Against Anarchism

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I support the idea of limited government.

Bullies... blah blah blah... checks and balances... blah blah blah... human nature... blah blah blah... constitutional republic... blah blah blah... separation of powers... blah blah blah... democratically elected executive... blah blah blah...

There's more, but I'm tired.

Michael

[sjw]

Okay, according to your estimate, 0.00 percent of real governments have been proper governments.

Suppose we agree that we need some kind of institution to protect rights. My problem is why you picked the institution of government for this honor, if no real government has ever actually protected rights or even attempted to protect rights.

Your choice of government as the institution that should protect rights is completely arbitrary -- indeed, counter-productive -- given the above. Why did the institution of government get this job when real governments have been the greatest violators of rights? Why not pick, say, the Mafia and arbitrarily declare that the "proper" purpose of the Mafia is to protect rights?

Ghs

Suppose that 0% of the moral codes have been proper moral codes. You now create a new system that identifies the principles that govern proper behavior. Do you call it a moral code? Or do you call it amoralism?

Shayne

Are you willing to answer my question? If not, please say so explicitly. Then we can move on to something else, such as moral codes.

Ghs

I thought I told you to stop being thick-headed? My answer is quite clear already.

Shayne

It is not clear to me, so please explain it. Or quote from the post where you do explain it.

Ghs

What I distinctly implied was: We should identify the proper principles and system, and then after we have the right idea, we tack on the word "government." If we want to distinguish from types that have come before, we call it "proper government" or "rights-respecting government."

Shayne

[sjw]

--Brant

what to do is the real question, not should we pick this or pick that and we all be happy just being rational up in the clouds

Well one thing NOT to do is split into factions, with one faction telling everyone we want anarchy, and the other faction telling everyone we want government.

Shayne

[George H. Smith]

What I distinctly implied was: We should identify the proper principles and system, and then after we have the right idea, we tack on the word "government." If we want to distinguish from types that have come before, we call it "proper government" or "rights-respecting government."

This doesn't even address my question, much less answer it. It is possible that my earlier presentation was inadequate, so I will reformulate the problem in a separate post and see if that helps, I'm not sure if I can state it more clearly than I already have, but I will give it a try.

I may not get around to this until tomorrow. Meanwhile, if any other minarchist understands my point and would like to take a shot, feel free. This really is a key point that has not received nearly enough attention in the literature.

Ghs

[Xray]

I am not aware of any government that has existed with purely voluntary financing, yet this is the O'ist ideal.

You are not an O'ist, so you probably believe in the moral legitimacy of coercive taxation.

I would not work with the term "moral" in that context. Instead I would say that it is unrealistic (or "irrational", to use Objectivist terminology) to believe that people would pay voluntary taxes.

But the anarchist/minarchist debate is a battle between two ideals, and one of those is the O'ist ideal of a government that lacks the power to tax. I daresay this is more problematic than the anarchist ideal of agencies that support themselves via market competition, instead of lotteries (as Rand suggested for her limited government).

I'm surprised that Rand suggested lotteries. Since the chance of winning the lottery is extremely small, couldn't one call participating in a lottery an irrational act?

Years ago I read in a German magazine an article which called state lotteries "a tax for fools" ("Steuer für Dumme").

The proper definition is that government exists in order to defend individual liberty against criminal interference.

Oh, really? Have fascistic governments existed "in order to defend individual liberty against criminal interference"? Does your definition fit communistic governments? How about fundamentalist Islamic governments?

You gotta love people who define "government" with no reference to the real world.

Ghs

This adresses a crucial problem: the problem of people letting their own moral standards flow into what should start as a strucural analysis in the first place.

So instead of getting a definition of what constitutes a government, one gets a presentation of the poster's moral ideal of a government, which is another issue altogether, for it is a presentation of what a "proper" government is supposed to look like in this person's opinion.

Nothing wrong with presenting one's personal ideals in that field, but then, in order to avoid confusion, a better thread title would be e. g. "My concept of an ideal government".

But without a detailed analysis and discussion in terms of whether anarchism can (or cannot) work, a discussion about a "good" government here is like visiting a theater play the first acts of which are already over.

