Rand, TTI and Disaster Capitalism

[Arakasi Takeda]

Arakasi Takeda wrote:
The biggest issue I see with the application of Objectivist theory to the 'real world' is that most Objectivists (how about just Observers?) simply can't tell the difference between Rearden Steel and Associated Steel.

Its simple, are they lobbying the goverment to force someone in some way, or aren't they? Are they built on subsidies, or not? I don't see what this has to do with the "dollar chasers" during the big hurricane. Maybe I just don't know enough about that situation though.

Also, either way, for Unions to work, it takes the work of goverment to enforce it. And forcing to negociate is force. Just like taxes.. if you don't pay, you go to jail eventually. If you don't negociate, they take your property. There is nothing a Union does that individuals couldn't do alone. Unions just try to take things out of the market values, just like coersive monopolies--and both of these take goverment involvement to happen.

Now I know companies do ask goverment to force others but not all companies. I agree that is bad. And if someone can't tell the difference, even when they have the evidence, then they are NOT Objectivist.

Lastly, I miss reading short post...

I'll try to keep this post short then, out of respect.

1) Are companies like Haliburton and Blackwater lobbying the government for no bid contracts? Answer, Yes.

2) For Unions to work, you have to have government 'forcing' it. Answer - No, Unions work just fine without government enforcement. The problem is that, in actual practice before the NLRA, the result was escalating violence between Unions and Management that resulted in Property Damage, Injury, and Death.

3) Forcing to negotiate is force - Answer, how are _you_ using the word 'forcing' here. Is someone holding a gun to their head yelling 'Negotiate damn you!". I continue to maintain that having a law that says you need to sit down and have a civil discussion instead of beating each other over the head with sticks is the antithesis of force.

4) There's nothing a Union does that an individual can't do - Answer, okay, suppose I take that logically as a yes. By the same reasoning, there's nothing a company can do that an individual cannot. Therefore, we should outlaw incorporation in the same way we would outlaw unionization. No more limited liability, no more shareholder protections, etc. That's the sarcastic answer. The real answer is that there is something a Union does that an individual cannot do - balance the inherent advantage of corporations in negotiating contracts of employment.

5) Paying Taxes is force - Maybe this will cause some members of this forum's head to explode, but if you intend to take advantage of government to uphold contractual law and provide for the defense of your property, why should this service be rendered for free? If you don't uphold your end of the contractual bargain for this protection, why should you not face penalties for contractual infringement?

Where government interference costs _more_ than the expenses related to defense of property and upholding the rights of individuals, I would agree. But to call all taxes force is to ignore the fundamental nature of what government is and what service it provided even to an Objectivist world . Even Rand acknowledges the necessity of government and the reality of its expenditures.


AT

[Tolthar Lockbar]

I'll try to keep this post short then, out of respect.

And it ended up being more clear and to the point! hehe

1) Are companies like Haliburton and Blackwater lobbying the government for no bid contracts? Answer, Yes.

What are these "no bid contracts" and how are they forcing anyone? Are they just negociating a contract with the government, or are they trying to force something on others.

3) Forcing to negotiate is force - Answer, how are _you_ using the word 'forcing' here. Is someone holding a gun to their head yelling 'Negotiate damn you!". I continue to maintain that having a law that says you need to sit down and have a civil discussion instead of beating each other over the head with sticks is the antithesis of force.

Suppose that you had a guy that mowed your lawn. He decided that he wants you to pay him a million bucks. Then the government passes a law that says you have to negociate with him or go to jail/lose your lawn. How is this not force? The only "civil" thing to do here is fire him and find someone else. I mean physical force here, cause that is what it is.

2) For Unions to work, you have to have government 'forcing' it. Answer - No, Unions work just fine without government enforcement. The problem is that, in actual practice before the NLRA, the result was escalating violence between Unions and Management that resulted in Property Damage, Injury, and Death.

