Why would you look for a non-government military? Protecting its citizens from aggression is the proper function of government.
After government is restructured to remove today's corruption, its proper military function would be paid for by owners of property who would want protection from invasion. Rand envisaged a voluntary funding system in place of taxation. She obviously did not use this phrase, but today you can imagine a type of "crowd-funding" for defense. Wealthy people automatically pay more because they have more to protect, a bit like buying insurance (wealthy people voluntarily have a larger insurance bills).

I am far from an expert, and better minds will answer your question, but I do know that a purely Objectivist society would have limited government.
Did you know that in very early days in America, a person purchased fire protection if they wanted it. If their house caught fire, the company would come to put the fire out. It was a private enterprise.
Remember that education was never meant to be publicly funded in the US.
Just a couple of examples.

This question is usually posed by anti-Objectivist persons in order to demonstrate that the Objectivist philosophy is incomplete, self-contradictory, or useless. It is related to the attempt to refute Objectivist ethics by posing numerous "lifeboat" emergency situations and demanding an answer to how the Objectivist spokesman (the victim of the conversation) would handle the situation. "Whom should we sacrifice to this emergency?"

Rand's own answer, if I remember correctly, was that life does not consist of emergencies.

Be prepared for emergencies, but do not allow them to get in the way of rational and productive behavior.

Involuntary Taxes (at least for Police and Military, not so much for firefighters). Ultimately there is no other way.

All taxation is backed by the threat of Lethal Force. Is it OK to threaten someone's life and take their money to protect the country as a whole? Yes, but barely. The consequences of letting anyone and everyone opt out of this specific case far outweigh the consequences of bringing lethal force against various individuals for the protection of everyone.

Is it OK to threaten someone's life and take their money to mandate that firefighters will protect their house? No, not even close.

These are two separate questions. The first is "What are the essential services to be provided by government". The second is "How would Objectivists fund them?".

As to the first, my view is the military is a proper function of government, as is police. That said, it does not necessarily follow that these functions be carried out by the government via government employees. They could be performed by private contractors. I would argue that many military functions can not be properly carried out by private contractors, but this is arguable. I would argue that most police functions could readily be carried out by private contractors. This would do much for reducing police misconduct and brutality since private persons are just persons in a job, not "special people" in a police role.
The military I refereed to are line officers and enlisted people, not legions of civil servants in risk-adverse, job-for-life positions driving cost into everything, self funding and instituting the communism they are supposed to be protecting us from with ridiculous data rights to "protect the taxpayer". It would be fantastic to see some of these people competing for their jobs.
My fundamental measure of the role of government in anything is: Would the efficient, monotonically optimizing capitalistic market provide the best answer or not. Local minima will occur in a monotonic search algorithm, like capitalism. For us, they occur until technology kills the buggy whip and an obviously better answer is shown. I think the interstate highway system would've happened a long time from now, had Eisenhauer not set it up. I am glad it exists today, although one could argue air travel may have superseded it otherwise. Interesting discussion. If a "thing" is needed and we can all see we are stuck in a local minima too big for a company to overcome via investments limited naturally, then the government should involve itself. This could and should be to decide we want something, and hire companies to provide it.

The second part, how to fund such items, should follow a fair and reasonable contract to the best extent possible. Those benefiting should pay the most. Who benefits from the military? The people and companies keep their freedom and stuff. Income tax is probably unfair. Property tax is probably better, since that is the "stuff". This is how an insurance policy would be priced. This is how a security service would price service, although scope of your holdings would be another question. Does the military protect international holdings? They probably should. Then they should be included. If we chose not to protect international holdings, then they should not be included. If someone paid for 20 years, and the government decides not to protect something in an "allies" country, then the government has compelled that person to servitude for a greater good, and all taxation for that property must be returned, or its value reimbursed. This should hold for all property, physical and intellectual.

I want to add a question to this thread. Who should be responsible for providing monetary currency? The government, private banks or something else. Even a system based on precious metals needs an exchange system. Is something like Bitcoin a viable option?

Ayn Rand listed police, courts and the military as the essential government services. At the federal level, a consumption or sales tax might be the fairest way to fund it’s essential services (military and courts). Police would be a state or local government service.

The latest federal budget earmarks $829 billion for military spending and $53 billion for general government, including courts and executive functions, for a total of $882 billion. These budgets are extremely bloated (like the rest of the federal government) and would probably be no more than one-fourth of their present amounts in an Objectivist society. Say $220 billion. That would be the total federal budget.

Annual personal income is $16 trillion and annual personal consumption is $12.7 trillion. So essential federal services could be funded with a federal income tax rate of 1.4% or a consumption tax rate of 1.7%.

Problem solved, until or unless we find a way to fund the federal government on a totally voluntary basis.

Plowing snow off roads is generally provided by the gub'mint, but It is also provided by private individuals to those who are willing to pay for it. Sure, the gub'mint sends out plow trucks and they show up sometimes, and do what they do (sometimes half-assedly), if you want better, you pay for it.

Same with policing and security - the Gub'mint provides a base level of security and police protection - if you want more, there are plenty of private options for those willing to pay for it.

On our street - we pay to maintain and service said road. If we want to not pay, then our road turns to crud. If we want it taken care of - then we pull together, and deal with it.

If you don't like the level of service you get from the services provided by your tax dollars, you are ALWAYS free to supplement it if needed...

The purpose of a government is basically two-fold:
1) Defense (not offense) and:
2) Infrastructure (roads, bridges, etc.)
- NOT mini-malls, education, "scientific studies" and various and sundry alphabet soup departments.

In many interesting comparative ways, proper government is simply an abstraction of what an average homeowner would do to keep his/her property.
Loss prevention is: Insurance, smoke detectors, security systems, fences, etc. .
That is "defense".
Growth is: Saving, upgrading, mowing lawn and trimming trees, keeping up the paint and siding, cleaning, etc. .
That is "infrastructure".
Paying taxes and purchasing insurance are simply using your saved time to allow another entity to engage in "defense" and "infrastructure".

I can engage in actively attending to my property and the rest I have to entrust to entities who I have hired to be an umbrella plan for larger issues.

If there was a "Gulch" in reality I am sure that there would be no taxes nor insurance because everyone would be able and ready to prevent loss and promote growth of everyone.

Agreed. In order for government to exist and function, it has to have some basis of revenue. While the "voluntary" basis sounds nice, in practicality what it turns into is the classic "not in my backyard" argument: everyone wants the benefits but doesn't want to pay for them.

Take fire suppression for example. What about if a fire starts in one area which isn't covered? Are you going to refuse to fight it until it has crossed over and started harming an area which is covered? By that time it can be out of control!

Police action (I don't use protection as that is nonsense: police don't "protect", they only act responsively) is part of the executive power vested in the State during its creation. Simply agreeing to be part of a civilization both entitles you to call on the police in the event of an infringement of rights, but also burdens you with the financial obligation to provide for the funding of the police.

Military. The police are for maintaining internal order. The military is strictly for defense against external enemies, but is also a contractual provision within belonging to a civil government.

Utilities (water, sewer, power, etc.). There is no governmental mandate to provide for these services, but there is a case for efficiency and consolidation in monopolistic service due to infrastructure needs. Because of the physical size of the facilities and service needs (pipes, etc.), it makes practical sense to have a single entity responsible for servicing a given area. But because of the inherent dangers in monopolistic endeavors this is dangerous all the way around. If it is run purely by corporate entity, there is nothing to stop them from charging rates that would drive out many potential customers. If it is run by the government, there is the real challenge of innovation. Personally, I think the public utility model has been working very well and is probably the best option.

Data/Communications. This one is is a mix of a utility model and a conventional business enterprise. Again, there is the aspect of the physical infrastructure (and don't get into the wired vs wireless with me - either one is still taking up valuable real estate) to take into account. The investment needed to bury cable is significant and requires very real coordination and government planning to effect. But the actual provisions of the communications service are significantly more fungible. For this one, a base of a public utilities model for the infrastructure appears to work well with the access to that infrastructure being sold at the same base rate to any potential corporate competitors so they can turn around with service offerings.

I know that Objectivists like the minimal government approach, but sometimes I think they can get carried away with it...

While I am all for a VERY Limited Government, I firmly believe that some essential services should be provided by the Government. The ones listed above are a good start with a few limited others as well, the highway system and roads for example.

Some might reasonably argue that the highway system could be privatized and while this is true the highway system is a Critical system in a defense scenario so I will continue to argue that it should be handled at a Governmental level..

So that leaves the question as to how these things are funded. The obvious answer is by taxation. Local things such as Fire and Police should be funded by local taxes based on property ownership. Where as National level things such as the Military and the Highway system should be National level taxation.

Ideally the taxes required by ALL entities combined should be 10% or less. If 10% is good enough for God it should be good enough for the Government.

This question conflates two kinds of service. Two of the services the question named, are proper core government functions anyway. I refer here to the police and the military. Concerning taxation, Rand said people would pay for these in the same manner in which they bought insurance. The heaviest stakeholders would pay the most. And a property owner or tenant would receive credit for defending himself and his property--hence "militia."

(The anarchist solution is, of course, more extreme. Some anarchists refuse to believe a society has any enemies beyond what one makes. Laying aside this Pollyanna-ish version of irenology--the study of peace--most anarchists who really think about the subject, suggest forming Committees of Safety, consisting of the major stakeholders. John Galt, Francisco d'Anconia, and Ragnar Danneskjöld functioned as just such a Committee of Safety. John acted as the proxy for Midas Mulligan; Francisco and Ragnar acted each in his own behalf.)

She also suggested simply using the lottery to pay for these things.

Fire protection is another matter altogether. I'm sure people would buy fire insurance, and the insurance companies would hire (or form) the fire brigades to put out fires whenever they started. It might even behoove the fire company to put out a fire even in an "uninsured" dwelling--so the fire would not spread to other dwellings. Then they would lay an assessment against the owner of that dwelling. The legal theory of the "injury in fact" would be this: the householder let a fire start in his house, and never let an insurer inspect it for fire risk and so on. As such he posed a danger to paying policyholders. The fire brigade had to act. Now someone has to pay for the fire brigade's extra work.

Schools should never be a government service.

"Utilities" should never be public, either. Let every householder choose whether he wants to connect to, say, a gas pipeline, or order in a tank to hook up in his back yard. Let them decide whether to draw their water from a well or connect to a pipe. For the electrical grid you have the added complication--which a private grid could handle--of people generating some or all of their own electricity. This applies equally to industrial cogeneration as to a householder installing a solar battery or a wind turbine on his dwelling or curtilage. ("Curtilage" is legalese for "yard.")

I think it was John Hospers who suggested charging a percentage of contracts signed if you wanted the agreement backed by the courts. The fees would cover police and fire departments.

I know that I would voluntarily pay for police, fire and military. If I didn't like the job they did, I'd stop paying.

I recently heard that it took 30 years of legal wrangling in order for Americans to be allowed to start homeschooling their own children. Frankly...that fact scares the hell out of me...

There cannot be a so called objectivist society unless you mean a small enclave of Objectivism believers. Even closely nit societies do not have all true believers in the religion or philosophy believed to nit the society together. The literary image of a future Gulch of those allowed to join by promising through an oath to be true to some ideas, will end in some kind of voluntary servitude to those who, in the background, run the society just as voluntary and involuntary taxpayers do today.

There should be some contextual scope assigned here. Are we talking a single nation-state government (such as say Mexico), or a federated government (such as the U.S.)? The answers would be different.

Common assumptions based on "objectivist society":

95-100% of the social programs of the current fad are gone
Military is needed for defense only, not ".. and national interests"
No foreign intervention
No land wars in Asia. ;)


For a federated nation, let us compare and contrast to the U.S.

Versus current expenditures, the elimination of social programs alone would cut the federal budget[1] by around 75%. This can not be emphasized enough. Just look at the 2015 numbers.

1) Total revenue: 3.2T
2) Total Expenditure: 3.7T

if we take the 75% reduction above apply it we could guesstimate the budget, assuming no military reductions, at around 925B. I believe with a non-campaigning military (Navy+Air Force - no standing army), you could shrink the military portion by at least 25% which would drop us to around 775B. If we did a straight per-capita we're around $1800/person per year (including children) to come up with somehow - assuming no further reductions. According to the data I have in 2012 the federal government collected ~$7600 per capita.

For a federated nation, I'd recommend apportioning that to the states based on population. If a given state has 10% of the population, the state government is charged 77.5B. But if we look at not doing that keep in mind that around 230Bn/year is collected in non-income and non-payroll (excise, estate, etc.). Im not sure at the moment how much of that is estate, which I assume we'd want to get rid of, but let us call it 30Bn so this non-income tax revenue is 200B. This leaves around 575Bn to come up with.

Income tax revenue is ~47%, or about 1.5T. You could eliminate the payroll and corporate taxes, and cut the income tax by close to 2/3rds and be pretty damned close. I'd wager that between their payroll taxes being gone (thus "getting a raise"), the room for employers to pay more due to lack of corporate income taxes likely leading to better pay - most working people would balk much less when paying about 23 cents on the dollar of what they pay now (per-capita).