[quoting Ayn Rand]:

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

How is this to look like in practice? "Voluntary" implies I'm free not to pay without this having negative consequences for me.

So suppose the government constructs a new highway, Gerry Generous has voluntarily given some of his money for it to be built, but Tammy Tightwad, whose volition goes toward non-paying, hasn't.

But still, Tammy could later use the highway just as Gerry?

Edited March 26, 2011 by Xray

[Peter]

Ghs wrote:

. . . the anarchist/minarchist debate is a battle between two ideals, and one of those is the O'ist ideal of a government that lacks the power to tax . . . We at least know that market competition has worked extremely well in the production of the vast majority of goods and services, but I don't think the same can be said of lotteries.

end quote

The mature Rand’s opinion can be found in The Ayn Rand Lexicon:

quote

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 agree. The moral idea is to pay for services, George. And she insisted that completely voluntary taxation would be one of the last things an Objectivist government would enact.

I want all who read this to imagine that you are the new Objectivist President or the new “founding fathers,” which is the exercise George and Shayne are attempting. You are the new founding mothers and fathers of America starting from scratch, or using the existing United States Constitution as a framework.

From Atlas Shrugged:

The rectangle of light in the acres of a farm was the window of the library of Judge Narragansett. He sat at a table, and the light of his lamp fell on the copy of an ancient document. He had marked and crossed out the contradictions in its statements that had once been the cause of its destruction. He was now adding a new clause to its pages: "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of production and trade . . ."

end quote

Now, with that in mind, change that last word in George’s statement to “governments,” and you have this idea:

“We at least know that market competition has worked extremely well in the production of goods and services, but I don't think the same can be said of” governments.

Oh, yes we can say the same of governments.

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.

Then once the immigrants get to the better country or territory (the United States for example) and after the trade and market value of the coasts and waterways is lessened, the people migrate internally to the states with the best overall quality of life.

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 America is traveling south at the rate of 30 miles per year around the state of Missouri.

I hope that set up was not too garbled.

To boil the thought problem down, if you were founding a new territory, country, or state where the only “voluntary” taxation was through tolls, paying for services, or a lottery (Xray’s tax for fools), could you come up with something that is ideal?

Peter Taylor

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

[Peter]

I think most if not all of the taxation quote in The Ayn Rand Lexicon 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 . . .”

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

Peter Taylor

[BaalChatzaf]

Rand's mature view is lacking in Absolutism and Thomas Paine's stinging rhetorical style as seen in Roark's or Galt's speeches

Tom Paine was a better writer than Ayn Rand. In addition, Paine's writings had more discernible consequence. Paine's pamphlets gave the independence movement in the (then) British Colonies a very big boost. In a sense, our Declaration of Independence is a palpable consequence of Paine's famous articles "The Crisis" and "Common Sense".

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Peter]

A lottery is taxation for fools?

I have not yet checked the numbers on my five mega-millions tickets. I think the jackpot was 312 million dollars and was won last night by someone in New York State.

I also have five Powerball tickets for tonight, Saturday. The jackpot is 125 million dollars.

Despite the odds, a lottery works, Xray. It is painless, though there are always compulsive gamblers out there. Lottery tickets in the states of Delaware and Maryland require that you pay cash. Credit card purchases are not allowed for tickets, which cuts down on revenue, but saves the compulsive gamblers from over - extending themselves.

Other modes of near voluntary taxation are established here in the US. Using existing government lands a system of toll roads and bridges cross America like the German Autobahn, but I think the majority are State owned and run.

Losers paying court costs is also becoming more popular as is private arbitration.

If I were a re-founding father, I would scrutinize National Defense spending but hesitate cutting it – for now.

For us the giant sink-hole for our taxes is Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid (for the poor.)

Robert Tracinski recently attacked “the unmentionable, “and I write this as someone who is receiving Social Security which I started receiving early, at the age of 62, last year.

