it, or if they don't, they could fund it by a certain percentage, or in other ways it could be funded, just not by force. Why is the EVIL one the NECESSARY one then, will become more and more clear, the more and more the government is shrunk down to it's very purpose. That's just one way of looking at it, the actual way of funding is is still something that's certainly open to discussion, but the principle remains the same. The question of the actual funding becomes more relevant then, as opposed to now. Right now, it's all about limiting the governmetn and shrinking from the size it is now.

OK, all that was in my words, here is Rand:


In a fully free society, taxation—or, to be exact, payment for governmental services—would be voluntary. Since the proper services of a government—the police, the armed forces, the law courts—are demonstrably needed by individual citizens and affect their interests directly, the citizens would (and should) be willing to pay for such services, as they pay for insurance.

The question of how to implement the principle of voluntary government financing—how to determine the best means of applying it in practice—is a very complex one and belongs to the field of the philosophy of law. The task of political philosophy is only to establish the nature of the principle and to demonstrate that it is practicable. The choice of a specific method of implementation is more than premature today—since the principle will be practicable only in a fully free society, a society whose government has been constitutionally reduced to its proper, basic functions.


Any program of voluntary government financing has to be regarded as a goal for a distant future.

What the advocates of a fully free society have to know, at present, is only the principle by which that goal can be achieved.

The principle of voluntary government financing rests on the following premises: that the government is not the owner of the citizens’ income and, therefore, cannot hold a blank check on that income—that the nature of the proper governmental services must be constitutionally defined and delimited, leaving the government no power to enlarge the scope of its services at its own arbitrary discretion.

From her The Virtue of Selfshiness "Government Financing in a Free Society"

So those that pay, can use the services, though some of the services will also benefit those that don't to a certain extent, depending upon implementation then.

[Jez]

A govenment based upon taxation cannot sustain itself, because it should not be in existence in the first place, because such funding is immoral in nature as it does not protect individual rights, it's very function and prpose, reason for existence. Morailty does not give it the power to sustain itself because it does not give it the permission to exist in the first place.
Evidence would prove to the contrary. Governments can of course sustain themselves on taxation. They do all the time. They don't necessarily serve only to protect the rights of the people, but they do sustain themselves. I get what you're saying though.



Those that are providing the funding, are NOT controlling it in the sense that since they have big mony in it, that they get to use it for their own ends, like favor/lobbying/bribe wise. They won't get more protection, unless it's with insured contracts or whatnot, things of that nature, and if you don't insure them or whatnot, then if something goes wrong, you'd have to pay fully out of your own pocket, etc. I don't see how the government set up in this way would not inevitably end up in the power of those primarily funding it. That is where we disagree. Perhaps I have less faith in people than you do.


When a war/battle ensues, do we have any problems with getting people to fight them, enlist, when they are truly justifiable wars, moral ones? No, we haven't.


The same would happen with the funding of such efforts. Why? A direct war is a lot more on people's minds than the idea of a court they may eventually need or police they may eventually need. Most people are not capable of thinking of the system as a whole and all of the consequences of their possible actions.


If it's not really morally justifiable or whatnot, it just won't happen. Like social security didn't happen? Many people have a very different idea of "morally justifiable"


No draft either. Vietnam would have gone a hell of a lot differently... Agreed.


Nope. Doesn't work like that. Given human nature, I don't see how it wouldn't quickly become that.


I do not see how someone, anyone, any group could rise to power in such a government, it would not be possible with checks and balances and voluntary funding. Sure it would. Same way it happened now, but easier.


When people say that, they are saying that it is in fact EVIL. Jez, why is it evil? I'd like to focus on the evil part of it, because if something does NOT have the moral backing, it should NOT be in place. If it funding is NECESSARY, why can it not be done voluntarily, the nessesity of it would not change, but the MORALITY of it WOULD. Necessary evil is just a phrase. I don't care about philosophical backing. I only care about what works.

Rational self-interest requires people to be rational. They more often than not aren't. Your system requires that they more often than not are.


"Highest bidder"? There are no "bids" for it. Give it time.


Taxation, as such, is a violation of tose rights. A voluntarily funded constitutionally limited government is not to violate rights like that. One system is immoral, one is not. A voluntarily funded constitutionally limited government would more rapidly degenerate into an immoral government than one funded on the minimum amount of taxes. It's just human nature.


There is no question for me and you that there needs to be a government, just a matter of how it's funded is our disagreement. Yes. I don't believe that your system of government would remain as you envision it for very long if it is funded as you advocate.


And that still is a contradiction in terms. Agreed.

You cannot go support individual rights and at the same time take by force money from people to support the very system that is supposed to protect against that.
Sure you can. If there is a government--a society--then it is necessarily that some individual freedoms be limited or given up entirely. That is simply the price of civilization. The optimal government is one where the minimal number of freedoms are given up.


This is something I have encountered before, people not being able to see a system that is not based upon taxation function in practice since it really is a pretty radical view compared to how taxation is taken for granted or whatnot as it is pretty much today, just a quesiton of how much and to what ends, but not so much questioning taxation, as such. I don't disagree with you because your viewpoint is radical or unfamiliar. That is an insulting statement for you to make. I thought you knew me better than that. I disagree with you because logic has led me to that conclusion.



OK, all that was in my words, here is Rand:

From her The Virtue of Selfshiness "Government Financing in a Free Society"

So those that pay, can use the services, though some of the services will also benefit those that don't to a certain extent, depending upon implementation then.

I agree with Rand on many things. This is not one of them.

[intellectualammo]

Evidence would prove to the contrary. Governments can of course sustain themselves on taxation. They do all the time. They don't necessarily serve only to protect the rights of the people, but they do sustain themselves. I get what you're saying though.

And I what you say. As long as the victims allow their own victimization to continue, then it can most certainly sustain itself.


I don't see how the government set up in this way would not inevitably end up in the power of those primarily funding it. That is where we disagree. Perhaps I have less faith in people than you do.

The government I think the funding at least can be viewed kind of like how one pays for other insurance, car, health, life. Those that want to use it's services, pay. Or pay the costs on your own, but I am unsure exactly how that would work, but regardless, no one's individual rights are violated in that. Your rights are not violated, Jez, when I take out my UPMC health insurance plan, but if I force you to take it out, it is. If you want to take the kind of insurance on the use of governemtnal services, cool, but you could not make everyone do that, as that would be against their rights.


Like social security didn't happen? Many people have a very different idea of "morally justifiable"

Right, different code of values, moral codes.


Necessary evil is just a phrase. I don't care about philosophical backing. I only care about what works.

Bingo! That's the essence of pragmatism.


Rational self-interest requires people to be rational. They more often than not aren't. Your system requires that they more often than not are.

MY system does not require them to have rational self-interest, they can be as altruistic as they want to be, but as long as they are not violating, infringing on another's individual rights, they are left alone, as much as we are. Capitalism is the most breathtakingly beautiful social system I have ever seen on paper in my life and the elements of that free market that have actually been put into practice in history.


A voluntarily funded constitutionally limited government would more rapidly degenerate into an immoral government than one funded on the minimum amount of taxes. It's just human nature.

Jez, one funded on the minimum amount of taxes, is immoral the MOMENT it is created. It doesn't have degenerate at all, for it already is an immoral government, it's inherent in the system itself.

A voluntarily funded government, could not possibly degenerate into an immoral one - at best, it would end from lack of funding. It would be moral from the moment it was created to the last moment of it's services rendered.


I don't disagree with you because your viewpoint is radical or unfamiliar. That is an insulting statement for you to make. I thought you knew me better than that. I disagree with you because logic has led me to that conclusion.

Right, what I said came over wrong. I most certainly did not mean to be offensive towards you at all, Jez. OMG, no. So, both of us are employing logic and reason to this.


I agree with Rand on many things. This is not one of them.

Then we will just remain in disagreement about the funding of a government then. You are for a system that upholds and protect rights, at the expense of violating those rights. Your logic differs from mine.

Moving on.

America's Declaration of Independence:


We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

America's Second Declaration of Independence:

http://coffeeforclosers.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/atlas-shrugged.jpg


In 1776 Thomas Jefferson announced to the world America’s plans for independence. For the first time in history, there was to be a nation and a government dedicated to the individual’s rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. But from inception, and from both within and without, the ideals of the new nation were under attack.