I'd still prefer to farm that choice to the individual states. So a state like California would get a bill for around $70Bn and they can figure out if they want to go on income or some other options (such as repeating the price by county).

There are much deeper questions on the subject of a federated state - such as are we talking about an objectivist federal only, or does it include the individual states as well? Note that I also did not take into account the ~250Bn or so in annual debt payments by the fedgov. So, if we were to assume the state was not in debt so heavily, that would be ~33% reduction.

From a nation-state perspective it becomes a bit more hypothetical because we would have to look at nation-states that are so fundamentally different that the numbers would be hard to come by. But I have the data for TX handy - a state w/o income tax. Next year's budget is 209Bn.

Drop 58Bn for public schools, 77Bn for HHS, 20Bn for universities, and you're left with about 54Bn. I think that would leave plenty of room for increasing defense spending. Currently TX spends a bit under 1Bn on border security. It could throw in 50Bn a year on building a defensive military (small and focused navy and air force, some long reach deterrence missiles, etc.) and still come out pretty well - and still without an income tax. Now, I'm not making an argument here for secession but to continue the comparison but if you consider that in 2012 the IRS collected nearly 220 Bn in income tax from Texas citizens, I'd say that from that perspective it would be a serious boon, all else equal, to Texans if they kept that 220Bn on top of the reduction in state aid payments. After all, they send to D.C. more than there state government spends. And they do not have an income tax.

Sure they don't have a big military and would need to ramp up some spending on that. But if we consider current US percentage of ~16%, drop maybe 6% for not needing a global reach, then there is plenty of funding available in the current state welfare program to provide a similar ratio for the nation-state of Texas. With the elimination of 220Bn going to the fed, you could even simply raise expenditures by 25% and come out ahead - and still have no income tax.

All in all, I think to really understand the question you simply have to look at the reduction of cost in a government that doesn't spend so much in aid payments - a government restricted to the minimum essentials. Once you begin to realize how comparatively little the government would need to collect, the question almost becomes moot in my mind.


1. I dislike using the "federal budget" because a) as anyone wth a checking account knows: what really matters is expenditures and b) what budget?

The responsibility of the the Government is limited by out Constitution. In order for it to continue there will need to be a way to finance it. The way it is now, we are taxed with no real assurance that we will be protected. If paying taxes keeps me and my family safe here and abroad that is great. But now that money is being wasted on all kinds of made up xxxx.

Without being too specific, there are many ways to fund services depending upon the set-up of the state, and where and how it gets its funds. In a free society, the only obligations of the state is to protect its citizens, and to provide courts, In my not-so-humble opinion, there also should be an adherence to Herbie's Law which states: 1. You have the right to say No. 2. MYOB Mind your own business.

FEMA would not be involved! This morning on cable TV, a scrolling message said FEMA would test the system on Wed. at 1 a.m.! Then instead of the usual cities or counties listed, they listed endless STATES, like Ohio. Penna. W. Va., and on and on! When public services and telecommunications are intruded on by FEMA, only bad can come from it. Remember, even if you think O will not shut down the Inerenet Sept. 30, this is pretty weird and disturbing. Anyone heard anything on this messing with public services involving FEMA?

Even in a purely objectivist society, I would not have worked for the Alabama Department of Corrections if I had not been paid enough to raise a family.
I'm absolutely certain I would not have stayed in that crappy work environment for 21 years if I wasn't enticed by a retirement package.
Someone gotta pay if you want well-trained mercenaries to protect you in various capacities.
Me dino now boasts doing his part in the public protection aspect.. Have two framed commendations (we called "attaboy letters") proving I stopped two escape attempts that added up to three inmates who did not threaten the public for being at large.
Me no businessman but me good dino.

"Public" in this sense means "non-excludable", meaning you cannot provide them to some and not others. Police and military are non-excludable, but fire is excludable.

People will have different ideas how the level of policing and military they want. But once we deploy a police force in an area, everyone in that area gets the benefit whether they want to pay for it or not.

The fire department and private fire fighting services, if they existed, could easily provide their service only to paying subscribers.

So in my view an objectivist society would have no fire department. Policing would partly provided by people protecting their own homes and their neighbors', if they're so inclined. They would still need police and legal machinery to catch and prosecute criminals. Military would partly provided by militia, but they would still need some kind of a minimal standing army. I'm intrigued by ideas of how to fund these non-excludable services without taxes, but I do not know how that would work.