Peter Taylor

Here is his article. Most of his articles are already reprinted by him at other locations. I subscribe, give gift subscriptions to my friends, and donate money to Robert Tracinski:

TIA Daily • March 13, 2011

FEATURE ARTICLE

Already Gone

What Makes the Third Rail Touchable

by Robert Tracinski

Recently, I pointed out a sudden and dramatic change in the debate over the budget: it is now widely recognized that the only way to balance the budget and restore federal solvency is to reduce spending on the big middle-class entitlements, particularly Social Security.

This has been true for years, of course, even when mainstream politicians weren't willing to touch it. But a few weeks ago, House Republicans officially put "entitlement reform" on their 2012 budget agenda. Perhaps more telling, a recent mass e-mail from the National Taxpayer's Union advertising a report on "federal redundancy" and "duplicative government programs" felt compelled to concede that "Ultimately, our fiscal problems won't be solved until politicians tackle entitlement reform." So the old myth that we can balance the budget by eliminating only "fraud, waste, and abuse" is dead. On the political right, at least, it is now widely recognized that there is no way to shrink government without shrinking the big middle-class entitlements.

But there is still strong public resistance to any such reductions, and some polls show about three-to-one opposition to cuts in Social Security.

What is the reason for this resistance, and why is it nevertheless possible to at least begin talking about cuts to Social Security, even if we have to use the euphemism "entitlement reform"?

The answer was suggested to me by a question I recently got from one of my readers. This is a regular reader who is clearly a pro-free-marketer and accepts that in an ideal world, Social Security should not exist, yet who still bristled at the description of Social Security as an "entitlement" or as "welfare."

The word entitlement annoys me. I agree that Social Security was a terrible idea from the start, and retirement funding should be an individual's responsibility. But we (as employers and employees) have been forced to "contribute" our entire working lives to a fund that was supposed to supplement our retirement. The government decided to waste that money as part of the general fund and not invest it for the future. I feel it is important that it be phased out completely, but I get an angry feeling when I think of all the money I was forced to "invest" that is never mentioned, like I'm a second-hand free-loading whiner wanting someone else to pay my way if I accept Social Security payments.

Apparently a lot of people have been asking Robert Samuelson, the Washington Post's economics columnist, the same thing. I can't do better than to quote his response:

Here is how I define a welfare program. First, it taxes one group to support another group, meaning it's pay-as-you-go and not a contributory scheme where people's own savings pay their later benefits. And second, Congress can constantly alter benefits, reflecting changing needs, economic conditions, and politics. Social Security qualifies on both counts....

Since the 1940s, Social Security has been a pay-as-you-go program. Most benefits are paid by payroll taxes on today's workers....

Similarly, Congress has repeatedly altered benefits. From 1950 to 1972, it increased them nine times, including a doubling in the early 1950s. In 1972, it indexed benefits to inflation. People didn't complain when benefits rose, but possible cuts now trigger howls that a "contract" is being broken. Not so. In a 1960 decision (Flemming v. Nestor), the Supreme Court expressly rejected the argument that people have a contractual right to Social Security. It cited the 1935 Social Security Act: "The right to alter, amend, or repeal any provision of this Act is hereby reserved to Congress." Congress can change the program whenever it wants.

But you can see how thoroughly the disinformation on Social Security has been spread. Decrepit former senator and debt commission co-chair Alan Simpson is still promoting it in a recent television appearance which—aside from coining a brilliant alternative name for Marshall Mathers—contained the following sophisticated rationale for saving Social Security: "when you waddle up to the window at 65 and you put 6.2 percent of all your jack in that thing, you're gonna want something back!"

But this whole perspective is dead wrong. You have not been forced to "contribute to a fund." There is no fund and never has been. You have not actually been promised any benefits at all. You cannot, and never could, claim them by right. They were always a dispensation granted to you by Congress based on pressure-group politics. And you can't ask for any of your "jack" back, because it's already gone.

Samuelson sums it up: "we ignored these realities and encouraged people to think they 'earned' benefits and that Social Security is distinct from the larger budget. Politicians, pundits, think-tank experts, and journalists engaged in this charade to spare Social Security's 54 million recipients the discomfort of understanding they're on welfare."