Without a full justification of an individual’s moral right to pursue his own life and happiness—not serve his neighbors, God or country—the nation was vulnerable, and its founding principles were slowly chipped away. In 1957 the missing justification came with the publication of Atlas Shrugged. On this, the book’s 50th anniversary, we will examine the moral revolution launched by Ayn Rand, without which the political revolution of the Founding Fathers had to remain incomplete. We will see what this moral revolution has meant for America so far, and what it promises for the future. We will see why Atlas Shrugged should be considered America’s second Declaration of Independence—a declaration not of political but of moral independence.

Video can be seen on ARC site here:
http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=reg_ls_atlas

[Jez]

The government I think the funding at least can be viewed kind of like how one pays for other insurance, car, health, life. Those that want to use it's services, pay. Or pay the costs on your own, but I am unsure exactly how that would work, but regardless, no one's individual rights are violated in that. Your rights are not violated, Jez, when I take out my UPMC health insurance plan, but if I force you to take it out, it is. If you want to take the kind of insurance on the use of governemtnal services, cool, but you could not make everyone do that, as that would be against their rights. So what happens to the people who choose not to pay, but then want the services? Say, a fair trial. Are they denied the protection of the government, or are they allowed to receive services they did not pay for? If the government will only protect the individual rights of those who pay, then you've created a government that does not, as a rule, protect everyone's individual rights. If the government does protect the rights of the people who do not pay, then that isn't right either and people will strive to remove the government protection from the people who do not pay.


MY system does not require them to have rational self-interest, they can be as altruistic as they want to be, but as long as they are not violating, infringing on another's individual rights, they are left alone, as much as we are. Capitalism is the most breathtakingly beautiful social system I have ever seen on paper in my life and the elements of that free market that have actually been put into practice in history. They do need the rational self-interest to understand that the system should be kept as it is, and not bought off. But, self interest, without the intelligence behind it to recognize the necessity of the system, will inevitably lead to power struggles.

Ok, I'm very wealthy. I buy off the government and, because the government is run solely upon donations, their existence and funding is dependent pretty much on me. I own them. I pay them to pass the laws I want them to pass and make me king of the country. Sure there are checks and balances, but they can be easily ignored by paying off the right people. It's human nature to allow this. And what is everyone else going to do about it? They don't have as much money and therefore power over the government as I do. They also don't have the same stake in the government. Now you have a dictatorship.



A voluntarily funded government, could not possibly degenerate into an immoral one - at best, it would end from lack of funding. It would be moral from the moment it was created to the last moment of it's services rendered. And it would last a very short time indeed. It also really wouldn't be serving the purpose of protecting individual rights of everyone. Only the rights of the people who pay. Your liberty is solely dependent upon your financial status at any given time.




Right, what I said came over wrong. I most certainly did not mean to be offensive towards you at all, Jez. OMG, no. So, both of us are employing logic and reason to this. Thank you.



Then we will just remain in disagreement about the funding of a government then. You are for a system that upholds and protect rights, at the expense of violating those rights. Your logic differs from mine. Yes.

[intellectualammo]

So what happens to the people who choose not to pay, but then want the services? Say, a fair trial. Are they denied the protection of the government, or are they allowed to receive services they did not pay for? If the government will only protect the individual rights of those who pay, then you've created a government that does not, as a rule, protect everyone's individual rights.

Your system does NOT protect everyone's individual rights by it's very nature of taking by force a certain percentage of money from all that make it, to imposing taxation on things, and so on.

My system depends upon how the funding is actually implemented. On a fee basis, donation, etc. Even if only those that take out the inexpensive insurance, one might be able to join it when needed, kind of like how I can take out insurance on my car, and be covered. I have mine automatically taken out of my account, but it looks like my policy is for 6months at a time. Maybe there is a time f-r-a-m-e invovled, maybe not, health insurance was effective as soon as I get it and can drop it just as soon as I want through an employer. It's all about the implementation. Even if one does not or cannot afford to take out that insurance, or car insurance, or health insurance, your rights are STILL NOT VIOLATED AT ALL in any way whatsoever by the GOVERNMENT. As with anything, if you can't afford services, you do not receive them if the funding would be implemented that way. Just like with the whiners in our own culture about health insurance coverage today, in that society maybe the ones that can't afford the inexpensive governemtnal services would whine that there needs to be taxation in place so ALL can use it's services. But, due to being SEVERELY and VERY CLEARLY constituionally limited service, with checks and balances, there is NO WAY that those whiners will get their way using that method. Of course, just like with anything, they would have to come up with the necessary money to have it, they could make appeals or whine to people, beg, go to charities,programs, organizations perhaps that might help provide them with the money to be able to, etc.


Ok, I'm very wealthy. I buy off the government and, because the government is run solely upon donations, their existence and funding is dependent pretty much on me. I own them.

They cannot be bought like a commodity, they are a service. If it is a service that will be based, say, soley upon donations, no matter how much YOU donate, or someone else, NOTHING will alter the constitutionally limited government as such, through monetary means. It has it's own built in self protection. You as a wealthy person could donate or even possibly financially back the government somehow, but you will never own it, it is ONLY a service, a servant that must adhere to it's very purpose layed already out in a constitution which could not be altered with your money, or anyone else's.


They don't have as much money and therefore power over the government as I do.

Your money would give you ZERO power over the government, as such, in that sense of it. It would only help to secure a system that is in place to prevent that FROM happening. You would act as your own destroyer. Your powerlust and control means SQUAT with such a service. It's all subordinated under objective law and objective controls, checks and balances. Your best bet, if say it would be implemented on donations only, would be to keep your wealth, and if the funding for the government somehow dries up or is not enough to prevent you from competing against that monopoly - then you could try to rise to power that way, or in it's decline, but you could not do it through it. I doubt the implementaion would be on donation. The fee basis is much more sound to me, much like how insurance works, maybe the rate could fluctuate due to costs, and of course the cost would not at all be imposed upon people by force. That is the most important thing, because that system itself would not be able to violate anyone's rights whether you have the coverage or whether you don't. Your system forces people into it, thus violating their rights at the same time supposedly being a system that is to protect and uphold them. One system is logically consistent and noncontradictory in principle, the other is clearly not.


And it would last a very short time indeed. It also really wouldn't be serving the purpose of protecting individual rights of everyone. Only the rights of the people who pay. Your liberty is solely dependent upon your financial status at any given time.

One's liberty is NOT compromised in any way whatsoever if one chooses not to pay for that service. In my system, if a fee based insurance kinda one, one is at liberty to pay for it voluntarily or not, yours, is to be funded by means of theft and coercion. From a political perspective - one does not violate man's rights, one does. From a moral perspective - one is moral, one immoral - according to an objective theory of values/moral code. Maybe such theft and coercion are moral actions according to whatever theory of values, whatever moral code one has, or a necessary evil as with yours, but it's not with mine, nor is it even consistent with it's own purpose and becomes the very thing it's supposed to be opposed to.

A is A. It cannot be said to be a protector of rights at the same time it is violating them. Either, or. Unless, dare I say, Aristotelian logic, the Law of Identity, is wrong...

So, what happens when one arrives at a contradiction? What would John Galt say?

This:


To arrive at a contradiction is to confess an error in one’s thinking; to maintain a contradiction is to abdicate one’s mind and to evict oneself from the realm of reality.

Let's look at it's maintenance, or sustainability, if you will? How is that contradiction maintained in spite of logic/reality?

The sanction of the victim, mainly.

As long as they continually sanction it in your system, it can be maintained. A parasite survives as long as it has a host, a governmetn can be a criminal, as long as there are ways of looting, people to loot, enforcers willing to, voters willing to vote for it, a constitution allowing it, and people to speak out about how mcuh it works better than a system that does not rob and actually does protect and uphold individual rights. All those help maintain that contradiction.

What about a necessary evil, evil, as such?


The spread of evil is the symptom of a vacuum. Whenever evil wins, it is only by default: by the moral failure of those who evade the fact that there can be no compromise on basic principles.


the only weapon of its triumph was the willingness of the good to serve it.

[Jez]

Your system does NOT protect everyone's individual rights by it's very nature of taking by force a certain percentage of money from all that make it, to imposing taxation on things, and so on. I wasn't talking about my system. I was talking about yours.


My system depends upon how the funding is actually implemented. On a fee basis, donation, etc. Even if only those that take out the inexpensive insurance, one might be able to join it when needed, kind of like how I can take out insurance on my car, and be covered. I have mine automatically taken out of my account, but it looks like my policy is for 6months at a time. Maybe there is a time f-r-a-m-e invovled, maybe not, health insurance was effective as soon as I get it and can drop it just as soon as I want through an employer. It's all about the implementation. You didn't answer my question.


Even if one does not or cannot afford to take out that insurance, or car insurance, or health insurance, your rights are STILL NOT VIOLATED AT ALL in any way whatsoever by the GOVERNMENT. As with anything, if you can't afford services, you do not receive them if the funding would be implemented that way. You are right. Your system does not have the government violating anyone's rights. Your system also does not have the government protecting everyone's rights. Your system has the government only protecting the rights of the people who pay. Only their rights matter under your system. How can you say rights matter to you if they only take on importance if an individual pays to protect them? Rights do not matter in your system at all. Payment matters.


Just like with the whiners in our own culture about health insurance coverage today, in that society maybe the ones that can't afford the inexpensive governemtnal services would whine that there needs to be taxation in place so ALL can use it's services. There is a big difference between taxes being used for redistributive purposes for services that do not directly and only uphold individual rights and taxes being collected for the sole purpose of providing government protection for individual rights. You're lumping them together and that serves no purpose other than to muddy the conversation. There is no point in bringing up whiners or any such thing because I am not advocating that. It is irrelevant to our conversation.



They cannot be bought like a commodity, they are a service. They are people, and people can be bought.


If it is a service that will be based, say, soley upon donations, no matter how much YOU donate, or someone else, NOTHING will alter the constitutionally limited government as such, through monetary means. It has it's own built in self protection. You as a wealthy person could donate or even possibly financially back the government somehow, but you will never own it, it is ONLY a service, a servant that must adhere to it's very purpose layed already out in a constitution which could not be altered with your money, or anyone else's. Yes, I know you keep saying this. I understand what you're saying, but you are overlooking human nature.


and of course the cost would not at all be imposed upon people by force. It effectively would be. This is just playing a game of semantics at this point. Sure, the government wouldn't force people to pay, but those people have zero protection of their individual rights if they don't pay. Those people might as well live in an anarchist society because they have no government protecting their rights. So what choice do they have? Pay the government, or let their rights be trampled. Some choice.


Your system forces people into it, thus violating their rights at the same time supposedly being a system that is to protect and uphold them. Yes, it violates one right at a minimal level in order to protect the rest, always. Your system allows for everyone who doesn't pay sufficiently to have their rights violated with zero protection. Your system creates classes of people: Those whose rights are protected and deemed worthy by the government, and those who have no protection and are free to be violated by whoever wishes to violate them.



One's liberty is NOT compromised in any way whatsoever if one chooses not to pay for that service. Not directly, no. Though they will be as a result. If the government is not protecting their individual rights, then what is to stop anyone from violating them? Nothing.


nor is it even consistent with it's own purpose and becomes the very thing it's supposed to be opposed to. My purpose is to protect their greatest amount of rights as possible. I acknowledge that my system is not protecting ALL rights COMPLETELY, but I do believe it is protecting the greatest amount possible. Your system may protect more on its outset, but my system will last and yours will not. Therefore my system protects rights more than yours does by the simple fact that mine will function on some level and yours wouldn't.

The contradiction you perceive in my logic is because you are putting words and values into my statements that I am not making.

[intellectualammo]

You are right. Your system does not have the government violating anyone's rights. Your system also does not have the government protecting everyone's rights.

Good point.


Sure, the government wouldn't force people to pay, but those people have zero protection of their individual rights if they don't pay.

The cost might be factored into the fees, or it might be met by the donations based funding, or a mix of both. The implementation of it is up for discussion and cases for and against methods and so forth. My focus was on the violating part, rather than the protecting part of rights, as such. Both can certainly be taken care of in my system.


Your system allows for everyone who doesn't pay sufficiently to have their rights violated with zero protection.

There may very well be those that do not pay, or do not donate that are still protected regardless. If the funding is too much, which it wouldn't be anywhere near as it is now, so it would be that much more easily fundable, and the necessity of it to businesses, people, surely is enough to at least get some or all of it's funding once one see or fell what it's like or thinks about what it's like, without it.

My system is only sustainable when there is enough funding coming into it voluntarily.

Yours is only sustianable in how long it can get away with being a thief.

My system when functioning, or when funding is dwindleing, or when the voluntary funding has stopped it altogether - has not violated a single solitary persons rights.

Your system, with its system of taxation, violates countless individuals rights, as long as it is in existence.

My system with proper funding, when functioning, can protect everyone's rights and at the same time violate none.

Your system with proper funding through it's system of taxation, when functioning, does not protect everyones rights, because it will violate many individuals' rights by it's system of taxation.

So, my system based upon voluntary funding, can have the very real potential of not only not violating people's right, but also protect and uphold them - it's very purpose.

Your system funding by taxing, will always violate countless individuals rights, and so it can never have the potential to protect and uphold all individuals rights - therefore it goes against it's very purpose of not violating rights, and at the same time protecting and upholding them for all.

[Jez]

The cost might be factored into the fees, or it might be met by the donations based funding, or a mix of both. The implementation of it is up for discussion and cases for and against methods and so forth. You keep changing the game here. It's very hard to have a conversation when you don't actually define your system.



My system is only sustainable when there is enough funding coming into it voluntarily. Yes, but even then it is not sustainable. Even without going there, however, your system, as you say, is only sustainable when there is enough funding coming into it voluntarily, which is an extremely unstable way to run a country. Your country would very likely fail on the world stage. What good is a government that protects individual rights but fails almost immediately? Nice in theory, but not in practice. It is impractical.


Yours is only sustianable in how long it can get away with being a crook and has people to steal from. And it would be able to get away with it for a very long time because it is only taking the minimum possible and only spending it to directly protect individual rights. As you said, the majority of people wouldn't have a problem with this...and wouldn't then view it as theft.


My system when functioning, or when funding is dwindleing, or when the voluntary funding has stopped it altogether - has not violated a single solitary persons rights. Your GOVERNMENT hasn't violated rights. Your system allows for the rampant violation of rights.


Your system, with its system of taxation, violates countless individuals rights, as long as it is in existence. Please list the rights violated.


My system with proper funding, when functioning, can protect all rights and at the same time violate none. With funding from every single person, equally. Otherwise it cannot. You're very unlikely to get that.


Your system with proper "funding" through it's system of taxation, when functioning, does not protect everyones rights, because it will violate many individuals' rights by it's system of taxation.
It protects everyone's rights equally. It does not protect every single right fully. One. There is a big difference.

[intellectualammo]

"One of the most vitally needed services, which only a government can render, is the protection of contractual agreements among citizens.

When one considers the magnitude of the wealth involved in credit transactions, one can see that the percentage required to pay for such governmental insurance would be infinitesimal - yet it would be sufficient to finance all the other functions of a proper government.

It may be observed, in the example given above, that the cost of such voluntary government financing would automatically be proportionate to the scale of an individual's economic activity; those on the lowest economic levels (who seldom, if ever, engage in credit transactions) would be virtually exempt--though they would still enjoy the benefits of legal protection, such as that offered by the armed forces, by the police and by the courts dealing with criminal offenses. These benefits may be regarded as a bonus to the men of lesser economic ability--without any sacrifice of the latter to the former."

-Ayn Rand, Government Financing in a Free Society

So those that insure their contracts, the moneis would be able to fund the system that way. So in that sense, your rights are not only not violated, but also protected and upheld. However it's implementation (insured contracts, donation, lottery, whatever else), one thing would would not change, that as long as it exists, no rights are violated for the actual funding of it. Your system, as long as it exists, could not sustain itself without sacrificial means. My system could only sustain itself by voluntary nonsacrificial means.


Your GOVERNMENT hasn't violated rights. Your system allows for the rampant violation of rights.

Not when it's functioning, only if and when funding is lacking, BUT when funding is NOT lacking in yours, it continues to be sacrificial, it's ONLY means of existence and sustainability is by robbery, institutionalized thievery, taking by coercion by force money from men to sustain itself financially.

When everything comes done to the last transitional phase, since the amount of money would be significantly smaller than what is taken off of us by force today for funding, your system could have the very REAL possiblity of ENDING. How long do you think you can get away with stealing, then, when it would be so damn easy to burn the very last f'ing bridge, and become a fully moral system that does TRULY protect and uphold the individual rights of everyone?


Edit to add:

One thing I just thought up, during that last transitional phase towards the implementation of a voluntarily funded government, say the amount that was taxed to people in the last years, would be averaged, rounded or whatnot, and the amount shown to be how many hundreds of billions. Now, say people would want to show that in fact it could be supported voluntarily, they could set up a system to collect that amount, on their own, while still of course being taxed for the system they are still in, and once that amount is reached, maybe it could then be switched over to that voluntarily based one. Just a thought. Or as I said before perhaps to, people could give consent to the amount taken out of, say their income, or whatnot. But regardless, at this point the transitional phase, the switch would be finally bringing the principle of individual rights and the purpose of government in protecting and upholding them while not violating any of them itself, to its full logical consistency.

edit to add:

One thing I read someone addressing the supposed "free-loader problem":



What is the role of government? To defend rights. Are any rights being violated by free-loaders? No. What will happen if too many of these kind of people exist? The government will not have money to operate and the system will perish. Is this the fault of the system of government? No, the people brought it upon themselves. Should the government be equipped with something to stop this "problem" from crippling its operation? No, refusing to donate money is not an initiation of force.

Get it? In claiming "the free-loader problem" is a problem, you are essentially saying that you wish to protect a system of government from a people no longer wishing to support it. You are demanding that the government do something (with force, since its an agent of force) to "fix" this "problem" that does not involve the violation of rights.

Both of our systems could in theory end. But when both are fully functioning, as in, when yours is able to TAKE through taxation enough funding to sustain it, and when mine is able to have it's funding provided enough voluntarily in order to sustain it - only one is logically consistent with the purpose of not violating anyone's right while at the same time protecting and upholding everyone's individual rights.

Now I must take a breather, because my system is so breathtakingly beautiful, I must now stop thinking about it for a moment in order to catch my breath! :p

[Jez]

"One of the most vitally needed services, which only a government can render, is the protection of contractual agreements among citizens.

When one considers the magnitude of the wealth involved in credit transactions, one can see that the percentage required to pay for such governmental insurance would be infinitesimal - yet it would be sufficient to finance all the other functions of a proper government.

It may be observed, in the example given above, that the cost of such voluntary government financing would automatically be proportionate to the scale of an individual's economic activity; those on the lowest economic levels (who seldom, if ever, engage in credit transactions) would be virtually exempt--though they would still enjoy the benefits of legal protection, such as that offered by the armed forces, by the police and by the courts dealing with criminal offenses. These benefits may be regarded as a bonus to the men of lesser economic ability--without any sacrifice of the latter to the former."

-Ayn Rand, Government Financing in a Free Society

Ok, so what happens when everyone who donates says they do NOT want their money to go to provide those services for anyone who does not pay?




So those that insure their contracts, the moneis would be able to fund the system that way. So in that sense, your rights are not only not violated, but also protected and upheld. However it's implementation (insured contracts, donation, lottery, whatever else), one thing would would not change, that as long as it exists, no rights are violated for the actual funding of it. Your system, as long as it exists, could not sustain itself without sacrificial means. My system could only sustain itself by voluntary nonsacrificial means. You keep repeating yourself, but that isn't accomplishing anything. Nor is quoting Rand or anyone else if all that serves to do is rephrase what we've already been through. Repeating how virtuous your system is does nothing to address how practical or possible it is. If it cannot exist in practice in any sustainable manner, then there is no point in discussing it as a practical course of action. You need to identify all the possible ways your system can fail, and then address how your system corrects for those possible failures. If it cannot in any meaningful way, then it is a failed system. You can wax on about the awesomeness of your system then, but you might as well glory in how amazing it would be if unicorns existed. Both are an equal waste of time when talking about real world possibilities.




Not when it's functioning, only if and when funding is lacking, BUT when funding is NOT lacking in yours, it continues to be sacrificial, it's ONLY means of existence and sustainability is by robbery, institutionalized thievery, taking by coercion by force money from men to sustain itself financially. Yes, you just keep repeating yourself.


When everything comes done to the last transitional phase, since the amount of money would be significantly smaller than what is taken off of us by force today for funding, your system could have the very REAL possiblity of ENDING. How long do you think you can get away with stealing, then, when it would be so damn easy to burn the very last f'ing bridge, and become a fully moral system that does TRULY protect and uphold the individual rights of everyone? This is irrelevant. Again you are putting words into my mouth and saying "my position" is then illogical. I'm not going to waste my time on this anymore if this is what you're going to do. You might as well talk to yourself then, because you are already not talking to ME and addressing what I am saying.

[intellectualammo]

Ok, so what happens when everyone who donates says they do NOT want their money to go to provide those services for anyone who does not pay?

Then they would not insure their contract, pay, or donate money in any way whatsoever to it, because in any way that the money would be coming into it voluntarily, it would go towards that, as it would be factored into the pricing of the fee itself, etc.

[Jez]

Then they would not insure their contract, pay, or donate money in any way whatsoever to it, because in any way that the money would be coming into it voluntarily, it would go towards that, as it would be factored into the pricing of the fee itself, etc.

Ok. Then in that case you do have two classes of people: One whose rights are protected by the government, and one whose rights are not protected and effectively live in an anarchist society. Very unstable.

[intellectualammo]

Ok. Then in that case you do have two classes of people: One whose rights are protected by the government, and one whose rights are not protected and effectively live in an anarchist society. Very unstable.

No. They would still all be covered as long as there is enough funding provided. There would not be those "two classes of people".

If not enough funding, then the system goes out of service. I actually view this voluntary contributions/payment as a sort of check and balance on it as well. One could not change the purpose of the government with any amount of money, only whether or not it's in service, for is severely and strictly limited constitutionally. In your system , they don't have that choice, and the system continues on by force and the support of those that think it works even though it flies in the face of both logic and morality, and those that do not oppose it and sanction it that way. That's how yours is sustained by a life of crime.

If you think your system works, by sacrificing, no matter how much I bring up logical consistency, or morailty has changed that, because you think that a system based upon that type of force is more sustainable, more practical than a system that does not. You don't care if your system steals from some to provide for all, that such taxation is a "necessary evil" so it makes the action right to take, the right to life and property rights of those individuals that you sacrifice to all, would be protected under my functioning system, while not under your functioning system. Your system does not work towards its very purpose from the beginning, because it is already sacrificing some to all, how can it protect those "some" while at the very same time take from them? It doesn't. If you have a constitution that says it can tax people, then you have a constitution that intitutionalizes theft. Oh, but it works, it protects more than your system ammo - at what price did you say? Giving up some freedoms? You mean at the price of sacrificing some to all? Your system from the very begining before it even is put into practice, does not work. Does nto work in theory does nto work in practice BECAUSE it does NOT work towards protecting the rights (right to life, right to property) of EVERYONE, which is supposed to be it's very purpose on paper and in practice - on paper and in practice it DOES NOT DO THAT, so it DOES NOT WORK! HAS NEVER ACHIEVED THAT PURPOSE, WILL NEVER ACHIEVE THAT PURPOSE!

A criminal can sustain his life by a life of crime, so long as he has people and the ability to rob and not get caught, or people not to do anything about it.

If there are enough people to steal from, enough people to support that theft, than that can be sustained, and if it starts to run out of money, just have to steal more money, that's all. That's how your system "works". That's what the stability rests on. As long as you can drag men to the alter of such sacrifice to turn them upside down and shake out of their pockets the amount of money needed for your systems sustainability, and as long as they do nothing to resist it, and peopel support it because they think it works better than any other type of system, then of course it will be sustained. At what price? Who cares about those that are being robbed, their right to life, the right to property, which is the right to that which they've produced by earning it by their own hands, is taken by force by the f'ing hands of the very institution that's purpose is supposedly to protect EVERYONE'S individual rights. Instead of placing handcuffs around those governmental hands, you allow it to rob some of the people, constitutionally. You have an entire system built around that. There is absolutely no way you can say that it works, when it does not work at protecting everyones rights. If in your constitution you take awy some of their right to life, right to their own property (money) and it's legalized, that does not make it right. It's trying to subordinate right to might, for as long as it can get away with it.

I'd rather have my system. It is a service, that does not rob, that will NEVER sacrifice me to all. If somehow no one supports my system, then so be it, it will still never ever violate any of my rights to support/sustain it, while yours does the moment it begins to function from paper to it's practice of looting. Every f'ing system other than mine, if their purpose is to protect and uphold individual rights of everyone, DOES NOT WORK. Mine, the purpose, is certainly achievable, that's all that matters, because it is NOT achievable in any other type of system, they do not work in practice, because they do not work in theory. There is no dichotomy there. The moment mine starts to function, compared to any other system that starts to function, it works. It works at it's purpose. If enough funding doesn't keep it afloat, fine. It still served its PURPOSE when functioning. Evil was not necessary after all.

You seem to look at how long you think a system can sustain itself, how stable you think it would be, by what means to go about doing it, but have you looked at whether or not it actually does in fact achieve the purpose of a government in the first place - to protect and uphold individual rights?

Your system sustains itself until every last penny is taken from someones pocket, while mine sustains itself only as much as one willingly gives/spends that money from their pocket. Yours does not sustain the very purpose of a government, so it does not work, no matter how much or by what definition you say it works, because it can never by it's own fucntion ever achieve the very purpose of a government, so it does not, cannot, will never WORK! IN THEORY AND IN PRACTICE!

And you speak of instability. How stable is your system when it cannot ever actually support the very purpose of a government in the first place? Oh wait, it forces some people to hold the entire system up financially, so only some peoples rights/freedoms are taken away/violated for the good of all, so it's OK then. The common good, everyone else's rights, matter more than those you rob, obviously. And then claim it works, that the rights of everyone are protected. Those you rob, could very well support a system of individual rights without the use of force, but no, we must MAKE THEM! How ever long you can MAKE them sacrificial victims, is how long it exists, and how long it acts against the very purpose of a govenment in the first place.

And you speak of "two classes of people"? In your system there are basically:

1. the sacrificial victims,
2. those that sacrifice them to all.

1. those whose rights were definately violated, so that means they were never protected and won't be
2. to those that rights were not violated, but would be if they earned an income, etc.

for as long as your system is in place.

In my system:

1. no sacrificial victims, because there is no system in place to sacrifice them to all, because rights are never violated by the funding of the service and are to be protected and upheld for as long as the system functions.

[Jez]

No. They would still all be covered as long as there is enough funding provided. There would not be those "two classes of people". I don't understand your system then. Who pays and what does that payment go toward? If everyone does not want their money to go to services for people other than themselves, then do those people who do not pay still get services? If so, then how is that not the same theft as in a tax system?



2. to those that rights were not violated, but would be if they earned an income, etc.

No. My system would not have income tax. Or property tax. There would only be a flat, minimal tax on goods. So you pay only as many taxes as you wish. It would be theoretically possible to pay no taxes at all if you never purchase goods.

[intellectualammo]

Hi, Jez. :)


I don't understand your system then. Who pays and what does that payment go toward?

Only people who want to pay for the insured protection of their contract, will pay. It's not something that will be forced. The fee itself (and all the other fess that might possibly be collected), would go towards not only insuring the amount of that particular exchange, but also, since there would be so many potential people who would love the idea of protecting the contract that way for a certain amount, that all the money would go to supporting the system itself. If you opt not to pay the fee, if something happens to that particular transaction (goods not delivered to you, money not sent, or whatever the case may be) that is all done at your own risk then. Some exchanges might not take place at all, if one or both or whatever do not take out the insurance on it, since they want it to be insured. So there is a real incentive to purchase it, and at the same time, as my boldfaced Rand quote earlier said, their individual rights would still be upheld the entire time, because of the funding from all the fees voluntarily paid for that are collected from all of that covers it.


If everyone does not want their money to go to services for people other than themselves, then do those people who do not pay still get services?

Yes, as in their individual rights would still be upheld and protected, just not their exchange/contract would get the benfit of the insurance on it, but their individual rights would be protected, just as long as there are those that are paying the insured contract fees, or donating, or whatever is implemented to bring in the funding to support the system itself, voluntarily. Only thing that would not be protected, since they are not only opting to not protect their transaction with taking out the insurance on it, it will not be insured then. The question then is, if they wanted to do something about what happened, could they use the system to help afterwards? Well, since they opted not to have the insurance, perhaps, and I am not sure if this would be allowed or not, to pay all the necessary money it would take to go after the person who defaulted on their side of the exchange, and that is even if they could get their money since that person may never be able to actually pay it. One can imagine that if there was a price tag on how much it would cost outside of the insurance (if they would even be allow to, I'm thinking they wouldn't, but not exactly sure), it may be so ridiculously high compared to the insuring of it, that they would take the insurance out on it in the first place, or it would not really be worth it to them, if it's possible, to go to court. Hence, the added incentive.

Say I loan you money, Jez, to help pay for, say your medical bills because I value you dearly and would do as much as I could to help you, but it would be money from my retirement since I have no real disposable income now since I do not get the overtime I once did at the hospital, but I don't need my retirement money right now, but will later, so we agree that it'd be great to do this. I'd in a sense be spotting you the money at the same time helping someone I value dearly and you would get what you need out of it to. That's the trader principle at work, and there is mutual benefit from teh exchange initially in that respect. BUT - I would not loan it out to you without the insurance on it, not because I don't trust you, because shit f'ing happens in life sometimes largely out of ones control, so you agree, and we proceed. If you don't pay for whatever reason, since I or us insured it, I get my money perhaps, enforcement on it, restitution, or whatnot,. I think that's how it would work. I've never seen an example of an insured contract before, but to me that's how it'd work. Say you pay it back like you said you would, as nothing else in your life fortunately happened change that any, then the fee taken out to insure the enforcement of our deal, would then go to supporting the entire system as a whole. So all the money coming in from insured dealings not used like in that case, it would then be money going to support the police system, et al., so if you were robbed, or I was robbed, or whatever could happen that we would need to call the police for, there would be a police force in existence that one could call, go to, etc. So our rights would always be protected, so long as that funding is coming in to the system and it can function, which is super likely that that would happen, because of such exchanges that I just illustrated. How many credit transactions, contracts happen day to day? How many people would want them insured, seeing what would happen if they didn't? Also, say no one wants to pay any fees/insurance or what have you, then we could still have our exchange, it wouldn't be insured, and there'd also be no governemtn there to protect us if, like i said, we were robbed or soemthing, too.

Your system, no matter how the taxation is implemented, it would violate someones rights from the very moment it was penned to when put in practice, which is what it is not supposed to be doing or allowing. My system is still the only one I see that will protect and uphold individual rights, without violating them, when functioning.

But this is all talk on just one example of a fee based funded system. Still have the other options that it can be implemented on it, like donations, or what have you.


If so, then how is that not the same theft as in a tax system?

Because they are not doing it by force, the government would not forcefully place a tax on goods/services/income or whatever. It is just something that can be added to a contract if those entering the contract would like to have it added, the insurance on it. If they don't insure it, then they can still do business, unless one objects and wants to only do business or exchange with only someone that does. The choice is given to them to work out. It really is in a persons best interest to pay the fee in case something happens, but they would still have their individual rights upheld, it's just that particular contract/exchange would not be, because they choose not to insure it on either end, both ends of the exchange or what have you. But that's how it would work in just one example of the fee based funding and can still make the purchase without it, that is if the business or whatever the seller or loaner will sell, loan, or whatever, to that person without it being insured.


No. My system would not have income tax. Or property tax. There would only be a flat, minimal tax on goods. So you pay only as many taxes as you wish. It would be theoretically possible to pay no taxes at all if you never purchase goods.

Ah, OK, no income tax, but a tax on goods is still going against the right of a person who produces it to control the price on it. It's theirs, they produced it, it's their property and should be allowed to charge what they want to for it.

One difference between mine and your systems, Jez, is that yours is not voluntarily done since it's a tax on the goods (or whatever the tax would all apply to), mine is a fee that is voluntary, and there is an incentive in paying it for that particular exchange, and when fully functioning, the funding for mine would not require sacrificial victims, as your ALWAYS WOULD, or else it could not exist. That fee insures that transaction, at the same time helps to go towards funding for that which DOES protect your individual rights and those of others. All that insurance is is a protection of that particular exchange, think of all the credit exchanges that take place a day, how many would opt to pay the fee to cover it? Or how many would require it or add it into their cost or whatever?

[Jez]

I'm sorry, but I have absolutely no clue what you're talking about. You keep referring to "it" and "services" and insurance but you've never actually defined what you're referring to and what exactly can and cannot be insured. How are police, courts, military, and similar government functions funded and who receives and who does not receive protection provided by them?

