Rand, TTI and Disaster Capitalism

[Tolthar Lockbar]

Concerning taxes:

Do you know how much money gets donated to the US government today? Do you know any organizations that do very well off of voluntary donations? I can think of quite a few. Do they require mandatory taxation?

Concerning law:

So if people keep raping others, does that mean government should keep putting detailed laws about it? Whats the point?

Concerning standard of ideal:

I didn't ask what your standard of practical is, I asked what your standard of ideal is.

[musashi]

So government and no taxes is a contradiction?

Absolutely

Governments requires money to function. People should not work gratis. They should be (and are) paid for their services and resources. So where does government get its money? Taxes.

I know we say charity is the way. But charity is sporadic at best, I can’t think of a single government I’d like to donate my money to.

Or tolls are the way. But there are functions of government that do not lend themselves to “use fees”, things like supporting a standing army or even a police force.

To me it seems that if the government is taking my money - it is a TAX, whether it is a flat fee, a use fee or toll, a fractional charge (like income tax or gas tax). Granted due to the 1 to 1 mapping, I feel less violated by use fees because I directly receive something in return for my loss, but they are still taxes.

[Oleksandr]

I know we say charity is the way. But charity is sporadic at best, I can’t think of a single government I’d like to donate my money to.

Do you know how much Americans donate in charities every year?

[Arakasi Takeda]

Arakasi Takeda wrote:
She states that political philosophy can demonstrate this it is practical, but she doesn't actually demonstrate it....she leaves it to something else.

You need to provide a quote if you are stating about something she said.

The quote I am discussing is exactly the same one I listed and that Tolthar responded to, so I'm not certain what your issue is above.

I'll requote it again:

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 'She' pronoun might be misplaced here - the quote is from the full text present in the URL supplied by Tolthar. I made an assumption that this was taken directly from Rand; I may be mistaken in that assumption.

Or at least show that OPAR book does not demonstrate how it is practical in its section on the "nature of government."

http://www.peikoff.com/opar/home.htm

Where in that book do you see the description of a concrete experimental case where the supposition that 'voluntary taxes' is demonstrated as an actual, practical case whose results match the predictions made by Rand's philosophy? There's a lot of discussion of axiomatic beliefs and predictive outcomes, but I'm not aware of a practical case study.

[The above isn't a challenge, but a request for citation. I wasn't aware that such a real life study existed and was in print. It'd be nice to actually see it].

AT

[Arakasi Takeda]

Concerning taxes:

Do you know how much money gets donated to the US government today? Do you know any organizations that do very well off of voluntary donations? I can think of quite a few. Do they require mandatory taxation?

Concerning law:

So if people keep raping others, does that mean government should keep putting detailed laws about it? Whats the point?

Concerning standard of ideal:

I didn't ask what your standard of practical is, I asked what your standard of ideal is.

No, I do not know the exact amount of money donated to the US government each year. Nor am I certain what is implied by the question. Almost certainly it is somewhere between $0 and a lot. What's your point exactly?

Do I know any organizations that do well off of charity - certainly. Most support altruistic causes that would make Rand's head explode. Do you intend to try to prove Rand's point by making an example of something she would consider anethema? Any organization that is receiving money for free can be argued to be 'doing well', since it is getting something for nothing. The question is not whether being a charity works...it's whether government _by_ charity work.

Your example of laws is also a complete non-sequiter whose point I've apparently missed - where did I imply that a government just continuously makes definitions to no end? A government creates a working definition where it needs one in order to carry out its purpose. From time to time, that definition may change, or require further expansion, but that isn't the soul purpose of government. Government creates those definitions so it can carry out its real purpose - protecting individual rights.

The question of ideal - here I suppose I should be careful with my language - do you mean _my_ personal ideal, or how I was using it in reference to 'ideal situations' in Objectivist philosophy?

Personally, my 'ideal' is grounded in rational realism. For a solution to be 'ideal', it must achieve maximum results when subjected to real world application. If my logical reasoning points to a specific prediction in the real world, then, when turned to action, that prediction must be demonstrated as the result. Therefore, I would say my pursuit of the ideal is a pursuit similar to Scientific Inquiry. A philosophical statement, like a scientific hypothesis, must be grounded in observation of the real world, make a statement which is demonstratably related to that observation, make a prediction about its own application, and that prediction must be demonstrated to be true when subjected to trial. A philosophical statement which successfully predicts and is demonstrated to be true in application in the real world is my 'ideal' one...my scientific hypothesis, if you will.

My use of 'ideal' in the early statements was perhaps closer in meaning to the word 'utopian', which has a different connotation. It is true that many of Rand's 'ideal' philosophical axioms are also practical, but in the specific case of 'voluntary taxes', I know of no predictive cases which have yielded results. That is not to say that they do not exist - only that they are not yet observed. If you have a case, that would go a long way towards proving the point.

AT

[musashi]

I know we say charity is the way. But charity is sporadic at best, I can’t think of a single government I’d like to donate my money to.

Do you know how much Americans donate in charities every year?

It is a HUGE number. But would that number be anywhere near its size without the tax deduction shelter provided by the US government?

I am quite charitable (several thousand dollars each year), but I do not give a dime to anyone unless they have a 501(c) (3) ID.

Literature provides with some perspectives on a world mainly reliant on charity. Charles Dickens did a great job painting the images. Or for that matter we can walk the beaten dirt path in any shanty, in any undeveloped country. I've been in a few of the desperate places, maybe I could recommend one.

[Oleksandr]

Ok, I see what you mean.

In "Capitalism: the Unknown Ideal" Ayn Rand discusses possibilities of non-taxation for government funding.

And here is an answer to Musashi about donation:

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/ ... who_gives/

If we want to improve America's already impressive record of charitable giving -- as much as $250 billion annually.

That's $250 billion in donations at the present current state of crappiness in USA.

Imagine the amount of donations under a government where economy is not hampered and grows at an astonishing rate.

[musashi]

It is true that many of Rand's 'ideal' philosophical axioms are also practical, but in the specific case of 'voluntary taxes', I know of no predictive cases which have yielded results. That is not to say that they do not exist - only that they are not yet observed. If you have a case, that would go a long way towards proving the point.

How about that plexiglass box at the trailheads of National Parks in the US? The ones where they have the stack of maps that you can use to navigate the park. They put the box there so you can voluntarily help pay for the cost of producing the map. I see every color of chewing gum in those boxes, but rarely do I see any actual money. Sometimes I see the glass has been broken.

There is a negative example for you AT.

[musashi]

That's $250 billion in donations at the present current state of crappiness in USA.

Imagine the amount of donations under a government where economy is not hampered and grows at an astonishing rate.

People give for many different reasons.

I give as a form of revolt. By giving to a cause of my choice, I am taking my tax dollars out of the hands of the taxing government, which spends my money (my life force) in many ways that I do not support.

If I could not achieve this I doubt I would give anything.

[Arakasi Takeda]

Do you know how much Americans donate in charities every year?

It is a HUGE number. But would that number be anywhere near its size without the tax deduction shelter provided by the US government?

I am quite charitable (several thousand dollars each year), but I do not give a dime to anyone unless they have a 501(c) (3) ID.

Literature provides with some perspectives on a world mainly reliant on charity. Charles Dickens did a great job painting the images. Or for that matter we can walk the beaten dirt path in any shanty, in any undeveloped country. I've been in a few of the desperate places, maybe I could recommend one.

I think the above, even more than your plexiglass example, is a good negative demonstration of the principle of voluntary taxation. Some very large portion of the funds donated to charity every year in the US are the direct result of individuals and corporations attempting to _not_ pay taxes. If such taxes were completely voluntary, it is reasonable to assume that a large percentage, if not all, of those people simply would not pay them at all. It's not a scientific test, or an absolute statement of fact, but it certainly is reasonable, and, for that fact, testable. If we ever were to get to a situation of voluntary taxation, we would very quickly learn whether the above hypothesis or Rand's wins out.

AT

[Arakasi Takeda]

I give as a form of revolt. By giving to a cause of my choice, I am taking my tax dollars out of the hands of the taxing government, which spends my money (my life force) in many ways that I do not support.

Now there is a receipe for a utopian (maybe even ideal/practicable) way to handle taxation that I could support - a use tax as opposed to an income tax, coupled with Direct Democracy (instantaneous query of all citizens through some kind of advanced communication technology - like secure electronic voting over the internet) for the _allocation_ of funds collected from that taxation. The ability to dictate directly what you want _your_ tax funds to be applied to (or, more likely, specifically what you _don't_ want them applied to. We can't all be experts in knowing exactly what our needs for defense, policing, etc. are, but we can at least prevent immoral application of our money to causes we cannot, in good conscience, support).

AT[/quote]

[musashi]

If we ever were to get to a situation of voluntary taxation, we would very quickly learn whether the above hypothesis or Rand's wins out.

Actually we have had that situation. I finished a biography of George Washington a few weeks ago. In the early years of the United States, the power of taxation rested within each individual state. The situation was more than problematic. Washington had no money to pay or provision his revolutionary troops. When we think of the half-naked, frozen troops of Valley Forge this happened to them because of the in effectiveness of voluntary taxation. On multiple occasions he petitioned the Continental Congress for funding, but no State was willing to collect taxes unless they could be sure that all states would pay their fair share. And then there were questions about the fair level of taxation based on regional differences of income. It was a real morass.

Russia and then France came to the rescue with loans otherwise the revolt would have been suppressed. Ultimately Federalism was the vehicle the United States used to correct the “voluntary tax” mistake.

[Tolthar Lockbar]

How about Ron Paul? He is a Constitutionalist running for president. He has some flaws and is by no means a Objectivist, but he is supporting much more about freedom than most any other candidate.

He raised 18 million in one day from individuals. The most ever donated in one day. And he is supporting very low taxes--only an consumption tax.

Individuals may contribute up to $2,300.00. Couples may contribute up to $4,600.00. Contributions are not tax deductible. Corporate contributions are prohibited.

Is on the donation page.

Someone supporting freedom (in almost everything) and almost no taxes... people will donate.

This guy isn't even in the top 5 republicans list.

Remember the small role the government should have: police, national defense, and courts. I think this is a fine example that donations can be enough.

EDIT for minor spelling errors
EDIT for minor spelling errors in my last edit statement!

[Tolthar Lockbar]

Musashi: You are talking about a bunch of poor people left over from bad times. We are talking about a good stable economy. See my above ron paul example.

[Tolthar Lockbar]

coupled with Direct Democracy (instantaneous query of all citizens through some kind of advanced communication technology - like secure electronic voting over the internet) for the _allocation_ of funds collected from that taxation.

So if most people think that we should have faith based schools, then that is the right way to go? Also, do you think the average Joe would be competent on understanding individual rights and how to apply to others best?

Edit: changed "apply them best" to "apply to others best".

[Tolthar Lockbar]

Easy - laws defining the existence, purposes, rights, and responsibilities of a Union is the government's narrow defining of a specific example of the broader _individual_ right of Free Association

I'm confused here then, why is this redundancy needed? Is it not already covered by saying government should protect everyones right to life, liberty, and property?

[musashi]

How about Ron Paul?

Ron Paul, Ross Perot, Ralph Nader et al. These men are outsiders. They have no hope of transforming government, let alone being elected. And their fund raising lags far behind the show-ponies.

I’m not claiming that charity does not exist - it does. I’m claiming that charity is fickle, and can not be expected to be the sole underpinning of financial support for a government.

[Tolthar Lockbar]

Those numbers don't even include corporations. Think how much would be donated by corporations if there were many more the size of microsoft and google around? I doubt it would be a problem.

[Arakasi Takeda]

Quote:
Easy - laws defining the existence, purposes, rights, and responsibilities of a Union is the government's narrow defining of a specific example of the broader _individual_ right of Free Association

I'm confused here then, why is this redundancy needed? Is it not already covered by saying government should protect everyones right to life, liberty, and property

I believe you are overthinking this - what do you mean by this being a 'redundency'?

I believe I have a 'right of Free Speech'. But what is that, exactly? How would you define it? What I consider Free Speech may be different than another individual's definition. In order to understand fully the dimensions of what consitutes Free Speech and the utilization of that right, the government attempts to craft a single unifying definition, which it can use as a guideline for knowing exactly _what_ to defend, and when to step in to defend it. That's called a law.

In the case of Union laws, both business owners and labor have a right to 'Free Association', but, pre 1935, the two groups differed in their belief of what that right was, or how far it extended, within the context of forming labor organizations. So, in order to determine whether or not the government had a necessity of intervening on what the labor side determined was an infringement of their individual rights, the government had to have some kind of guideline about what 'Free Association' meant in that context. Until that point, there was no legislation to guide government about what to do. Union laws defined for the government what the dimensions of Free Association are, in the context of labor/management relations.