What struck me most about this observation is how alien it is to me that anyone would still view Social Security the way Alan Simpson does. Those who are already retired or are reaching retirement age were raised on the propaganda of Social Security as some kind of investment fund. But people my age (early forties) and younger have grown up expecting never to see a dollar from it. Simpson may not exactly have his finger on the pulse of contemporary youth culture, but he gets it right when he reports that "young people say, 'Well, I know there won't be anything there for me.'"

For us, Social Security has always been welfare. We've been warned for all of our adult lives about the demographic deluge of retiring Baby Boomers, and we did the math. We realized that just as we enter our prime earning years, we are going to be taxed unmercifully to pay for the Boomers' retirements.

We also know that once this money is paid, it is already gone. And so, therefore, is our political support.

This is the generational divide that helps explain the contradiction we're seeing: why there is a new willingness to talk about cutting Social Security, at the same time that there is also such an entrenched opposition to actually doing so.

Those of us in the younger generation, who are just now coming into positions of influence, are ready to accept the fact that we are victims of a con-game run by unscrupulous politicians. Those who are older are generally not ready. They are just now beginning to contemplate, in concrete terms, that they have been pilfered for decades and have nothing to show for it and no just claim to get it back.

Let me repeat: they have no just claim to the money that has been pilfered from them. The whole essence of the vast crime that is Social Security is the fact that it taxes four decades of your earnings and leaves you with nothing that you can claim as yours by right. You may regard yourself as an unwilling victim of Social Security, and many millions of people certainly were. But the only way to recoup your losses is by creating a whole new generation of victims.

Let me put it this way. Those who oppose cuts to Social Security are like victims of Bernie Madoff who demand that the government keep the pyramid scheme running for another round so they can cash out and shift their losses to the next sucker. Except that in this case, the next suckers are your kids and grandkids.

Let me repeat: Social Security is a crime, a swindle on a massive, nationwide, inter-generational scale. As with all such crimes, it will be settled, not according to the rules of justice, but according to the rules of politics. The destruction will have to be spread out so evenly among the various political pressure groups that no one feels they are being made to bear all of it.

I don't know how that process will end up, but I know what the first, most obvious step will be. Once we realize that Social Security is welfare for the elderly, there is no plausible rationale for giving it to anyone who isn't poor. As Robert Samuelson points out, "It is because these programs involve middle-class welfare that cuts could occur without inflicting widespread hardship. All the elderly aren't poor. In 2008, a quarter of families headed by someone 65 or over had incomes exceeding $75,000." This implies, not just an increase in the retirement age, but also some kind of "means testing" to reduce or eliminate Social Security for the financially comfortable.

I don't care so much how Social Security is reformed, reduced, or phased out, so long as it is eventually sent off into retirement. As a matter of practical political reality, there is no way to do so that doesn't spread the destruction around, imposing some losses on the old folks to reduce the losses for the young. But the urgent priority of our era is to unwind this vast societal crime, to reduce its scale as much as possible and as quickly as possible.

[jriggenbach]

Btw, roughly how many real governments in history have been proper governments, in your judgment? More than ten? More than fifty?

Let's just say for sake of argument that 0% have been proper, that the best that's ever happened is that people imagined

their government to be trying to fulfill a proper role (however incompetently), but in fact it never really was trying, ergo the 0%.

Now let me ask you a question. How often have you actually been rational, as opposed to merely proclaiming that you are? 20% of the time? 10%? 0%?

Shayne

The "best" thing that's ever happened is that "people imagined their government to be trying to fulfill a proper role (however incompetently)"? That's the best thing that's ever happened? That people became delusional about the State? What was the worst thing?

JR

[Peter]

JR wrote:

The "best" thing that's ever happened is that "people imagined their government to be trying to fulfill a proper role (however incompetently)"? That's the best thing that's ever happened? That people became delusional about the State? What was the worst thing?

end quote

How soon after the Constitution was written, did a near universal “buyer’s remorse” set in? I know George has quoted several founding father’s misgivings about going from the Articles of Confederation and individual State sovereignty, to the Constitution before it was finalized.

The All powerful Oz wrote:

I don't think many Objectivists bother to read the extensive writings of the Anti-Federalists, but they should. