Critique of voluntary taxation

[9thdoctor]

Later on a cynical mood will strike me, and I’ll come back and scoff at this. But it looks like it’s worth the old college try.

Dealing with the Philabuster on another thread has put me in the requisite cynical mood. The idea is pretty gimmicky. I still like it, it could be a step in the right direction.

Perhaps you block Bob?

Nope, but the quote would have helped since his little interjection is on the prior page. Out of sight, out of mind.

[Mikee]

Later on a cynical mood will strike me, and I’ll come back and scoff at this. But it looks like it’s worth the old college try.

Dealing with the Philabuster on another thread has put me in the requisite cynical mood. The idea is pretty gimmicky. I still like it, it could be a step in the right direction.

Perhaps you block Bob?

Nope, but the quote would have helped since his little interjection is on the prior page. Out of sight, out of mind.

Okay. I'll include quotes in the future.

[Peter]

I am still not getting my mail from OL delivered.

Ninth Doctor wrote:

Peter, you draw a distinction between early and mature Rand, but all your quotes come from the same essay. Also, the Hamburg system lacks a key feature of Rand's: tying government revenues to government services.

End quote

Good catch. I was relying on an old essay of mine and did not look for each quotes provenance. The varying thoughts seemed less mature and more mature to me. Sorry.

From the Ayn Rand Lexicon:

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

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

The principle of voluntary government financing rests on the following premises: that the government is not the owner of the citizens’ income and, therefore, cannot hold a blank check on that income—that the nature of the proper governmental services must be constitutionally defined and delimited, leaving the government no power to enlarge the scope of its services at its own arbitrary discretion. Consequently, the principle of voluntary government financing regards the government as the servant, not the ruler, of the citizens—as an agent who must be paid for his services, not as a benefactor whose services are gratuitous, who dispenses something for nothing.

End quote

The government “. . . as an agent who must be paid for his services . . .”

I don’t think Objectivism lacks the “pay for services,” feature.

Peter

[Peter]

If you are a “libertarian” or fiscally conservative author who understands Ayn Rand and wants controversy and sales, revise Objectivism in a substantive way. The “taxation” issue is just one of many issues needing a fix, to make Objectivism scientifically verifiable.

It has been done a few times to my reckoning, once (perhaps inadvertently in a memoir) and a movie was made about it. The “Passion of Ayn Rand,” by Barbara Branden, {which is still available on Amazon for $14.82 in paperback (why not $14.92?) and $26.95 with library binding. The DVD with Helen Mirren and Eric Stoltz is still available for $9.98 – ka-ching!}

You may ask, “How did that revise Objectivism in a substantive, and positive way?” The same way that Nathaniel Branden’s book did. They both changed how *thinking* Objectivists think!

R.W. Bradford wrote about Nathan’s book:

If there ever was any doubt that the movement that Nathaniel Branden built around Ayn Rand was a cult, it was removed by the publication of Nathaniel Branden's Judgment Day (1989). In this basically sympathetic portrait of Rand and those around her, one can see ample characteristics of a cult: the beliefs that "Ayn Rand is the greatest human being who ever lived, . . . Atlas Shrugged [Rand's masterwork] is the greatest human achievement in the history of the world, . . . that Ayn Rand, by virtue of her philosophical genius is the supreme arbiter of any issue . . . no one can be a fully consistent individualist who disagrees with Ayn Rand on any fundamental issue . . . since Ayn Rand has designated Nathaniel Branden as her 'intellectual heir,' and has repeatedly proclaimed him to be an ideal exponent of her philosophy, he is to be accorded only marginally less reverence than Ayn Rand herself . . ." (Judgment Day, pp 258-9).

Yet, Objectivism was forever changed. Barbara and Nathaniel Branden, understand Objectivism and were sympathetic to it. To fix or add to Objectivism an author must understand and agree with it’s basic philosophy. Barbara and Nathaniel are quintessential Objectivists.

Examine someone who is hostile to Objectivism.

Leonard Peikoff, who is profoundly sympathetic to Objectivism wrote, way back when, after the death of Ayn Rand:

. . . in the recent meeting with the publishers, one of the demands I made to which they agreed is that there's going to be at least 50,000 copies of each of her works on enduring paper, which I'm going to promptly see are disseminated to the most far-out spots in the world — New Zealand, and India, and Africa, and in caves and in you-name-it, 'cause I don't know what will be left if there's a ultimate holocaust, with the hope that one of these 50,000 will be dug up somewhere.

End quote

I love that quote from Leonard Piekoff! It is what I would do.

Jeff Walker, author of, The Ayn Rand Cult wrote about the above Piefoff quote:

The image of Peikoff scurrying around the world's "far out" places from cave to cave is almost worth the effort needed to sort though so much bad writing, so many factual errors, so much irrelevant information, and all the needlessly colored language to find it.

End quote

Not many Objectivists bought Jeff Walker’s book. A person who wants to revise and strengthen Objectivism cannot be hostile to Ayn Rand and Objectivism like Jeff Walker.

A committee of Objectivist munchkins at Objectivism Online or at ARI cannot revise Objectivism - but a sympathetic individual can.

We, the generation that grew up with Ayn Rand when she was still living, may be too old to do much good > no offense meant to Ghs, if I am wrong, prove me wrong. Sympathetically write and revise Rand’s O’ism and make some BIG BUCKS. Put her name in the title > Hopefully, the next, civilized generation who will have access to Rand’s books, may do the task, even with a downgrade in the US credit rating and the potential collapse of Western Civilization.

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

[9thdoctor]

I’m all for that! The Hamburg honor system sounds much like the mature Randian view – which was an unfinished symphony, not a scientifically proven truism. I hope Ayn Rand’s Theory of Government is not lost to history like the Hamburg System.

I don’t think Objectivism lacks the “pay for services,” feature.

I was saying that the Hamburg system lacks it. And that's just as best I can tell, I haven't been able to find out much about it. The point is that it could be the model for how to pay for police and/or national defense; tying revenues to services is something I'm willing to grant, for the sake of argument, is workable to pay for law courts. I do have my doubts about that last point, however. And whether the gimmicky idea (a lottery tie-in to bolster an honor system) I brought up this morning makes much of a difference.

[BaalChatzaf]

Two words:

Free Riders

Ba'al Chatzaf

[john42t]

If you are a “libertarian” or fiscally conservative author who understands Ayn Rand and wants controversy and sales, revise Objectivism in a substantive way. The “taxation” issue is just one of many issues needing a fix, to make Objectivism scientifically verifiable.

Here's my take.

Governments are a tool to an end. The end is that of the men who are in control of the government. This can be a mob (democracy, always irrational), a subset of rational men (republic), a subset of irrational men (oligarchy) or a familiy dynasty (monarchy, irrational or rational), usually a mix thereof. (The definitions are just for the sake of this argument.)

In the case of a republic I also demand that the influence on policy must be proportional to the taxation (or some similar form of financial stakeholder mechanism): Everything else would violate the rational self-interest of a participant. The man who can't pay taxes can not reasonably demand anything, the big corporation can not reasonably be demanded to pay taxes and having laws made which are potentially against their interest.

In the case of rational men who are in control of the government, they have a self-interest in keeping taxes low: The government is indeed only their tool to maintain order, not to exploit - they know that if the government functions properly in the Randian sense, *their* lot will be improved.

The taxes are still involuntary for everyone who's within the governments borders - but it is immoral only if the price is too high. And who's the judge of this? Reality: Monarchs and republics who tax to high will see a brain drain and be weakened.

[BaalChatzaf]

The taxes are still involuntary for everyone who's within the governments borders - but it is immoral only if the price is too high. And who's the judge of this? Reality: Monarchs and republics who tax to high will see a brain drain and be weakened.

In extreme cases uprising and rebellion will indicate complete rejection of an unfair and oppressive tax scheme.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Peter]

john42t wrote:<o:p></o:p>

The taxes are still involuntary for everyone who's within the government’s borders - but it is immoral only if the price is too high. And who's the judge of this? Reality: Monarchs and republics who tax too high will see a brain drain and be weakened.<o:p></o:p>

end quote<o:p></o:p>

There is competition in Government . . . If we consider immigration as the ultimate vote, then competition in governments has worked. People migrate to better pastures (countries or territories) with quality of life as the major draw.<o:p></o:p>

Wow. That is a wonderful adage: involuntary taxation is moral if the price for services is worth it. That’s very un-anarchian of you.<o:p></o:p>

John, would you also agree that there IS continual competition within a government (based on factors like the morality of taxation) within its geographical area? If you are, then you are correct, though it is more subtle than the brain drain from one country to another.<o:p></o:p>

Overtaxed New Jersey/Yorkeans eventually migrate to the states with the least taxes and the better overall quality of life. <o:p></o:p>

That is competition in governmental goods and services. Some migrate to the states with the better well-fare system, which is unsustainable, but generally Americans migrate to the freer states. Currently the population midpoint of <st1:country-region><st1:place>America</st1:place></st1:country-region> is traveling south at the rate of 30 miles per year around the state of <st1:state><st1:place>Missouri</st1:place></st1:state>. <o:p></o:p>

Taxes can be moral. I like that idea.

Peter<o:p></o:p>

[john42t]

Wow. That is a wonderful adage: involuntary taxation is moral if the price for services is worth it. That’s very un-anarchian of you.

Un-anarchian is an interesting choice of words. Do you know H.H.Hoppe? My knowledge about his ideas are a bit superficial, but I believe it goes like this: He calls himself an austrian-tradition anarcho-capitalist, but the way he interprets it is indeed not how most anarchists like to think about anarchy. He basically indulges idea of government power being a valid subject for a property title - and then all the usual arguments apply. And this isn't the wacky idea with private defence agencies competing on the same territory, he's talking proper government power. Viewed like that, the European monarchies had been anarcho-capitalist societies of free men that were overrun by a democratic mob.

I've come to largely accept this view. And I love to call it anarchism. :-)

John, would you also agree that there IS continual competition within a government (based on factors like the morality of taxation) within its geographical area? If you are, then you are correct, though it is more subtle than the brain drain from one country to another.<o:p></o:p>

Overtaxed New Jersey/Yorkeans eventually migrate to the states with the least taxes and the better overall quality of life. <o:p></o:p>

Yes, I agree. Governments are typically embedded in a hierarchy, it's just that people normally focus on the national level. And the territory of the cities / counties are still separate - so I would argue it's the same thing in small. In fact I believe Hoppe especially mentions the Hanse cities as a good example of how independent city states can free themselves from the more collectivist mainland - and proposes a similar way forward for America. Not sure if that's realistic.

[9thdoctor]

Taxes can be moral. I like that idea.

Ugh…this is what I call bad thread drift. I take it that by taxation you mean coercive taxation, coming off John42t’s post. On OO earlier today I wrote this: Government establishes and maintains itself by coercive means, yet is necessary for the protection of rights. That's the paradox.

You’re not going to hear me cheerfully saying that it’s moral for someone to initiate force against me (or you).

[9thdoctor]

Two words:

Free Riders

Two more words:

So what?

Three more words:

What's you're point?

[BaalChatzaf]

Two words:

Free Riders

Two more words:

So what?

Three more words:

What's you're point?

I object to bums getting something for nothing.

Ba'al Chatzaf