It's not a redundency at all - it's a clairification of what the right is, within a specific context where two different interest groups did not have prior agreement.

AT

[Tolthar Lockbar]

But isn't 'Right of Free Speech' and 'Free Association' stated in the more abstract concept of individual rights?

[Arakasi Takeda]

But isn't 'Right of Free Speech' and 'Free Association' stated in the more abstract concept of individual rights?

What is an 'abstract concept of individual rights'? - If a right is 'abstract', then it is meaningless. I could claim anything is a right, if you have no definition of what rights are. At some point, you must define them.

AT

[Oleksandr]

Would you show how you can claim anything under the following abstract definition:

http://www.aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/i ... ights.html

?

[Arakasi Takeda]

How about Ron Paul?

This isn't exactly on-topic, since your statement appears to deal strictly with Ron Paul's ability to gather donations (a subject I'll return to), but there is a simply fundamental reason why I would never support Ron Paul.

Because doing so would require a willing suspension of my own reason.

Politics does not occur in a vacuum. Much as many politicians like to believe that the electorate is a bunch of sheep with a five second attention span, thinking members of the species recognize that there is such a things as 'the past', and that we can gather information from 'the past' to inform us in making rational decisions about 'the future' - specifically, how we can expect a politican to act in office, rather than how they claim they will act in their campaign speeches.

So when I go back to Ron Paul's previous statements, and I see things like this:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html

The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers....The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance.

coupled with more recent statements such as this:

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/ar ... 14021.html

Audience member: I saw you in one of the earlier debates, all of the candidates were asked if they believe the theory of evolution to be true and they had a show of hands, but I didn’t see which way you voted, and I was wondering if you believe it to be true, and should it be taught in our schools.

Paul: First, I thought it was a very inappropriate question, you know, for the presidency to be decided on a scientific matter. And I, um, I think it’s a theory, theory of evolution, and I don’t accept it, you know, as a theory…. I just don’t think we’re at a point where anybody has absolute proof, on either side.

my BS meter overloads. Whatever _his_ particular opinions on certain political freedoms are, I am not aware of anything resembling a 'Right to be Divorced from Reality'. Any individual who would distort recorded history to fight his particular idealogical slant, and would ignore basic scientific _reality_ could never, in my opinion, make a successful leader.

I look at the above statements, and I imaging a similarly worded example, like the following:

"Albert Einstein had some serious misgivings about the _Theory_ of Newtonian gravity. Because this great leader of scientific thought believed there were some 'holes' in Newton's hypothesis, I do also. In fact, I think the evidence on gravity is still out...it's just a _theory_, after all. How do we know that you can't jump off a cliff and _not_ fall? We just haven't seen all the evidence yet."

Anyone who has the slightest inkling of actually buying into that kind of argument is encouraged to test it by jumping off the tallest building they can find.

Ron Paul's statement's above range from utter falsehood (The majority of Founding Fathers were deists, not theologians) to an incompetent understanding of what a scientific 'Theory' really is, all packaged as a nice bit of pandering to a specific minority interest group. Whether or not he's just saying it to appease that group is irrelevant. Either he really is that stupid, or he's deliberately lying, and both cases disqualify him as being a leader in my mind.

AT

[Arakasi Takeda]

Would you show how you can claim anything under the following abstract definition:

http://www.aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/i ... ights.html

The word 'abstract' isn't mine - you and Tolthar are the ones using it; the url you supplied leads to a text which, in my mind, is not an 'abstract' definition, but a very deliberate attempt to create a concrete meaning for the term 'individual rights'. In the specific case, what you are calling the 'abstract concept of individual rights' is defined into two strict cases - the Right to Life and the Right of Property, each of which is also given strict definitions, and supplied with logical outcomes of their application.

One could very easily imagine the State (I definitely prefer that term to 'government', even though we are using them interchangeably in the above discussions') taking such a philosophical outline, and using it as the basis to determine its necessary actions and boundaries in regards to defending those rights. The result of such a deliberation would be a Law, outlining the individual's rights to Life and Property, what steps the State must take to defend them, and how to redress greviances when they are violated.

AT

[Tolthar Lockbar]

I merely said more freedom than other canditates, but far from an objectivist. BTW, he doesn't compaine for donations, he just gets them. This is really a small issue--since the right move would be to start with a fed sales tax anyways. You can't drop the ball all at once and not expect chaos.