What are the responsibilities of an Objectivist government?
Posted by rlewellen 10 years, 10 months ago to Government
I have listened to everything thing from businesses should pay no taxes to America is not a sovereign country and there should be no regulations on anything. Certainly the government has some responsibilities.
Now, you might want a system of voluntary contributions, but they couldn't be considered taxes.
I think something more along the lines of voluntary contributions for services, such as fire departments, would be appropriate. You can either pay voluntarily, based on the value of what is at risk of fire (and if you had fire control risk reductions, you would get a reduced rate), or you can pay the actual costs after the fact, or you can totally reject all service in which if you had a fire, the fire dept would only protect surrounding "clients" and let yours burn.
Similarly for the courts, loser pays would support those costs.
1. People not paying enough, things get underfunded, shit hits the fan, and people decide to pay a little more.
Repeat until balance occurs.
2. The government can issue certificates of contribution, or a receipt, for donations. This creates a larger incentive for big business to contribute, as they can use it as a marketing strategy. They do the same thing with charities.
3. The richest people have the most to lose and will be the first to need a police system and military. This creates an actual incentive for them to pay more instead of having any loop holes.
4. The government can publish what the money is going to be used for so that anyone willing to contribute can see where their money is going. You can even have a private business dedicated to scrutinizing the budget and making it's own recommendations.
There may be more answers, but I think the current answer, force them to pay at gun point, is the worst answer you could think of to pay for something.
On a tiny scale, government of a city, town or village would provide police, firefighting and water, sewer, etc.
On a personal level, defense and infrastructure would consist of loss prevention and growth....which are the building blocks of a moral, rational and free life and hence, nation.
Heck, the DNR has more authority than your local sheriff - they can confiscate your weapons, vehicle, etc. without any legal finding of breaking a law, merely on the word of the official.
Regulation: Government rules which control how you use your own property.
Law: Government rules which control how you use other people's property.
I guess those are pretty good definitions, but what about the word "legislation"? How do you define that?
Well, can a peace of legislation differ from a government mandate? I think they're the same.
Geez, we've sure got a lot of different words that all mean "rule" don't we? But yeah, I don't really know what the difference is between a government mandate and a piece of legislation, either. While we're at it, we may as well throw in the words decree, guideline, ruling, statute, and act. I think there may be a few other such words, too...
Personally, I don't really think the definitions matter so much as their impact on society. That is, regardless of what kind of label or word we use to describe a rule established by government, what matters is that we ensure such rules are beneficial to both society and individuals rather than harmful and destructive. That's the important part.
Also, is the person who writes the rule really the only thing that matters?
Now, let's examine your premise. "Somebody needs to make decisions" about WHAT? [gee, I'd like to have an underline function; that's not yelling, it's emphasis.]
Unless you advocate total anarchy, then there must be some communal resources that are to be managed. I say that true democracy is unwieldy and leads to the tyranny of the majority. Thus, representatives are required. And I would propose that having those reps elected by the people at large, is the logical method to do so.
I'm good with a republic and electoral college. you have to have procedural appointed jusdicial, you have to have a procedural legislature, basic infrastructure, limited law enforcement, military-big warning about standing. That's it. everything is capped by violation of natural rights. If it violates, it can't be instituted-but at great cost, must be protected.
I think in most cases manufacturing companies tend to aggregate in one area any way because it's beneficial to them. No one wants to try shipping their materials and products through a residential neighborhood, as well as the people in said neighborhood constantly throwing a "bitch fit" in the form of boycotts, protests and threats from law suits.
An objectivist government would allow you to do what you want with your property as long as you weren't infringing on someone else's property against there will.
A perfect example is the proliferation of the demonization of smokers. In some municipalities, if I own a public esablishment, the laws restrict smoking in the building. In this case, an offended person likely wouldn't win a law suit because there is no scientific evidence to show that second hand smoke is harmful. That same person can lobby the legislators to force people to behave a certain way, just because they want to.