4) There's nothing a Union does that an individual can't do - Answer, okay, suppose I take that logically as a yes. By the same reasoning, there's nothing a company can do that an individual cannot. Therefore, we should outlaw incorporation in the same way we would outlaw unionization. No more limited liability, no more shareholder protections, etc. That's the sarcastic answer. The real answer is that there is something a Union does that an individual cannot do - balance the inherent advantage of corporations in negotiating contracts of employment.

These are realy the same issue. A company is a group of people agreeing to work with each other voluntarially. A union should be no more than the same (with no government backup). If that is the case, then all you are saying is a group of people saying: "If you quit and complain, I will too". That is fine. That is not what unions do though. There is no force here, and really, its just a individual deciding to quit. I put your 3 above this one because it is a premise for these two.

5) Paying Taxes is force - Maybe this will cause some members of this forum's head to explode, but if you intend to take advantage of government to uphold contractual law and provide for the defense of your property, why should this service be rendered for free? If you don't uphold your end of the contractual bargain for this protection, why should you not face penalties for contractual infringement?

Government is not private and has a different context because it has the use of force. But see question 6.

Where government interference costs _more_ than the expenses related to defense of property and upholding the rights of individuals, I would agree. But to call all taxes force is to ignore the fundamental nature of what government is and what service it provided even to an Objectivist world . Even Rand acknowledges the necessity of government and the reality of its expenditures.

Income taxes are immoral because they are bias. A spending tax is fair. Ayn Rand acknowledged income taxes as being immoral.

[Oleksandr]

Being forced to talk to someone you disagree with, in good faith? - sorry, that's not my definition of force.

I think this is where you're getting off what Olek is trying to say...

Haha, I was going to reply to AT, but Ciaras already pointed out all points that I wanted to state to AT. Thanks, Ciaras.

So, instead I'll watch latest developments and fill in if Tolthar misses something.

[musashi]

Also, either way, for Unions to work, it takes the work of government to enforce it. And forcing to negotiate is force.

"The Molly Maguires" movie was insightful for me. It is rather old school, so you may not have heard about it. But no unions and business owners existed independent of government early on. The government got involved for its own self-interest: namely stable supplies of things like coal and food, and the suppression of class warfare.

The Pinkerton Riots were one of the early events involving government intervention in labor disputes. Interesting in those riots government sided with the business owners. The conflict was a quasi-government army (the Pinkertons) against the labor unionists. The Pinkertons were notoriously nasty customers with their own spies and death squads. Real world equivalents of the Pinkertons exist and are employed today.

One thing is constant through the history I’ve read – everyone plays for keeps.

[Arakasi Takeda]

Quote:
1) Are companies like Haliburton and Blackwater lobbying the government for no bid contracts? Answer, Yes.

What are these "no bid contracts" and how are they forcing anyone? Are they just negociating a contract with the government, or are they trying to force something on others.

Ahhhh....I understand now. You are missing some vitally important context.

The contracts 'negotiated' between the government and Haliburton were 'No Bid'. What this means is that a lobbyist from the company and a lobbyist from the government got together and agreed _not_ to let the marketplace decide who got to do the work. Haliburton and _only_ Haliburton was offered the contract. No other companies were offered a chance [/b] to bid for the work[/b], or negotiate on it. In otherwords, it was direct 'pull' in action.

Dick Cheney, our current Vice President, was a former Haliburton CEO. They received this _special_ offer entirely with his influence. It had nothing to do with the market.

Quote:
3) Forcing to negotiate is force - Answer, how are _you_ using the word 'forcing' here. Is someone holding a gun to their head yelling 'Negotiate damn you!". I continue to maintain that having a law that says you need to sit down and have a civil discussion instead of beating each other over the head with sticks is the antithesis of force.

Suppose that you had a guy that mowed your lawn. He decided that he wants you to pay him a million bucks. Then the government passes a law that says you have to negociate with him or go to jail/lose your lawn. How is this not force? The only "civil" thing to do here is fire him and find someone else. I mean physical force here, cause that is what it is.

Do you always negotiate payment after someone performs a service? If so, you deserve to get suckered. If I had a guy who mowed my lawn, I'd expect him to name his price up front, and agree or not agree to it.

But suppose we had a contract and, later, he requested to change the contract details to your rather extreme scenario above (we'll ignore the fact that such a request on his part would be laughed out of any court if he chose to pursue it, unless my yard is thousands of acres in size).

Objection One - nothing in the NLRA or Taft-Hartley supports your idea that I would lose my lawn. Taft-Harltey renders all negotiations I may be required to have as voluntary, and does not specify any penalty of property forfeiture.

Objection Two - ignoring that I don't even have to show up to this negotiation because Taft-Hartley has made that voluntary (see the statute itself linked in my response to Olek), all it states is that I should show up and allow him to say his peace. Nothing compels me to agree to it. He must also listen to me offer my terms as respectfully as I am compelled to hear his. And the reason I am 'required' to show up and allow him to say his peace at all is because the government prefers that to the idea that I would launch out of my house and hit in between the eyes with a baseball bat for uttering such a stupid set of terms.

I still don't understand the idea that this law is 'force'. Sure, it is backed by the 'force' of government (disregarding the fact that the statute is _voluntary_ and has no penalties for non-compliance). It's existence was brought about as a antidote to the real use of force by both sides of the Management/Labor disputes of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Overlooking the factual, historical context of this law is ludicrous in examining it's purpose.

Quote:
2) For Unions to work, you have to have government 'forcing' it. Answer - No, Unions work just fine without government enforcement. The problem is that, in actual practice before the NLRA, the result was escalating violence between Unions and Management that resulted in Property Damage, Injury, and Death.

4) There's nothing a Union does that an individual can't do - Answer, okay, suppose I take that logically as a yes. By the same reasoning, there's nothing a company can do that an individual cannot. Therefore, we should outlaw incorporation in the same way we would outlaw unionization. No more limited liability, no more shareholder protections, etc. That's the sarcastic answer. The real answer is that there is something a Union does that an individual cannot do - balance the inherent advantage of corporations in negotiating contracts of employment.

These are realy the same issue. A company is a group of people agreeing to work with each other voluntarially. A union should be no more than the same (with no government backup). If that is the case, then all you are saying is a group of people saying: "If you quit and complain, I will too". That is fine. That is not what unions do though. There is no force here, and really, its just a individual deciding to quit. I put your 3 above this one because it is a premise for these two.

I believe you are demonstrating either a bias or misunderstanding in the above - a company is most certainly not just a group of people agreeing to work with each other voluntarially. A company is a legal entity carefully defined by law, whose rights and responsibilities are clearly defined by those laws, and whose adherence to those laws and regulations are enforceable by government and upheld by legal precedant in court. Companies gain legal rights such as limited liability protection, stockholder protections, etc. percisely because they are _contractual_ obligations made between the various investors and partners, and enforced by government. Try asking any senior partner in a US company if they would be willing to suspend their legal protections of limited liability and work with their other partners, investors, and against their competition, if everything was _voluntary_ instead of contractually required. They would laugh you out of their offices.

A union is the same - joining a union, like joining a company, is an act of volition, but, once a member, there are _contractual_ obligations, rights, and responsibilities. That is how these two entities are the same.

To further build on the example. If a corporation acts illegally because of the decision of one partner, the whole company is liable. It may act to remove the one party within itself, but, contractually, the whole company is liable. Of course, under the same laws, the individual partners are shielded from the actions of the one criminal - it is the _company_ that takes the brunt of punishment. That's what limited liability does. In such a case, the company acts as a whole - an entity unto itself. The partners are both bound to act together in the companies interest, but shielded from individual penalties.

A union acts on the same principle. Actions of the union are taken as an entity. When the union strikes, the _whole_ union strikes. The individual 'partners' within are bound to act in the union's interests. However, no individual union member can be targeted for reprisal either - the union shields its members from individual penalties in the same way incorporation shields the individual partners.

Unions and corporations are made up of individual actors. But you cannot discuss either without discussing the status of these as institutions recognized by law. They are entities unto themselves under the law. Individuals who are part of them have additional rights and additional restrictions based on that membership. You cannot exercise those rights without accepting those responsibilites.

Quote:
5) Paying Taxes is force - Maybe this will cause some members of this forum's head to explode, but if you intend to take advantage of government to uphold contractual law and provide for the defense of your property, why should this service be rendered for free? If you don't uphold your end of the contractual bargain for this protection, why should you not face penalties for contractual infringement?

Government is not private and has a different context because it has the use of force. But see question 6.

Quote:
Where government interference costs _more_ than the expenses related to defense of property and upholding the rights of individuals, I would agree. But to call all taxes force is to ignore the fundamental nature of what government is and what service it provided even to an Objectivist world . Even Rand acknowledges the necessity of government and the reality of its expenditures.

Income taxes are immoral because they are bias. A spending tax is fair. Ayn Rand acknowledged income taxes as being immoral.

Specifying Income here is what makes your argument sound - neither you nor I made any such distinction in our previous statements. I share your and Rand's appraisal - Income taxes are amoral. But, as you state, USE taxes are not necessarily. Use taxes are, fundamental, no different than a payment for services. I was simply taking aim at your very general statement that Taxes are force - that is not true in all cases.


AT

[Oleksandr]

But to call all taxes force is to ignore the fundamental nature of what government is and what service it provided even to an Objectivist world . Even Rand acknowledges the necessity of government and the reality of its expenditures.

AT

Actually, that's incorrect.

Any taxes are a force that a government has no right to initiate.

Ayn Rand did acknowledge the necessity of government, but even more so she said it's proper that government should exist.

However, she specifically said that taxes are immoral. An individual has a right to pay nothing to government if he wishes so. She also explained that there are non-taxing ways to support government spendings.

Taxes are not payment for services.


Morally, any government must be supported by voluntary support from its citizens. A government doesn't have a moral right to collect taxes for its services.


That's an Objectivist position.

P.S. If you wish I can bring up references, though it would take me time, since I don't have all books at hand.

[Oleksandr]

Before the NLRA was passed in 1935, it was common practice for business owners to hire union breakers, arm them, and send them against potential union organizers in their workforce. These thugs used to break peoples legs and even assassinate the most vocal organizers.

You don't provide enough context here to make a decision if it's moral or not.

Breaking legs by itself is not moral or immoral.

For example:

1. if a union enters private property and threatens to destroy stuff, then it's moral for a company to use its private force for self-defense and break legs if necessary.

2. if corporation attacks those union strikers without self-defense, then it's a criminal offense, which was already covered by laws.

Thus, in either case, union laws are not necessary in any form or context at all.

[Oleksandr]

The government got involved for its own self-interest: namely stable supplies of things like coal and food, and the suppression of class warfare.

Neither of which is a job for the government.

Government must protect individual rights, not some supply of minerals or one class disliking another - that's what criminals laws are for.

[Arakasi Takeda]

Arakasi Takeda wrote:
Before the NLRA was passed in 1935, it was common practice for business owners to hire union breakers, arm them, and send them against potential union organizers in their workforce. These thugs used to break peoples legs and even assassinate the most vocal organizers.

You don't provide enough context here to make a decision if it's moral or not.

Breaking legs by itself is not moral or immoral.

For example:

1. if a union enters private property and threatens to destroy stuff, then it's moral for a company to use its private force for self-defense and break legs if necessary.

2. if corporation attacks those union strikers without self-defense, then it's a criminal offense, which was already covered by laws.

Thus, in either case, union laws are not necessary in any form or context at all.

