If you ever decided to leave the USA, where would you go?

[George H. Smith]

I feel George responded to Taylor's other verbal effusions decisively and find little need to add to this. No doubt, Taylor will basically ignore George's response and retreat, once more, to some silly aside or maybe a quotefest from Atlantis.

Some additional points....

I don't have the passage handy, but Herbert Spencer somewhere discusses the practical use of our ideal visions of society. Spencer concedes that our social ideals, including his own, will probably never be fully implemented, but he argues that they are important nonetheless. Why? Because they serve as beacons when deciding on the wisdom of concrete political measures. Unless we know where we would like to end up, we will wander about aimlessly in the political world, endorsing one political measure after another in the name of expediency, with no overall or long-range vision to give coherence to our ideas.

To Spencer's sage observation, I would like to add the following about the word "utopian." Anarchistic ideals are often condemned as "utopian," but little or no consideration is usually given to what this word means.

The word "utopia," which was coined by Thomas More in the early 1500s, literally means "nowhere." Plato's ideal Republic was the first full-scale utopian vision in western literature, one that served as a model for many others. There is evidence to suggest that Plato didn't merely regard his Republic as an ideal; rather, he thought it could be achieved, and on at least one occasion he took concrete steps in that direction. More's Utopia, in contrast, was an imaginary construction and was never intended as a practical proposal. Its purpose was to highlight injustices in early 16th century England.

We thus have a wide range of utopian proposals, but virtually every famous literary vision of a utopia has been collectivistic, and some even communistic, in nature. One striking feature of classical utopias is their hostility to social change. This makes sense, for as Plato once observed, once you have achieved a perfect society, every change must be change for the worse, a kind of social degeneration. It is interesting to note that this hostility to change is absent in more libertarian utopias, including anarchistic ones.

One final point: When we say that utopias will never come about, we can mean one of two things. We may mean, first, that a given utopia contradicts social and economic laws, or runs counter to human nature itself, so that utopia is theoretically impossible. This has been the case with socialistic utopias that combine great economic abundance with the abolition of private property and a command economy. For reasons explained by Hayek and Mises, this will never happen.

Or when we say that a utopian vision will never come about, we may mean, second, that although it is theoretically possible, it would require such a high level of public knowledge, and a social consensus so broad, that it is unlikely ever to be implemented. When I say that we will never see an anarchistic America (including Rand's vision of a tax-free America), this is what I mean.

Ghs

[Brant Gaede]

The United States government, which has devolved into the United States state, is on the verge of being consumed by its own excesses in an acceleration of history. The rational thing to do is avoid this leviathan soon to be thrashing around on the ground in its death throws. It will be replaced by an authoritarian dictatorship and the dollar by another currency.

--Brant

[dan2100]

The United States government, which has devolved into the United States state,

What's the difference and when did that happen? 1789?

[Brant Gaede]

The United States government, which has devolved into the United States state,

What's the difference and when did that happen? 1789?

It pretty much got started then. It took a while to get up a head of steam. With a government the governed are also the govenors while in a state the governed are no more than that. I'd say the tipping point was the Civil War and the military draft.

--Brant

[dan2100]

The United States government, which has devolved into the United States state,

What's the difference and when did that happen? 1789?

It pretty much got started then. It took a while to get up a head of steam. With a government the governed are also the govenors while in a state the governed are no more than that. I'd say the tipping point was the Civil War and the military draft.

--Brant

A recent issue of Independent Review has an article on the military that I haven't read through yet. It seems to hold that the Civil War was not a watershed for this -- that, in fact, drafts were used before ther Lincoln regime.

Edited April 22, 2010 by Dan Ust

[dan2100]

The United States government, which has devolved into the United States state,

What's the difference and when did that happen? 1789?

It pretty much got started then. It took a while to get up a head of steam. With a government the governed are also the govenors while in a state the governed are no more than that. I'd say the tipping point was the Civil War and the military draft.