Laws and regs beyond what is absolutely neccessary is a slippery slope. Althought the initial intentions may be pure, the end result is often more onerous than the initial "problem".
I don't buy into that, by the way. Given an environment where there is no expectation of ultimate accounting for ones action (religion) or explicit accounting according to a man-made law, I see no logical rationale where the "baddest ass on the block" would not be the ultimate result. It seems to be the typical human situation.
And unless you advocate anarchy, then there are some aggregate resources that need to be managed.
I don't know much about the military or the inner workings of how our current system places people in charge. But it wouldn't be much different from how or current system works.
The one thing that would be different is if our Government actually declared war it would be at the sole discretion of the leader of the military how to win that war. After all, if you hire someone to do a job you don't stand over their shoulder and tell them how to do something you have no idea how to do yourself.
Let's see, the current system has a "professional" military that carries out the policy of the political leadership. That's not what you described before, with a number of independent military leaders, each of whom had autonomous authority over their specific region.
I do have previous military experience (I'm a West Point grad and served for over 5 years), so I'm not entirely ignorant of the issues.
I'm sorry I did mean a professional military. But doesn't our military have the world set up into different regions? Isn't that what the SOCOM and such are?
Milton Friedman said it best:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3eyJIbSgd...
In fact, I can think of one Russian immigrant in particular who did something very good from which the rest of us have all benefited. What was her name again? I seem to have forgotten...
But if there is no government welfare, and no guarantee of any income whatsoever, then it no longer matters whether the whole world comes or in or not because they'd all have to fend for themselves and produce their own livelihood anyway if they did come.
Heck, I don't care if they are going to be productive contributing members of society. The process is that they apply, are evaluated, and a certain number per year are granted entry legally. They also need to identify themselves and their living location so that if in the future, for any of a number of reasons, we choose not to accept them as an immigrant any more, they can be located and deported.
Your reasons are very simplistic.
"He who keeps silent, consents." So......
Robbie, I think your position on immigration is one of the LEAST Objectivist ones I've ever read.
It comes right out of the Conservative playbook.
You honestly don't care if an immigrant is going to be a productive contributing member of society, as long as he has followed your set of rules to live here? How will you know if he'll be a producer or not?
And then there's the practical. How do you structure the organization which sets the quotas, approves applications, and keeps track of them for the rest of their lives? How will you fund it? and those are just some of the other pesky organizational questions. I, for one, wouldn't voluntarily give you the money for this scheme; in fact, I'd do everything I could to bollix it up.
---------
Real freedom means that people have the ability to do things you don't like, as long as they're not hurting anyone. Yes, I know the "hurting anyone" is a bone of contention in Objectivist/Libertarian circles. It still stands.
2. How do you determine whether the potential immigrant is going to be productive or not? If productivity is your standard, I challenge you to determine such a priori.
3. I do not presume to be able to predict whether an immigrant is going to be productive or not during the immigration process, although I would expect that some criteria would exist to attempt to discern same. BUT, if they are not productive after being allowed to immigrate, then I would deport them.
4. Your proposition that all should be able to cross borders at their whim is farcical. You want to allow Polio and Tuberculosis carriers to enter the country? How about mass murderers? Truly foolish.
So, to answer your question, we can know they will be productive when productivity is the only method of survival, which it would be without government welfare.
I agree with your general principle of the right of people to travel freely. But to make it workable, we'd have to eliminate our world wide policing and incessant warring to eliminate the hate we've engendered throughout the world, as well as eliminate welfare. I'd favor a reporting requirement at least annually demonstrating work or schooling or self support. If not showing the ability to support themselves, then deport back to home nation. The right to vote to require naturalization, demonstrating knowledge of basic US history, civics, and English reading and speaking.
I will say that when I moved to Mexico, I had to submit medical records showing innoculations for several communicable diseases. So, at least for Mexico, that was a condition of legal residence.
As for people with diseases, I'd let them in, but make a hospital their first stop. Unless of course the disease is something highly contagious, in which case I'd keep them quarantined in a hospital close to the border.
And yes, my approach to immigration is incredibly simple. That's the beauty of it.
Anarchy:
a : absence of government
b : a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority
c : a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government
No government means no laws, and no courts and no police. That would be an environment where the "baddest ass on the block" would rule. Else, you believe your fellow humans are all pacifists.
1. Society without government.
2. Government without leaders.
Those who adhere to the second definition are far less common, but they do exist. What is your definition, Rozar?
The concept of a “right” pertains only to action—specifically, to freedom of action. It means freedom from physical compulsion, coercion or interference by other men. Let's come back to this later.
Folks really shouldn't be free to kill others just because they have "freedom" to do so.
I am a little confused on exactly what you're asking regarding the Determining factors.
Why? Can't you think for yourself?
Methinks you tilt at windmills.
Your comment came off as condescending btw, not sure if you meant it that way.
The EPA was begun to target hazardous regions for cleanup SO THAT the taxpayers and citizens would enjoy a healthy environment.
It should have been pared down to an educational/helper role after their "dirty work" was finished.
Instead, it has grown into a monster that creates problems that don't exist so that it can solve those "problems" through massive and expensive "clean-up efforts" which in turn fine individuals and industries into bankruptcy.
This is what happens when government forgets that it is established to help citizens ... not to harm them.
But regardless, I don't see how imposing harsher legal punishments on those with more money is considered equal justice under the law. That seems incredibly unequal to me. The severity of one's punishment for committing a crime should not be dependent the amount of money one happens to posses.
I thought you switched your stance.
This is different in Europe (at least France) where the plant manager is personally liable for defects in products, and for actions taken by individuals working for the company if directed by leadership to perform actions (not for independent actions of each individual, just for what they are told to do).
Thus, the plant manager who dumped toxic chemicals into a stream without a corporate shield would be individually liable for that action, whereas under a corporate shield, only the company is responsible.
This is a product that many people have used for years and someone just made this connection - "just" as in within the last year.
I think we have to do some research all the time because there are always new tools, new thoughts, new connections - even about old products.
and I am a 20-year breast cancer survivor.
Gilda Radner, when she was diagnosed with ovarian cancer, said it was like finding out that you are a member of a club you never wanted to join.
Edit: not to mention the extreme amount of negative public relations this would have on your company.
Also, whether you tested for hazards or not, in an objectivisy government you would be punished. Probably more so for doing something so obviously risky with complete negligence.
These days you can be a guy who eats tofu and drinks soy milk, works in his factory and he WILL grow boobs. Present the evidence without personal diet information and the factory owner loses everything through no fault of his own.
Unless the guilt can be targeted, it will be a field day for the leeches and looters of law.
Do you think it would be easy for a company to have a contract stating it will do it's best to provide a safe working environment, but the individual is completely responsible for his own safety? They coul make signing such a contract a mandatory requirement of employment, thus greatly reducing their liability.
Companies are responsible for providing a work environment which is as safe as possible, but employees are also considered responsible for their own safety and for following company rules. If an employee violates the company's rules about safety, then the company cannot be held responsible if that individual employee gets hurt. However, if the employee is following the rules completely, and he still gets hurt, then the company is at fault (or rather, most likely at fault).
It sounds a bit convoluted that people who do not own something get to decide requirements the potential buyer has to meet. Hmmm. More thought later, have to go.
1. M.Y.O.B. Mind Your Own Business.
2. The right to say No to anyone for any reason.
However, we are, as a race, regrettably, very far from that. In the meantime, mankind must have a government and a method of funding it. It can be done equitably if rationality prevails.
But maintenance of a police force and military in order to do that, doesn't come free. Therefore certain monies need to be levied from the populace based on the cost of the militia as well as courts to arbitrate disputes and determine guilt or innocence. Only laws which pertain to the above would be the only valid laws. As a race, humanity is not mature enough at present to exist without government, laws, and yes, taxes, limited as above.