[intellectualammo]

I'm sorry, but I have absolutely no clue what you're talking about.

No, I'm sorry :embarrass, I'm not always that great when it comes to articulation, social skills, things like that. I'm trying my best and it's been problematic between us before in our discussions and I am just glad, grateful, that you have the patience that you do with me when it happens.


You keep referring to "it" and "services" and insurance but you've never actually defined what you're referring to and what exactly can and cannot be insured.

The government is the service.

As to what can and cannot be insured, what is meant by "insured contracts" I'm trying to figure out more on, since specifics really aren't given that I know of. Let me see...Things that take place in the marketplace that can be insured, possibly such as certain credit transactions, loans, contracts of various kinds... Oh, I was just told "Any kind of transaction where goods are delivered up front for money paid later or in installments can benefit from law enforcement of terms." Paying the fee insures that in contracts.


How are police, courts, military, and similar government functions funded and who receives and who does not receive protection provided by them?

Everyone's individual rights are to be protected as long as the funding is coming in, which could be from say, all those insured contracts an/or whatever else just as long as it's voluntarily contributed. The money coming in from it not only goes to the funding of the system itself as a whole, but also towards something that goes wrong with ONLY those contracts/exchanges that are [i]insured. Otherwise, you do not get such protection in such economic exchanges, because you chose not to insure it.

So the voluntary funding of the government can come from a variety of methods. But the insured contracts and things of that nature are good idea for raising the funding for the system itself by payments like that. The fee payed for the contracts to be insured/enforced would be very much an incentive and the money would of course go to the system itself to fund it that way, instead of funding coming in for the government, through taxation like in your system. The incentive to pay: if you don't, your contract, economic exchange, would not be able to be enforced if something happened. So you take a risk with it. If one loans money out to someone willingly, and chooses not to pay to insure the enforcement on it, and that person doesn't pay, then it's your loss, your own risk without paying for the insurance/enforcement for it. The police, courts, military, similar goverment functions are all funded from the money coming in from that and whatever other kind of funding that can be done through voluntary means, all to go towards being able to truly uphold and protect the individual rights of everyone, without violating a single individuals rights in regards to the funding of it, thus serving its very purpose, for as long as it's funded. Contrary to your system.

[Winifred]

Originally Posted by intellectualammo:
Anything that happens in the free market that violates an individuals rights, that particular individual can appeal to the government, which it's sole purpose in existence is to uphold and protect an individuals rights - and that's it. It essentially leaves one alone with the liberty to pursue one's own happiness in life

Which are also the founding principles of the US and our Constitution. It's not just Rand's "kooky" idea.



Ha, well, yes. It is obvious. Guess what ushered in the Great Depression? That would be a deviation from free market capitalism and an increase in government regulation! But, ya know, the truth of history isn't as popular as the "Evil Capitalists" re-write. How do they ignore historical facts? Easily, apparently. Horrifying and bewildering, but undeniably true.

Well, actually, if you read the Letter of Transmittal to Congress, below the body of the Constitution, which clarifies the goal of the creators of the constitution, you will see that, no, the absolute inviolability of the individual was not the point:

It is obviously impracticable in the Federal Government of these States to secure all rights of independent sovereignty to each, and yet provide for the interest and safety of all. Individuals entering into society must give up a share of liberty to preserve the rest. The magnitude of the sacrifice must depend as well on situation and circumstance, as on the object to be obtained. It is at all times difficult to draw with precision the line between those rights which must be surrendered, and those which may be preserved; and, on the present occasion, this difficulty was increased by a difference among the several States as to their situation, extent, habits, and particular interests. (http://constitutionus.com/ )

I'm still plugging along, listening to Rand. It is interesting, and my initial reaction (about 1/3 through) is that Rand's fallacy is her naive assumption that the free market can operate without coercion. She blames government interference for all problems - I would argue that the Achilles heel of free market capitalism is her insistence that no violence or coercion can be part of a free market. This probably would work - if it were humanly possible. At the same time as wanting to minimize government, she wants government to be the arbiter and umpire, allowing individual rights to triumph unimpeded to provide goods according to supply and demand.

I think this is as pie in the sky as communism - where each person gives what he or she can, and takes what he or she needs. Both views are actually similar, with the glaring exception of human frailty - in capitalism, it is greed, leading to force and deception (think: robber barons). In communism, it is greed, leading to force and deception (think: Stalinist socialism).

Just saying...

[intellectualammo]

Jezebel, where'd you go? Come back.




Individuals entering into society must give up a share of liberty to preserve the rest. The magnitude of the sacrifice must depend as well on situation and circumstance, as on the object to be obtained. It is at all times difficult to draw with precision the line between those rights which must be surrendered, and those which may be preserved;

Wait a minute. Give up liberties? Surrender them? Those rights are VIOLATED. There is no way to fully uphold and protect individual rights without the system being VOLUNTARILY contributed to - any other form of funding is sacrificial victimization. If a written constitution says that it's legally OK to tax, does not change the fact that it is violating individual rights, no matter if the majority votes and says that it is OK. Lets go ahead and sacrifice some people to all, make it a law, it still does not make it moral at all.




I'm still plugging along, listening to Rand. It is interesting, and my initial reaction (about 1/3 through) is that Rand's fallacy is her naive assumption that the free market can operate without coercion.

Wait, how is that a fallacy? What is so fallicious about that? It OPERATES without coercion, as in the government does not act COERCIVELY, but coercion in the marketplace can happen, and when it does, one has the criminal justice system, etc. much like the process we have today.


in capitalism, it is greed, leading to force and deception (think: robber barons).

What is greed to you?

To make money? Is that being greedy?

To make lots and lots of money? Is that being greedy?

Having a government that lets you keep YOUR money and not TAKE IT to give to those that don't have as much, is that a system of greed? Or is that a system that protects and upholds EVERYONE'S INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS?

If a man earns his money by working, and saves it, invests some of it, becomes very wealthy, and wants to keep on making more money and live in luxury, is he being greedy? Is he violating anyone's rights? Is he evil? If the government acts COERCIVELY and takes some of his money to give to others that are in need of money, because he has some while they don't, whose rights would be violated then? If the government acts COERCIVELY and makes people contribute to other peoples retirement, other peoples education, whose rights are violated then? Do any of those people have a claim on one another? No. Does the man of productive wealth have ANY claim on the poor? Absolutely not. Do the poor have any claim on him? Absolutely not.

The free marketplace is breathtakingly beautiful - with the trader principle at work, the profit motive, supply and demand - all have their own built in self regulatory devices, that the government need not be at the controls, like in our society today. It's survivial of the fittest in the marketplace - set prices too high, and it leaves you super vulnerable to those that can sell at lower prices; make an inferior product to cheat customers and make a huge profit will essentially slit your own throat if people stop buying, or it leaves you vulnerable to those that can make a far superior product. The point is is that government does not act COERCIVELY in the marketplace, it does not BAR COMPETITION, like it does in some part of the market today, it does not at all interfere in the economy like that. People that are out to help those in need, certainly can. They can start up programs, charities, you f'ing name it, be all you can altruistically be. Start a program or fund to help those that can't afford a good education, retirement, health care. You can do all that, but one thing you cannot do is get the government to act COERCIVELY and take that which is others and give to those who have absolutely no claim on it. If there is theft, fraud anything like that in the marketplace then one can have the police/law enforcemtn/courts/state/governmetn involved. Anything that violates your individual rights or infringes upon them, because the governemtn would ONLY be there to uphold and protect those.

[Gizmo]

http://pomoxian.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/2011-03-30.jpg

[intellectualammo]

On the subject of comics... has anyone taken a look at Steve Ditko's comic, Mr. A?


Mr. A is one of the clearest examples of Ditko's conviction in Objectivism.


Mr. A's name comes from "A is A", a reference to the law of identity in Aristotelian logic.


In some of the stories characters speak about the reasoning behind their actions in every panel, thus showing that the adventure story is not meant to be just entertainment, but is to show a deeper, philosophical dialogue.

This is basically how the comic book goes, Mr. A's name is Rex Graine:


Rex Graine is a newspaper reporter for the Daily Crusader. He is known for his uncompromising principles and incorruptibility. In order to fight crime Graine wears metal gloves and a steel mask that resembles a placid face, thus becoming Mr. A. In keeping with the hardboiled detective theme, both personae typically wear suits and fedora hats; Mr. A's outfit is completely white. There is no origin story for the character, thus the only discernible reason why Graine sometimes disguises himself (both his identities are equally threatened by criminals and sometimes hated by the general public) is due to his choice to become a vigilante. Mr. A uses half white-half black business cards to signify his arrival, as well as to represent his belief that there can only be good and evil, and no moral grey area.


Typical stories will have one character convince him or herself that doing just a few illegal acts to get ahead in life will not make him or her a bad person. This character's crimes escalate when they must either take action to cover their previous misdeeds or are now too closely tied to more dangerous criminals to simply walk away. The stories invariably end with Mr. A confronting the criminals and telling them that they are all guilty


Not all of Mr. A's stories are crime adventures. Some are allegorical representations of the guilty trying to explain why they compromised their values. Mr. A, on a white platform, denounces their explanations. These stories typically end with the guilty falling into an abyss off of their black platform. This representation often occurs at the end of the adventure stories as well. Mr. A says that he feels only for the innocent and victimized. People who commit "just one crime", such as accepting dirty money, are turned over to authorities to stand trial for what they have done. Mr. A refuses to overlook their transgressions, even if they profess they will be good from then on. Killers and would-be-killers generally find themselves in situations where they need Mr. A's assistance to save them, but since they had no respect for innocent lives then he offers no aid for their guilty ones. It is only when an innocent life is directly threatened that Mr. A will kill, and when he does so it is without remorse.

http://goodcomics.comicbookresources.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/06/Mr%20A%205.gif

http://goodcomics.comicbookresources.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/06/Mr%20A%204.gif


http://www.dialbforblog.com/archives/297/card.gif

Ayn Rand's Anthem since it's copyright has expired, has been turned into a graphic novel, I haven't seen it, but I'd like to:

http://www.wvgazette.com/mediafiles/thumbs/595/892.5/anthembook_I110202220239.jpg

As an aside:
Jezebel, where'd you go? Anyone know where Jez went off to? I miss h... our discussions.

[margaine]

haven't seen Jez around in a while. she must be off doing other things.

[intellectualammo]

haven't seen Jez around in a while. she must be off doing other things.

Well those things should be done by now, so come back already, Jezebel!

I have no way of contacting her other than here. Maybe someone who knows her current address, could please send her a postcard for me, a screen capture of Literature Junction Forum on one side, and "Wish you were here!" on the other.

:)

[cafolini]

Well, I don't think you can apply Rand's bellowing to this century. She was an obsolete Aristotelian that had her time. Although capitalism is the best system available, together with democracy, individualism also has had its time. This century is about multiplicity and absolute relationship. Of course freedom and the pursuit of happiness is a Western allied ideal and it never manifested better than after wwii. She didn't even come close to the meaning of that ideal. If we were to follow her proposals we would end up with monger isolationism. This is the age of globalization and no one can stop it. It is a good thing. What seems like chaos to many is no more than indiference inference to orders they deem inconvenient.

[Winifred]

Well, I don't think you can apply Rand's bellowing to this century. She was an obsolete Aristotelian that had her time. Although capitalism is the best system available, together with democracy, individualism also has had its time. This century is about multiplicity and absolute relationship. Of course freedom and the pursuit of happiness is a Western allied ideal and it never manifested better than after wwii. She didn't even come close to the meaning of that ideal. If we were to follow her proposals we would end up with monger isolationism. This is the age of globalization and no one can stop it. It is a good thing. What seems like chaos to many is no more than indiference inference to orders they deem inconvenient.

(thumbs up) (the evening's bouquet of cabbage smilies) This is great, cafolini! I love "monger isolationism" "Rand's bellowing" and I tend to agree we are heading into an age of global awareness (if we don't blow ourselves up or poison ourselves first), so I like "age of globalization" and "mulitplicity." Not too sure about "indiferent inference," but the off meaning and misspelling do support your theory, I guess (smile).

[intellectualammo]

She was an obsolete Aristotelian that had her time.

Yes, her philosophy was of an Aristotelian line of philosophic descent, but she has not had her time and is not obsolete, but relevent today. And tomorrow.


Although capitalism is the best system available,

Best thing you said.


individualism also has had its time.

Individualism is not dead and it has not been killed. Collectivism has definately had it's time, it's time to bury it for good, dead or alive! It needs to go!

http://www.myemoticons.com/images/work-school/physical-labor/digging.gif


^ Get in there collectivism!



This is the age of globalization and no one can stop it.

I'm all for globalization... of capitalism, that is. I want to see it spead across the world!
http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=reg_ls_capitalism


(thumbs up) (the evening's bouquet of cabbage smilies)

http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-fc/yuk.gif

How about (the evening's bouquet of FLOWERS! smilies) instead:

http://www.happycurls.com/v2/smf/Smileys/classic/bloem.gif

[cafolini]

Thanks for the response, and the editing, Winifred. I felt like Michener before the terrifying editor. Anyway, you might think I'm kidding, but I'm not. I'm speaking about actuality, not theory. However, you had enough humor to speak about it with inventiveness and I have to congratulate you for that. And thank you Sir, very much.

[cafolini]

Capitalism is already globalized to a large extent, I.A. What other system could be globalized. There is no other with the capability to do that. And there is no other with, most importantly, the power to do that. Ayn has nothing to do with capitalism. She was quack-quack in an isolated pond in the context of capitalism, democracy and freedom. Have fun.

[intellectualammo]

Ayn has nothing to do with capitalism.

Rand brought to capitalism the proper moral base it has always lacked. She doesn't argue from a subjective or intrinsic theory of values, but an objective one.


She was quack-quack in an isolated pond in the context of capitalism, democracy and freedom. Have fun.

Once her http://www.messengerfreak.com/emoticons/animals/DuckQuack.gif-http://www.messengerfreak.com/emoticons/animals/DuckQuack.gif is heard - birds of a feather, flock together.


http://www.cristoferdelatorre.com/emoticonosgratis/emoticonos/pajarillos-en-la-rama.gif


Capitalism is already globalized to a large extent, I.A. What other system could be globalized. There is no other with the capability to do that. And there is no other with, most importantly, the power to do that.

It's no wonder that the systems that rob, oppress, enslave citizens don't have the capabilities and power to do what capitalism can for individuals and for mankind (if you look at it that way). In this breathtakingly beautiful system, men are to primarily deal with one another as traders, not slaves and masters, looters and moochers.

[cafolini]

If you have travelled abroad and seen those degraded systems that oppress, there is no other way to look at ours. It is not a matter of opinion. It's comparative actuality. It's far from philosophical.

Rand has been heard plentifully. She was strongest in the 80's wonderland. I think you must be young and discovered her recently. Of course she will be heard for long by a few, but only because in America we are willing to listen and evaluate constantly.

[intellectualammo]

If you have travelled abroad and seen those degraded systems that oppress, there is no other way to look at ours. It is not a matter of opinion. It's comparative actuality. It's far from philosophical.

Not far from philosophical, not far at all from theory, it is the direct consequence of - theory put into practice, that's what you see, and why it doesn't work in practice is because it does not work in theory. Unlike capitalism.


Rand has been heard plentifully.

Sure, and many don't want to listen to her, or don't understand her language of individualism.


She was strongest in the 80's wonderland.

Her strongest has been recently, I think. As indicative of Atlas Shrugged sales, media mentions, media appearances and articles galore written by Objectivists, the Ayn Rand Institue and the Ayn Rand Center chapters and lecture series and debates and programs, etc. I think her and LFC are a very real cultural force today. Capitalism, business, individualism are very dirty words it seems today still though. It will take, just like it does with other things, a crisis or tragedy, in this case economic ones, in order to get people to realize that the market problems come from governmetal intervention in them, not because there isn't enough intervention in them. They can't see that in theory, so it has to occur in practice, unfortunatley. That's pragmatism for you. They have to learn it in blood, so to speak, not on paper.


I think you must be young and discovered her recently.

I am young, I'm 31 or 32. I first started reading Rand about a decade ago.

[cafolini]

The view of Rand is too narrow, I.A. It's strictly theoretical and philosophical, not the opposite. Pragmatism is okay, but you can try to use an atomic bomb to kill a fly. That's also pragmatic. It works. The free market is too much for her to handle, so she wants to revert to a new start and ignores the impossibility of it in today's world. She has some futile following.