--Brant

A recent issue of Independent Review has an article on the military that I haven't read through yet. It seems to hold that the Civil War was not a watershed for this -- that, in fact, drafts were used before ther Lincoln regime.

Here's the article:

http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?a=780

I reckon they are saying the Civil War was a watershed here, though the change was not from no draft to a draft, but from a lax one to a harsher one.

[algernonsidney]

A recent issue of Independent Review has an article on the military that I haven't read through yet. It seems to hold that the Civil War was not a watershed for this -- that, in fact, drafts were used before ther Lincoln regime.

This is from Jefferson's Notes on Viriginia:

"Every able-bodied freeman, between the ages of 16 and 50 is enrolled in the militia. .... In every county is a county lieutenant, who commands the whole militia of his county. .... The governor is the head of the military, as well as the civil power. The law requires every militia-man to provide himself with the arms usual in the regular service."

This is quite telling. This was the draft in the sense that every man was expected to defend in the event of attack.

I was unable to find the exact quote. Tocqueville wrote in Democracy in America that he did not think that a draft could ever exist in America.

[Peter]

George H. Smith wrote:

I assume you agree with Rand that this power (taxation) is unjust in principle and that it should eventually be abolished. So why do you advocate the eventual "destruction" of the United States of America, Peter? Why are you a traitor -- and a hypocrite to boot, professing to love the selfsame country that you seek to undermine?

End quote

And then George really let’s me have both barrels:

George wrote:

Your ignorance of the history of ideas is matched only by your contempt for ideas themselves. I have never seen such a rabid anti-intellectual invoke Objectivism for support. When you spew your epistemological rat poison on a Christian website, do you invoke the Bible for support?

End quote

Wow! That was wonderful. I may frame those zingers.

George, it is so good to receive a reply from you, even if it sounds like a double blast of musket balls whizzing by my head. Whew, that was a close one! You should charge a few buck for each reply, to finance your future writing. Perhaps a pay-pal George’s corner would foot the bill.

Curious? Need an expert’s answer? “Just Ask George,” is the site for you. Constitutional scholar George H. Smith will answer your question for five bucks. Need some ideas for research on a term paper? Just ask George!

George, for free, once paraphrased to me, an excellent point by Madison, that power will not be snatched from one branch of government, because of checks and balances, to make another branch more powerful. Rather the power will be snatched from the rights of the people.

You could argue that a complete rewrite is required, but you cannot prove that a better position would be to have no Constitution, George.

I politely mean the next paragraph as a suggestion for a historical article and not as a criticism of your non-existent anarchism.

Perhaps you could write about what happens after the dissolution of a government, or when there is a civil war, or when lawlessness occurs because of a weak central government. Has a Rational Anarchy ever been *everyone’s* wish, or *anyone’s* wish other than yours, if you had been there?

I doubt that the Federal Government could exist on the voluntary system Rand promoted, especially in an emergency, or war, so I DO THINK A REVISION TO POST-RAND, OBJECTIVIST PHILOSOPHY IS NEEDED.

War bonds, savings bonds, added to paying for services, and a national lottery, could KEEP MANDATORY TAXATION TO A MINIMUM. A postscript to the Constitution is needed to keep taxation at a minimum. Could we have defeated the world domination of Hitler or The Soviet Union without mandatory taxation? No.

Could a strong military defeat or “stalemate” the remnants of the Soviet Empire, a bubbling Communist China, or defeat the Hated Islamic Fascists, without mandatory taxation? No.

Supporting George’s thesis, I see that Greece is demanding a bail out from the European Union due to its costly socialist policies. Does anyone remember and understand the Laffer Curve anymore? Is the United States next up, or will we be the last to experience bankruptcy?

I have written about this before, but here is one point, George, where the Ayn Rand Lexicon needs a re-write for precision’s sake.

From the Ayn Rand Lexicon:

Taxation

In a fully free society, taxation—or, to be exact, payment for governmental services—would be voluntary. Since the proper services of a government—the police, the armed forces, the law courts—are demonstrably needed by individual citizens and affect their interests directly, the citizens would (and should) be willing to pay for such services, as they pay for insurance.

The question of how to implement the principle of voluntary government financing—how to determine the best means of applying it in practice—is a very complex one and belongs to the field of the philosophy of law. The task of political philosophy is only to establish the nature of the principle and to demonstrate that it is practicable. The choice of a specific method of implementation is more than premature today—since the principle will be practicable only in a fully free society, a society whose government has been constitutionally reduced to its proper, basic functions.

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

I think most if not all of this was quoted from “The Virtue of Selfishness,” but Binswanger and Peikoff had their thumbs in it.

Notice the waffling between an Idealist and a Realist?

From: “In a fully free society, taxation—or, to be exact, payment for governmental services—would be voluntary.”

Verses: “. . . the citizens would (and should) be willing to pay for such services, as they pay for insurance.”

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

Verses: “The choice of a specific method of implementation is more than premature today—since the principle will be practicable only in a fully free society . . .”

Her mature view is lacking in Absolutism and Thomas Paine’s stinging rhetorical style as seen in Roark’s or Galt’s speeches.

And I like the earlier and the mature Rand for different reasons. Her philosophy needs a mature, contextual overhaul. Who else will stand up for their intellectual integrity and say, let us fix this flaw in Objectivism? "I am Spartacus!"

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

Edited April 23, 2010 by Peter Taylor

[George H. Smith]

George, it is so good to receive a reply from you, even if it sounds like a double blast of musket balls whizzing by my head. Whew, that was a close one! You should charge a few buck for each reply, to finance your future writing. Perhaps a pay-pal George’s corner would foot the bill.

I am more than happy to insult you for free, Peter. To demand money from you would be like charging an infant for wiping drool off its chin.

You could argue that a complete rewrite is required, but you cannot prove that a better position would be to have no Constitution, George.

I would not even attempt to prove that no constitution would be better, because I have never said that, and that's not what I believe. What I cannot abide is slavish worship of the U.S. Constitution, as we find in Glenn Beck and many of his admirers, who believe it was divinely inspired.

Several times on A2, I suggested that you read the writings of the opponents of the Constitution -- the Antifederalists, a large percentage of the U.S. population that included luminaries such as Richard Henry Lee (who made the original resolution for independence in the Second Continental Congress), Patrick Henry, and George Mason (author of the influential Virginia Bill of Rights). Mason was a delegate to the Constitutional Convention, but he refused to sign the finished document, declaring that he "would sooner chop off his right hand."

In a remarkable display of candor, James Madison, who at the time of the Convention was an ardent nationalist, made it abundantly clear that the proposed Constitution would authorize a dramatic increase in governmental power. As he stated on the Convention floor (June 29, 1787):

"According to the views of every member, the General Government will have powers far beyond those exercised by the British Parliament, when the States were part of the British Empire." (My italics.)

Beginning in 1763, Americans had actively resisted the powers exercised by the British Parliament, and 12 years later they engaged in a long and bloody war to eliminate those powers. This is why so many Americans -- probably the majority -- were opposed to ratification of the Constitution, calling it a betrayal of the principles of the American Revolution.

Does this mean that the U.S. Constitution is wholly bad? No, of course not, though some provisions, such as the slavery clauses, were downright evil.

The Constitution, as Madison described it, was a "bundle of compromises," and some of those compromises laid the groundwork for the subsequent expansion of governmental power that libertarians complain about today. The belief of many conservatives -- that freedom would be restored if only we returned to constitutional principles -- is bunk. True, that would help to some degree, but we would still be left with a very powerful federal government.

Perhaps you could write about what happens after the dissolution of a government, or when there is a civil war, or when lawlessness occurs because of a weak central government. Has a Rational Anarchy ever been *everyone’s* wish, or *anyone’s* wish other than yours, if you had been there?

This passage is so garbled that I don't know what to make of it.

I doubt that the Federal Government could exist on the voluntary system Rand promoted, especially in an emergency, or war, so I DO THINK A REVISION TO POST-RAND, OBJECTIVIST PHILOSOPHY IS NEEDED.

In other words, you want to revise Objectivism so that it will explicitly sanction the initiation of force, which in turn would undercut the very foundation of Rand's political theory. Good luck on that one, Peter.

Thus we come to a crucial point: Your disagreement with Rand is far more fundamental than mine. I disagree with Rand over the application of her political principles, whereas you disagree with her most fundamental political principle, the one that condemns the initiation of force as a violation of individual rights.

You therefore have no business lecturing me or anyone else about Objectivism. Your claiming allegiance to Objectivism would be like my claiming that I am a good and faithful Christian, even though I don't believe in God.

Ghs

[Brant Gaede]

In a remarkable display of candor, James Madison, who at the time of the Convention was an ardent nationalist, made it abundantly clear that the proposed Constitution would authorize a dramatic increase in governmental power. As he stated on the Convention floor (June 29, 1787):

"According to the views of every member, the General Government will have powers far beyond those exercised by the British Parliament, when the States were part of the British Empire." (My italics.)

My grandfather testified before Congress in support of Roosevelt's efforts to pack the Supreme Court. He was criticized for referencing Madison to justify this. That became one of the reasons he chose Madison for a presidential biography.

--Brant

[Peter]

George H. Smith wrote, for free:

The Constitution, as Madison described it, was a "bundle of compromises," and some of those compromises laid the groundwork for the subsequent expansion of governmental power that libertarians complain about today. The belief of many conservatives -- that freedom would be restored if only we returned to constitutional principles -- is bunk. True, that would help to some degree, but we would still be left with a very powerful federal government.

End quote

I think you are on to something, George but please take your thinking to its logical conclusion, which is rooted in history, and not once again, to having *no government.* Because, there may have been a few advocates of having *nothing* back then, but having no government is an oxymoron. Would you then have nothing, or does having no government still leave you with something? What is that? You might insist Anarchy leaves you with personal liberty, but is that what the Founder’s thought? They thought Anarchy was chaos and the first step in a progression towards an uncivil society.

James Madison, all the Antifederalists, Richard Henry Lee, Patrick Henry, and George Mason still wanted governments, though they were *STATE GOVERNMENTS,* with a weak federalist superstructure.

Please hold forth, oh mighty wit. I am going jogging, but I will be thinking about a loose confederacy of individual states . . . but thinking still about states and a government. And then like in the show, “FlashForward” I will sweat as I jog and envision what would occur five years down the hard pavement from 1776, towards stronger states and weaker federal government.

And no George, I am not a Randian heretic. I just think, as did Rand, that eliminating *mandatory taxation* is the final step towards total freedom. When the time comes, we will know it. I am an Objectivist. Like the Constitution, Objectivism needs fixing, and new thought. It needs the new blood of Patriots. Listen! I hear a fife and fiddle playing.

Semper cogitans fidele, fiddle de dee,

Peter Taylor

[dan2100]

I doubt that the Federal Government could exist on the voluntary system Rand promoted, especially in an emergency, or war, so I DO THINK A REVISION TO POST-RAND, OBJECTIVIST PHILOSOPHY IS NEEDED.

In other words, you want to revise Objectivism so that it will explicitly sanction the initiation of force, which in turn would undercut the very foundation of Rand's political theory. Good luck on that one, Peter.

Thus we come to a crucial point: Your disagreement with Rand is far more fundamental than mine. I disagree with Rand over the application of her political principles, whereas you disagree with her most fundamental political principle, the one that condemns the initiation of force as a violation of individual rights.

I think this is the big problem for Objectivist political philosophy: Rand's principles -- specifically, her stand against intiating force -- go against her conclusion -- specifically, that individuals need a state. (Of course, Rand and many of her seconds believe there can be a state that doesn't initiate force. But talk about making taxes voluntary and such -- where the tire meets the road for state initiation of force -- always has a clause appeneded that this is the last step for a free society to take -- sounding very much like how some Marxists tell us that the proletarian state with wither away at some distant date in the future.) Given this, anyone wanting to keep Objectivist political philosophy as consistent as possible is faced with a choice: give up the conclusion and embrace some form of anarchism (one that is compatible with the core principles) or ditch non-initiation of force and embrace some form of statism. It's interesting to see Peter Taylor openly take the latter path.

[George H. Smith]

But talk about making taxes voluntary and such -- where the tire meets the road for state initiation of force -- always has a clause appeneded that this is the last step for a free society to take -- sounding very much like how some Marxists tell us that the proletarian state with wither away at some distant date in the future.) Given this, anyone wanting to keep Objectivist political philosophy as consistent as possible is faced with a choice: give up the conclusion and embrace some form of anarchism (one that is compatible with the core principles) or ditch non-initiation of force and embrace some form of statism. It's interesting to see Peter Taylor openly take the latter path.

I always get annoyed when some Objectivist proclaims, with an air of authority, that some particular rights-violating activity -- taxation, in this case -- should be the last to be abolished, at some point in the distant future. As justification, we are told that to eliminate taxation immediately, or in the near future, would cause social chaos.

This argument is highly reminiscent of the argument used by those 19th century opponents of slavery, known as "gradualists," who maintained that slavery should be phased out over a long period of time, because "immediate" abolition would wreak havoc with southern agriculture and thereby cause serious problem for northern states as well.

The best replies to gradualism were penned by the abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison, who noted that "gradualism in theory is perpetuity in practice." Garrison also argued that "abolitionism" means that freedom is the highest moral priority and that no other political or economic consideration should trump the recognition of individual rights.

As for the claim that eliminating taxes should be the last phase in some long range plan for a free society, I ask: What gives some Objectivist, or anyone else, the authority to decide which rights should be respected and which should not, and for how long? Of course, as a practical matter, it is probably true that taxes would be among the last things to go on the path to a free society. But this matter of probable fact is a far cry from a professed defender of freedom declaring that taxes should be the last thing to go. To say this is the height of presumption, for as Rand once said, "The lives of other people are not yours to dispose of."

Ghs

[dan2100]

But talk about making taxes voluntary and such -- where the tire meets the road for state initiation of force -- always has a clause appeneded that this is the last step for a free society to take -- sounding very much like how some Marxists tell us that the proletarian state with wither away at some distant date in the future.) Given this, anyone wanting to keep Objectivist political philosophy as consistent as possible is faced with a choice: give up the conclusion and embrace some form of anarchism (one that is compatible with the core principles) or ditch non-initiation of force and embrace some form of statism. It's interesting to see Peter Taylor openly take the latter path.

I always get annoyed when some Objectivist proclaims, with an air of authority, that some particular rights-violating activity -- taxation, in this case -- should be the last to be abolished, at some point in the distant future. As justification, we are told that to eliminate taxation immediately, or in the near future, would cause social chaos.

This argument is highly reminiscent of the argument used by those 19th century opponents of slavery, known as "gradualists," who maintained that slavery should be phased out over a long period of time, because "immediate" abolition would wreak havoc with southern agriculture and thereby cause serious problem for northern states as well.

The best replies to gradualism were penned by the abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison, who noted that "gradualism in theory is perpetuity in practice." Garrison also argued that "abolitionism" means that freedom is the highest moral priority and that no other political or economic consideration should trump the recognition of individual rights.

As for the claim that eliminating taxes should be the last phase in some long range plan for a free society, I ask: What gives some Objectivist, or anyone else, the authority to decide which rights should be respected and which should not, and for how long? Of course, as a practical matter, it is probably true that taxes would be among the last things to go on the path to a free society. But this matter of probable fact is a far cry from a professed defender of freedom declaring that taxes should be the last thing to go. To say this is the height of presumption, for as Rand once said, "The lives of other people are not yours to dispose of."

Ghs

My guess is that Rand and most people holding the "last to go" position are aware on some level that the position leads to anarchy -- i.e., to having no state.

[George H. Smith]

I think you are on to something, George but please take your thinking to its logical conclusion, which is rooted in history, and not once again, to having *no government.*

How would you know what is "rooted in history"? To know that, you would actually have to read some history.

Because, there may have been a few advocates of having *nothing* back then, but having no government is an oxymoron.

Anarchism is not "nothing," and "no government" is not an oxymoron. The only "nothing" around here is between your ears, and I am dealing with a moron, not an oxymoron.

Just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in.

Ghs

[dan2100]

I think you are on to something, George but please take your thinking to its logical conclusion, which is rooted in history, and not once again, to having *no government.*

How would you know what is "rooted in history"? To know that, you would actually have to read some history.

Yes, as has been pointed out to him, time and again. He won't even bother to study the historical examples of anarchy or even the historical cases of constitutions. On the latter, he seems to prefer the mythical view of American history: the Founders created a near perfect constitution that worked and all political effort should be used at merely recapturing that moment in 1789 when the federal government was born. I wonder if he goes on pilgrimages to the imperial capitol (or maybe Philadelphia) to genuflect before a document he can hardly understand. Maybe he sees this as one of the mysteries of his faith.

Because, there may have been a few advocates of having *nothing* back then, but having no government is an oxymoron.

Anarchism is not "nothing," and "no government" is not an oxymoron. The only "nothing" around here is between your ears, and I am dealing with a moron, not an oxymoron.

Just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in.

Ghs

Recall that I warned you and others about Peter Taylor's m.o. over on Atlantis II -- was it last year? He hasn't changed -- not since he left Atlantis II or was kicked off Starship_Forum.

[sbeaulieu]

Last week during a friendly gathering, we brought up taxation and its elimination. I see George's parallel of gradualism of slavery and taxation (impact-wise). Realistically, what would be the outcome in the void of quickly eliminating taxation?

While I agree that taxes should be voluntary, they should also be itemized. Charity campaigns like CFC itemize all charities. A similar selection process might be a good in-between.

~ Shane

[Peter]

Dan Ust wrote:

Given this, anyone wanting to keep Objectivist political philosophy as consistent as possible is faced with a choice: give up the conclusion and embrace some form of anarchism (one that is compatible with the core principles) or ditch non-initiation of force and embrace some form of statism. It's interesting to see Peter Taylor openly take the latter path.

End quote

If one views taxation as paying for services, it is not coercion though collecting taxes would be if the services rendered were not as specified. You are darn right I support and embrace a small “s” form of the state. I have sworn an oath to uphold the US Constitution because it is in my rational self interest to do so. Not paradoxically, I also agree with the Non Initiation of Force Principle.

Anarchism is chaos. Constitutional Government is created to uphold individual rights. So if an outlaw like you thinks he is being aggressed against by the Constitutional State, I say Nay! Stop doing bad things, or vote for less restrictive forms of guaranteeing individual rights. The degree of Anarchy’s chaos is dependent on the temporary good will of the participants and Anarchy’s guaranteed lack of success is dependent upon the “bad will” of the few or the many in a gang. Godfathers. Charismatic Leaders. Prudent Predators. Dictators. War. You can do anything you desire until another anarchist persuades or forces you to stop. And that is enshrining “might makes right.”

I own a PC and “Windows 7” was my idea.

Dan, let me pull a GhSmithian cat out of my hat with this idea: as a first step but not a last stop, establish a redistribution of duties. If the Anti-Federalist tradition were followed, why not extend that to the state, county and city levels?

The unifying principle on a national level is a weaker US Constitution guaranteeing that all governmental municipalities uphold individual rights. Additional federal jurisdictions would be National Defense, a weakened interstate commerce regulatory ability, and then we could abolish a bunch of cabinet seats, and regulations.

The unifying principle then extends to a weaker State Government as in California or New York, that would guarantee that all county and city municipalities continue to uphold individual rights and its jurisdiction would be a state militia or National Guard, intra-state commerce, and then fire a bunch of state legislators. Keep the State Supreme Court, under the auspices of the US Supreme Court as final arbiter. Then market forces in action today would be magnified.

The unifying principle then extends to a county or city Government that would guarantee that all citizens have, and uphold individual rights and its jurisdiction would extend to their county or city borders.

Then let market forces in action today be many times magnified. Why does anybody in a free, mobile society live where they do? Jobs. Prosperity. Relatively more freedom. Climate. Local family, and the personal list goes on and on.

Keep a weakened Government at every level FOR NOW because we all could agree on that, but in the future what might freedom bring? Eventually we might have what are viewed as duty free prosperity zones and wide open cities like Las Vegas. The freest states and municipalities will gather the most citizens based on individual preferences.

Well to be honest, George H. Smith owns a PC and Windows 7 was his idea. Dan helped.

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

[dan2100]

Last week during a friendly gathering, we brought up taxation and its elimination. I see George's parallel of gradualism of slavery and taxation (impact-wise). Realistically, what would be the outcome in the void of quickly eliminating taxation?

While I agree that taxes should be voluntary, they should also be itemized. Charity campaigns like CFC itemize all charities. A similar selection process might be a good in-between.

What "would be the outcome in the void of quickly eliminating" <fill-in-the-blank> (for any form of coercion you feel is especially heinous)?

Edited April 23, 2010 by Dan Ust

[dan2100]

Dan Ust wrote:

Given this, anyone wanting to keep Objectivist political philosophy as consistent as possible is faced with a choice: give up the conclusion and embrace some form of anarchism (one that is compatible with the core principles) or ditch non-initiation of force and embrace some form of statism. It's interesting to see Peter Taylor openly take the latter path.

End quote

If one views taxation as paying for services, it is not coercion though collecting taxes would be if the services rendered were not as specified. You are darn right I support and embrace a small "s" form of the state. I have sworn an oath to uphold the US Constitution because it is in my rational self interest to do so. Not paradoxically, I also agree with the Non Initiation of Force Principle.

If one views rape as consensual sex, then, of course, there's no coercion! I wonder what rape victims think. If Peter feels paying his taxes is not coerced, too, he should just stop paying them. Will the government just stop providing its services? When was anyone ever asked if they want those services?

Peter Taylor seems to think -- does he think? -- that if someone or some group claims to provide something for someone else, this no more gives the former a right to coerce the latter than if the rapist claims he's giving a woman pleasure and, therefore, should be paid for the favor. (Of course, it's a practical matter if someone should resist a well-armed rapist, mugger, vandalizer, or government.)

And that Taylor believes that statism and non-initiation force go together means little here. Some Christians believe faith and reason are close buddies and get along well. Should everyone take them at their word? Should anyone take Taylor seriously here? Here's a man who seems to think shouting and repeating fallacies are valid forms of argument. Here's a person who won't even bother to read a book he doesn't mind quoting out of context from.

It's already clear that Taylor believes ignorance is strength. Now with his "argument" for statism, apparently, he feels slavery is freedom too. When will he tell us that war is peace -- completing the Orwellian trinity?

Quoting George, "I am dealing with a moron, not an oxymoron." But not just that, George, but a loud and vociferous one at that.

[George H. Smith]

If one views taxation as paying for services, it is not coercion though collecting taxes would be if the services rendered were not as specified.

And if one views a milk shake as water, it is not fattening.

I would rather do without many governmental "services," such as those protecting me from pot smokers and other harmless druggies. How do I cancel those services, exactly? If I want to cancel my television cable service, I can call Comcast. Who can I call in the government? Is there an 800 number?

Ghs

[tjohnson]

Hmm... seems to me that 'voluntary taxation' is a contradiction in terms. If the concept is that individuals are to be free to contribute to a fund for some purpose then possibly some other formulation would be better? From Wiki it says;

A state would distribute tax forms that could be filled out by recipients. The forms would have options on them for what the recipient would like to spend his or her money on.

But there would have to be a minimum tax to start with - at least enough so "the state" could send out forms in the first place?