There's much more to say, but that's a treatise.
Take a look at the original 13th Amendment. It offers some interesting thoughts and approaches.
So, while Objectivism is a marvelous philosophy to try to use it to provide a Government is a most complex task. This is what is needed by Ayn Rand Institute, and others, if we are to have a rational argument, one that makes sense to others in the U. S. and around the world. Otherwise, we'll simply be laughed for pedaling a fairy tail, and rightfully so.
Gaults Gulch worked simply because it was a small tribe, each with wealth, in gold, earned and brought into the Gulch from outside. There was no need for Government because all were intelligent Objectivist. All Free Traders. No one trying to take advantage of his neighbor.
Jim Wright
You are argueing about Libertarians not Objectivists.
Ayn was very specific about what a government should do,.
Here are a couple of my ideas:
Revision 1: The Federal government is NOT granted the power to regulate interstate commerce (bye-bye FDA, etc.), but is authorized to set trade policies, embargoes and establish most-favored nation status with recognized foreign countries. However, states may NOT impose tariffs or other taxes on business transactions either entering or leaving their respective states.
The Federal government is specifically restricted from mandating participation in federal programs involving public education, the arts, the news media (bye bye NEA, PBS).
The Federal government is directed to sell all Federally-owned public parks and use all proceeds to pay down the debt or to be placed in a rainy-day fund. (bye bye Department of the Interior, massive cuts to Department of Energy). Exceptions may include areas within Washington, D.C. and possibly Mount Rushmore.
Abolition of the Navigable Rivers Act, essentially neutering the EPA. Also, a prohibition on regulation of any naturally occurring atmospheric gases.
1) No bill shall be passed by Congress and Ratified by the president that gives preferential treatment to any one segment of the population over another (including Congress).
This would effectively mandate flat tax rates on everyone and prohibit Congress from passing sweetheart deals favoring political cronies. You could get rid of a LOT of waste with that simple principle.
2) Expenditures for any given year may not exceed income. (Mandatory balanced budget). No other business can or may be conducted by Congress except the declaration of War until the budget has been passed.
3) All laws authorizing the expenditures of public funds expire no later than the end of the term of the body proposing such.
Since all revenue laws must originate in the House, that means that all bills that spend money must get re-authorized every two years. This makes heavy-handed bills like the ACA an improbability and provides a way for disastrous bills like this to die on their own.
I can show you my Mexican visa from 1994 which indicates that various immunizations had been completed.
The classic Objectivist model is the one Rand laid out: police, military, and law courts. She proposed they might rely in a lottery or other voluntary contribution or fee-for-service scheme for their funding.
Here's another model: the Committee of Safety. This Committee consists of the heaviest stakeholders in the community--that is, the ones having the most to lose in the event of a complete social breakdown--and/or their proxies. Each contributes what he's capable of, in money, in kind, or both. That would be consistent with how Galt's Gulch ran: Midas Mulligan owned most of the land and sold or rented it out to everyone else. Obviously he would have a stake in securing it. He, therefore, hired John Galt to provide the high-altitude mirage screen. Francisco no doubt assisted in cutting off land access. Ragnar provided the offensive strength of the valley: his ship. So John Galt, acting as proxy for Midas, and Francisco and Ragnar, each sitting in his own behalf, would form the Committee of Safety. I would imagine that Henry Rearden and Dagny Taggart would each join when they joined the strike.
Allow women? Allow as if they had a right to prevent me in the first place? The Constitution was written to limit the power of government not you and I.
Evil values is a good one, but evil isn't a very useful word. In the natural world, there's no such thing as good and evil without perspective. Things just are the way they are.
Evasion and errors are reasons to do bad, but it's possible to evade something and to have errors without being immoral or following up with an immoral act.
People do bad things because they think it will benefit them. Or, without thinking, they feel like it will benefit them.
These are the basic initiators of "sin" (missing the mark) and "evil" (trespassing).
the overlap does not have to mean moral relativism