[intellectualammo]

The view of Rand is too narrow, I.A. It's strictly theoretical and philosophical, not the opposite.

Strictly theoretical and philosopical? You sound like you are trying to say by that, that there is somehow a dichotomy here. There is no dichotomy between theory and practice. Creating a social system that upholds and protects individual rights on paper, put into practice, is a system in place that can uphold and protect individual rights in practice.

The way I see capitalism appealing to people since pragmatism is rampant, is to look at the practical side of capitalism, look at what a freer markets in history has done for individuals, businesses, mankind, and compare to ones with considerably less freedom. This is what my one link to the lecture does. Full of facts and stats, the practical and historical case for capitalism. I do not think pragmatists care much at all about the morality or the philosphical significance of capitalism or the free market, only the practical aspect of it, what works for them.


The free market is too much for her to handle,

She handled capitalism better than anyone ever has, because she gave it the proper philosophical foundations and moral backing for it to stand above all the other crippling systems in civilized society.


so she wants to revert to a new start and ignores the impossibility of it in today's world.

It's not impossible in today's world, it's absolutely relevent, and still possible to be phased in. When the financial crises hit, what book sold more copies than it ever had in it's publication history? Atlas Shrugged. The parellels are remarkable and ominous and the novel prophetic in a wa to us, by showing what could happen. Instead of looking at the free market as the problem, it's high time to look at the GOVERNMENTAL INTERVENTION IN THE ECONOMY!


She has some futile following.

She has an increasing following.

[cafolini]

I'm not concerned with convictions. Have fun. We'll see what happens in actuality.

[intellectualammo]

I'm not concerned with convictions.

Well, I am.


We'll see what happens in actuality.

We already do every day. Look at collectivism in practice. Look at it in theory. That's why.

[cafolini]

"Convictions are not necessarily true. A note for asses." ~F. Nietzsche

"The madness of an individual is inconsequent compared to the madness of associations, political parties and institutions"~F. Nietzsche

So, truthfully, you have all kinds of insanity, whether it be collectively, or a collectivity of individualists proper. But note the point where I could expand on Nietzsche's consideration by saying more than what he said.
Besides, what collectivism is there other than a bunch of individuals making social contracts in one way or another?
The only possible enemy we have is forced communism. But evolutionary communism is the infallible aim of nature. Although to leave you with a note of humor, I'll quote some of my public speaking: "We should aim at achieving a system were all resources come from each's inabilities and go to each's needs." We might be talking the same language outside the (G)ood (O)striches (P)arlor, we Little Fockers. This might be one of those races like the one between Geico and Progressive.

[intellectualammo]

Besides, what collectivism is there other than a bunch of individuals making social contracts in one way or another?

Ayn Rand definition:

"Collectivism holds that the individual has no rights, that his life and work belong to the group."
"the subjugation of the individual to a group."

"Individualism regards man—every man—as an independent, sovereign entity who possesses an inalienable right to his own life, a right derived from his nature as a rational being. Individualism holds that a civilized society, or any form of association, cooperation or peaceful coexistence among men, can be achieved only on the basis of the recognition of individual rights—and that a group, as such, has no rights other than the individual rights of its members."

Peikoff:

"Collectivism holds that, in human affairs, the collective—society, the community, the nation, the proletariat, the race, etc.—is the unit of reality and the standard of value. On this view, the individual has reality only as part of the group, and value only insofar as he serves it."

So it all comes down to what is IN the social contracts that a bunch of individuals make that determines whether or not it's collectivism.


The only possible enemy we have is forced communism.

or any other form of statism. Statism is the political corollary of collectivism. Statism is the politcal expession of the morality of altruism. ALTRUISM IS THE ENEMY. Altruism is sacrificing yourself to others, or others to yourself.

Rand: "An individualist is a man who says: 'I will not run anyone’s life—nor let anyone run mine. I will not rule nor be ruled. I will not be a master nor a slave. I will not sacrifice myself to anyone—nor sacrifice anyone to myself.' ”

[cafolini]

I think you don't grasp what I said. I did not argue in favor of collectivism. I said that collectivism has always been the natural state of affairs. It is not that the individual belongs to the group and has no rights. That would be ridiculous and it happens only in the oppressing, anticapitalistic systems we already talked about. In America the laws are tailored to protect the individual, and they are not failing to do so. The polemics about these matters are strictly philosophical and useless. The individual is part of the natural collectivity. The individual is not being strangled by the state; on the contrary. In the actual struggle, there have always been far more individualists strangling the mayority, indifferent to development and utterly hipocritical and secretive, demanding work from the people and sacrifice galore.
You might have better standards, but purely philosophical, and you, like Rand, want to exercise command of that philosophy that seems so logical to you, but cannot be put to practice without dictatorship.

[intellectualammo]

You might have better standards, but purely philosophical, and you, like Rand, want to exercise command of that philosophy that seems so logical to you, but cannot be put to practice without dictatorship.

It can be put into practice by rising to power through the democratic process that exists today for political parties, which is probably the way to go, but there is also revolution. I see the government in LFC as being what I call, self-defense writ large, using might, defensive might, to rise to power and to protect and uphold individual rights in a social context.

"The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself." (Kipling?)

[cafolini]

The individual alone never did didley. Whoever he was, borrowed infinitely from the rest for producing his miniscule contributions which in turn had to be accepted and used by the rest in order to enter a stage in any sphere. I think your thought is prone to idolatry during a time which left it behind and will never take it back globally. Thank goodness.

The way we beat idolatry in the second half of the 20th century was not by eliminating it, but rather by allowing anyone to be an idol. They multiplied so fast that even earlier than 2000 they were no longer a threat to anyone, all going in different directions. "Let it be, let it be, let it be...there will be an answer... Imagine..."
Owning what? Isn't being born sufficient ownership? Philosophy has been overcome.

[intellectualammo]

The individual alone never did didley. Whoever he was, borrowed infinitely from the rest for producing his miniscule contributions

Stop right there. Read:

"We inherit the products of the thought of other men. We inherit the wheel. We make a cart. The cart becomes an automobile. The automobile becomes an airplane. But all through the process what we receive from others is only the end product of their thinking. The moving force is the creative faculty which takes this product as material, uses it and originates the next step. This creative faculty cannot be given or received, shared or borrowed. It belongs to single, individual men." - Ayn Rand

[cafolini]

In the first place, I don't think there occurs any creativity, however much there might be or exist in the two dimensions of the purely psychological. What occurs in three dimensions is given only for transformation. Creativity is an obsolete philosophical concept fully overcome where it counted for centuries. But more important is what goes in between the cart and the automobile which the collectivity makes possible, not the individual. It is not that things take a long time to develop because of lack of motive. There are lots of things that must happen before a contemporary engine could be achieved. The man who built it for the first time was just a culmination of many processes that were born and thrived in the collective nest. Individualism is pure fury and gas; idolatry farts used so far by propaganda machines. Thank you for the opportunity to set this postmodern stage in such a lively way. That might be Ayn Rand's best contribution. At least she must be given a little credit for not being indifferent to the BS. Have fun.

[intellectualammo]

But more important is what goes in between the cart and the automobile which the collectivity makes possible, not the individual.

It is a collective that has done didley. Everything was done by individuals, including the "in between" you speak of.

"The mind is an attribute of the individual. There is no such thing as a collective brain. There is no such thing as a collective thought. An agreement reached by a group of men is only a compromise or an average drawn upon many individual thoughts. It is a secondary consequence. The primary act—the process of reason—must be performed by each man alone. We can divide a meal among many men. We cannot digest it in a collective stomach. No man can use his lungs to breathe for another man. No man can use his brain to think for another. All the functions of body and spirit are private. They cannot be shared or transferred." - Ayn Rand

[cafolini]

What about the assembly line? It has no value? What about the hundreds of thousands that gave their lives in wwii for sustaining freedom? The more you quote of hers, the more insane she shows up.
Solong, buddy. What had to be said was said in this thread. Have fun. Put it on our bill.

[intellectualammo]

What about the assembly line? It has no value?

In an assembly line, each person in the line contributes to the finished product. Again, this does nothing but shows that the collective does didley, the individual everything.


Solong, buddy.

Yes, so long. Glad you did me the favor of leaving before I ended our discussion at "The more you quote of hers, the more insane she shows up."