[dan2100]

Hmm... seems to me that 'voluntary taxation' is a contradiction in terms. If the concept is that individuals are to be free to contribute to a fund for some purpose then possibly some other formulation would be better? From Wiki it says;

A state would distribute tax forms that could be filled out by recipients. The forms would have options on them for what the recipient would like to spend his or her money on.

But there would have to be a minimum tax to start with - at least enough so "the state" could send out forms in the first place?

It's really only voluntary if one can choose not to do it. For instance, I donate money to certain private charities. This is voluntary for me because I could stop donating to them and the charities are not going to, say, put me in prison or take my stuff. (Happily, too, they don't steal from me and then have advocates like Peter Taylor telling me, in a condescending manner, that this is for services they provide.)

Also, this goes back to the distinction between an exit and a voice system. In the former, one has the option of leaving the relationship -- and this is the fundamental difference between a voluntary relationship and an involuntary one. (Actually, voluntary relationships are ones that one can avoid entering in the first place. For instance, I don't have to be anyone's friend. It's not like I'm in a friendship by default and must do something to get out of it.) In the latter, one has no option to leave the relationship, but is allowed some say in how things are run -- such as being able to petition the king or cast a vote.

Edited April 23, 2010 by Dan Ust

[algernonsidney]

I would not even attempt to prove that no constitution would be better, because I have never said that, and that's not what I believe. What I cannot abide is slavish worship of the U.S. Constitution, as we find in Glenn Beck and many of his admirers, who believe it was divinely inspired.

Most of the people who call themselves "constitutionalists" are quite religious.

"According to the views of every member, the General Government will have powers far beyond those exercised by the British Parliament, when the States were part of the British Empire." (My italics.)

In spite of that, he was still dumb or corrupt enough to sign the bleeping thing.

This is why so many Americans -- probably the majority -- were opposed to ratification of the Constitution, calling it a betrayal of the principles of the American Revolution.

There is no way to know this either way.

Does this mean that the U.S. Constitution is wholly bad? No, of course not, though some provisions, such as the slavery clauses, were downright evil.

That's reason enough to condemn it. The Constitution nationalized slavery and made sure that the north subsidized it. HG Wells pointed out one court case in which a slave was taken to colonial Massachusetts. The slave sued and walked out of the court a free man.

The main problem, of course, is that a Constitution is just a piece of paper. It doesn't have magical powers. EVERY Constitution is going to be spat upon, pissed upon, and shit upon by the people who allegedly swear to uphold and defend it. This is the history of all constitutions, common laws, charters, or whatever. Everything Hitler did in Germany was LEGAL, just as everything they do now in this godforsaken country is LEGAL. Until constitutions acquire some kind of supernatural powers, they are not going to be able to defend themselves.

It's especially the case with this one. I have said many times that it is an "intentionally vague document." That's why we have so many of these charlatans who talk about a "living constitution" and other baloney.

Basically, what we have in this country, as in most countries, is a state of anarchy for the ruling class and "law and order" for everyone else. What could be more anarchistic than this? Basically it means: "We'll agree to the constitution, then we'll do whatever the hell we want." And that is exactly what Hamilton and his gang did.

I often have problems with the claims of many "Ron Paul republicans" and "conservatives" and their alleged support of the constitution. For example, I find nothing in it about the issue of immigration. America's Founding Fathers also wrote very little on the subject. Unfortunately, you will find among these "conservatives" a great many xenophobes.

[sbeaulieu]

But there would have to be a minimum tax to start with - at least enough so "the state" could send out forms in the first place?

If it's a voluntary system, like Dan stated, you shouldn't feel obligated. Personally, I think we would see a decay in the process initially. People would be opting out of not paying taxes. As some of the core services start degrading, the process will correct itself once the population sees the decline (i.e. military or defense spending) on threat of it weakening. The wiki page mentioned the itemized listing. If we go to a system like that, eventually the IRS could go away all together...further decreasing spending

~ Shane