In the historical context, such as the Pinkerton riots alluded to earlier by Musashi, both of the above cases are documented to have occured. Violence in the form of physical injury, property destructions, and death where utilized by both sides. So, leg-breaking, in the historical context, was both moral and immoral, based on the context around each historical event.

Now, you go from making a good point about the context of events to making a leap of rhetorical logic in stating that 'union laws are not necessary in any form or context at all'. To the issue of tackling individual criminal acts perpetrated by both sides, you might be correct. But the government of the United States took the view that, rather than deal with individual cases, it would address the root cause of the violence, which was the relationships which existed between business management and unions at the time. It recognized, as pointed out by musashi, and as listed in the first section of the NLRA itself, a need by the state to maintain the consistent and orderly flow of trade and resources, and saw that this goal was being blocked by the actions of these two entities.

So the law reflects the government's compromise. It recognized, first and foremost, the right of both entities to exist - companies AND unions. And THAT is where the first necessity of 'union laws' occurs. If such an organization has a right to exist through free association, the government must have a way to recognize it legally. The same is true of the laws of incorporation that allow companies to exist. And once the entity is recognized legally, the government must further spell out how that entity is to act, what rights it has, and what laws pertain to it under the law. All of these form the body of the NLRA and all further ammendments (such as Taft Hartley).


AT

[Arakasi Takeda]

musashi wrote:
The government got involved for its own self-interest: namely stable supplies of things like coal and food, and the suppression of class warfare.

Neither of which is a job for the government.

Government must protect individual rights, not some supply of minerals or one class disliking another - that's what criminals laws are for.

You are taking a very literalist approach to the philosophy, without taking a deeper look at the actual outcome of its application.

The government _does_ have an interest in the stable supply of coal and food, in and _only_ in as much as the government has the duty to protect an individual's right to trade in coal and food, and to expect to be able to do so in a market free of violence.

If you insist that the government must protect individual rights,
And you insist that one individual right is the right to trade in coal and food
Then, logically, the government must take an interest in preventing violence from disrupting the right to trade in those commodities.

If workplace violence, class warfare, or attempts to manipulate the market in those commodities result in an infringement of that individual right, then the government must take an interest in those things in order to do its duty.

Above all, a philosophy only has value in its application. In the real world, outside of flattering platitudes about what we 'think' we value, our philosophy has concrete, logical outcomes from its proper application. Forget the words and look at the actions - if a government takes no interest in these things, how can it possibly take an interest in protecting an individual's right to do them?


AT

[Oleksandr]

It recognized, as pointed out by musashi, and as listed in the first section of the NLRA itself, a need by the state to maintain the consistent and orderly flow of trade and resources, and saw that this goal was being blocked by the actions of these two entities.

A need for whom? For the good of the group? The government should never work towards keeping a flow of trade - but only to protect rights. And there is no such right as doing business in economy that has a flow of trade.

Now, do _you_ think there is such a right? If so, what makes it a right?

[Arakasi Takeda]

Arakasi Takeda wrote:
But to call all taxes force is to ignore the fundamental nature of what government is and what service it provided even to an Objectivist world . Even Rand acknowledges the necessity of government and the reality of its expenditures.

AT

Actually, that's incorrect.

Any taxes are a force that a government has no right to initiate.

Ayn Rand did acknowledge the necessity of government, but even more so she said it's proper that government should exist.

However, she specifically said that taxes are immoral. An individual has a right to pay nothing to government if he wishes so. She also explained that there are non-taxing ways to support government spendings.

Taxes are not payment for services.


Morally, any government must be supported by voluntary support from its citizens. A government doesn't have a moral right to collect taxes for its services.


That's an Objectivist position.

P.S. If you wish I can bring up references, though it would take me time, since I don't have all books at hand.

For the sake of my argument, it's unnecessary - I will assume you are completely accurate.

Again, my dispute here falls on the difference between speaking the words of a philosophy and actually carrying it out. Rand may have indeed state that a core of her belief is that no one _has_ to pay taxes if they don't want to.

What is the logical outcome of following this idea literally?

You are correct - a person isn't _morally_ obligated to pay for government services. They are also not _morally_ obligated to receive any protection of their individual rights. They are not _morally_ obligated to be free of violence. It is not really a question of _moral_ issues. A government, which is an entity made up of individuals cooperating in their own interests, supplies these things not because it is morally required to, but because it is in the best interests of the citizens to organize to _act_ to preserve their rights and property. The only true _moral_ act is to act in ones self interest. Everything else is derivative. Randian morals are just derivative ideas eminating from this single directive, in a way that emphasises what 'proper' self-interest is (by 'Proper', I mean to separate Randian ideas from other 'law of the jungle' philosophies which might argue that 'self-interest' could be defined to include things like application of force or theft, so long as one is the aggressor and not the victim. Rand belief in capitalism rejects these ideas - 'proper' self-interest limits the interaction of self and others to mutual advantage, not force).

Going even further, the real world is distinctly non-Randian in its current evolution of society. So an individual who isn't _morally_ obligated to pay taxes is also not _morally_ obligated to be given access to public roads, public transportation, publicly subsidized electrical power, publicly-controlled electromagnetic spectrum (radio waves), public education, publicly subsidized healthcare, etc.. In applying the 'literal' philosophy, they would not be obligated to get much at all. And, if someone aggrevied them, they wouldn't be obligated to receive any kind of recompense or justice from the government for the offense. So yes, you might have a right to wild west justice, but that's only going to serve you so far in the real world (especially if the other person _IS_ paying taxes, and can call on government to protect them from you).

Perhaps, if the whole of human civilization has anticipated Rand and our societies had _begun_ as Objectivist, we could all be living in a world where government is neither necessary or welcome. But that can be said of many philosophies - if only things _were_ this way, or had _been_ that way. It's a Utopian impulse. Most likely, it's unachievable. The way to make progress with a utopian philosophy is to apply it realistically to the universe you have, not the one you want.

AT

[Tolthar Lockbar]

So government and no taxes is a contradiction?

[Arakasi Takeda]

Arakasi Takeda wrote:
It recognized, as pointed out by musashi, and as listed in the first section of the NLRA itself, a need by the state to maintain the consistent and orderly flow of trade and resources, and saw that this goal was being blocked by the actions of these two entities.

A need for whom? For the good of the group? The government should never work towards keeping a flow of trade - but only to protect rights. And there is no such right as doing business in economy that has a flow of trade.

Now, do _you_ think there is such a right? If so, what makes it a right?

[bangs head against the wall]

Olek - is Galt's Gulch evil?

What is Galt's Gulch, but a group of people? Sure, it's full of individuals, all whom happen to share John Galt's vision...but if they _share_ something, does that make them a group, and therefore automatically evil? Their acting together, even if their motives are individual. They occupy the same limited space, they appear to function as a society. That makes them a group. Isn't that Socialism? It appears to be, according to the way you are using the word 'group'.

You talk about 'The good of the group' as a rhetorical tool, without stopping to consider the implication or context of the statement. What is a _group_, but a gathering of individuals? Is it not possible for there to be a relationship between individuals seeking their own self-interest? A relationship automatically implies 'more than one', and is synonymous with 'group'. To understand whether the word group is being used to mean 'socialism' versus an entity like the Gulch, you have to open your mind and look at context.

In the quotes above, look at how 'group' is used.

A need for whom, you ask? In the context, we're talking about government. What is a 'government need'? Using government as defined _by Objectivism_, a 'government need' would be that which is considered a need by the self-interested individuals who make up that government. The government has a need to function as it was intended by those who make it up - it's _need_ is to protect the individual rights of its citizens (we are using government broadly here - in reference to a State, not just the bureaucrats at the top). The government is not acting as a trade partner, which is what you are implying in your statement. The way it is being used in that quote is as an agent to protect the rights of individuals, of whom it is comprised, to carry out trade - To perform Capitalism. THAT is the government's only need and only function. To serve the individuals.

What is a right to do business, to maintain a flow of trade? In the context of the quote above, it is simply The Right of Individual Traders to engage in Capitalism. To trade for mutual benefit. The government has a duty to ensure that capitalism can be performed, that the marketplace exists, instead of coercion and force.

Are you suggesting there is no right to perform Capitalism? I believe Rand would argue that Capitalism is the only moral way to act, so anything that prevents you from acting that way forces you to be immoral. You must have a 'right' to act morally, or the whole idea of a moral code collapses. Indeed, suggesting that you have no 'right' to act in any specific way destroys the whole meaning of morals, ethics, and law. To conform to any of these, you must have free will - the right to act.


AT

[Tolthar Lockbar]

Are you saying that a government creates rights? In other words, where do you think one's individual rights come from?

[Arakasi Takeda]

So government and no taxes is a contradiction?

I assume you and I would define these things the same way, so let us check our premises:

1) A government, as defined by Objectivism, is an organization voluntarily created by individuals whom, acting in their self interest, form an authority for the purposes of protecting individual rights and property, and to ajudicate conflicts in contractual dealings.

I would argue that, implicit in the above definition, is the requirement that government be able to _act_ on the stated purposes. In order for A to be A, a body formed for the purpose of defending indivudal rights must be able to act to defend individual rights.

2) Taxes

I define taxes simply as the means by which a government acquires the necessities it needs to preform its functions. I believe taxes are comparable to a payment for services - the government takes the money it is given by individuals, and then carries out its function - building armies, training police, staffing courts, etc. Bullets and prisons and courtrooms don't magically appear just because a government forms. Any government formed of Objectivists is going to act in a manner conforming to the interests of Objectivists. It will hold to the same moral code, because a government of Objectivists is just a _group_ of Objectivists. To get the things it needs, it must pay for them. But the only thing it has to pay with is the currency taken in by the citizens creating it.

Now, Olek disputes that Taxes actual are a payment for services. [I believe it is rendering a service, but is paid in advance for it with the understanding that all funds taken in will be used for those purposes alone]. Thus, he might not believe the above, and I cannot rectify the definition until I know what he considers taxes to be. In the meantime, I will assume you share the idea.

Taxes, thus, are the means of achieving governments ends. They are the way in which a government acquires the ability to _act_ on its purpose.


With those premises in mind, the answer to your question is Yes, a government and no taxes is a contradiction in terms. To create an entity with the purpose of defending individual rights, but without the _means_ of achieving that goal, may be to create something, but I do not believe that something conforms to the definition of a government. In that case, A would not equal A.

If you believe that the word government can be defined in such a way that it keeps the purpose but not the means, well then, we wouldn't define them the same way, and the logical syllogism has no meaning.

So the answer to your question requires both of us to have the same definition of government AND of taxes. If we share the same definitions, I think you will agree that your statement is a contradiction.


AT

[Arakasi Takeda]

Are you saying that a government creates rights? In other words, where do you think one's individual rights come from?

Not at all. A government's purpose is to _defend_ individual rights.

Now, to function, a government must often define what it understands to be those specific rights - what they are, how far they extend, etc. - which it does by enacting laws, holding trials, etc. But that kind of 'defining a right' should not be confused with the idea that it 'creates' that right.

I might not 'create' a tree, or a plot of land, but, for legal purposes, I might need to define what a 'tree' is (to distinguish it from a bush or other type of plant), or to define the dimensions of a plot of land for real estate sale....


AT

[Tolthar Lockbar]

Lets stick with definitions from the here

If voluntary contrabutions is considered taxation, then I agree with that point.

[Tolthar Lockbar]

Not at all. A government's purpose is to _defend_ individual rights.

So can you tell me why there should be any act/law/ruling that says anything about unions, based on what you said here?

[Arakasi Takeda]

Lets stick with definitions from the here

If voluntary contrabutions is considered taxation, then I agree with that point.

I think your choice of definition is very telling:

1) It does conclude that taxes are 'payments for governmental services'

2) It suggests that taxation should be voluntary, but fails to suggest a way for this to be carried out. Instead, it reads thus:

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.

In other words, as I suggested to Olek in my response to him - this definition gives the ideal, not the practical application. And my argument is that the practical application is the real test of any philosophy. You can quote the ideal that 'taxes should be voluntary', but if you do not examine the practical outcome of that statement, it is meaningless.


AT

[Tolthar Lockbar]

The task of political philosophy is only to establish the nature of the principle and to demonstrate that it is practicable.

Did you miss this part? Demonstrate that it is practicable means that philosophy still has to show that it is practicable. "Political Philosophy" is not the same as "Philosophy of Law". She is saying it is practicable, but the actual best way of doing it is for the philosophy of law.

So something that is ideal is not always practical... what is your standard of ideal then?

[Arakasi Takeda]

Not at all. A government's purpose is to _defend_ individual rights.

So can you tell me why there should be any act/law/ruling that says anything about unions, based on what you said here?

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, as outlined by the First Ammendment of the US Constitution. I happen to believe that the US Bill of Rights is a pretty good model for defining several 'natural' rights of individuals, of which Free Association is one (along with Free Speech, Free Religion, the Right to Bear Arms, The Protection against Illegal Search and Seizure, etc.)

The _reason_ that such a law should exist is because members of the government (more appropriately, the State, and, in this context, the laboring class) have felt their right of free association in this context has been infringed by members of another class (business owners), and has petitioned the government for redress. This is exactly the type of issue government is organized for - to judicate a dispute and protect individual rights.

Again, the NLRA and Taft-Hartley are merely the government's attempt to define one aspect of this natural right possessed by individuals, and to structure its ability to defend or judicate that right within the specific context to which this definition applies (i.e. Labor/management contracts)


AT

[Arakasi Takeda]

Quote:
The task of political philosophy is only to establish the nature of the principle and to demonstrate that it is practicable.

Did you miss this part? Demonstrate that it is practicable means that philosophy still has to show that it is practicable. "Political Philosophy" is not the same as "Philosophy of Law". She is saying it is practicable, but the actual best way of doing it is for the philosophy of law.

So something that is ideal is not always practical... what is your standard of ideal then?

I didn't miss it at all....surely your recognize that that specific quote is purely rhetorical and has no meaning - She states that political philosophy can demonstrate this it is practical, but she doesn't actuallydemonstrate it....she leaves it to something else.

That's an appeal to authority, a logical fallacy. In this case, it's doubly worse because she is her own authority. There's no evidence that voluntary taxation is practicable, she's just _saying_ it is, without support, and expecting people to believe the statement at face value.

My standard for proving whether an ideal is practicable is whether or not, when applied to reality, the ideal produces the results it claims to. I expect evidence to be demonstrated within Objective Reality, not spoon fed to me with logical fallacies.


AT

[/quote]

[musashi]

The government got involved for its own self-interest: namely stable supplies of things like coal and food, and the suppression of class warfare.

Neither of which is a job for the government.

Government must protect individual rights, not some supply of minerals or one class disliking another - that's what criminal laws are for.

Yes by the ideas set forth by Ayn Rand, these issues should not be the province of government. But, from a practical standpoint these are the types of massive events that topple governments. So if the party in power desires to retain its position, general order and the welfare of the populous are important items to maintain.

This is the great thing about our discussions, we work to transform ideas into systems that could function in the real world.

[Oleksandr]

She states that political philosophy can demonstrate this it is practical, but she doesn't actuallydemonstrate it....she leaves it to something else.

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

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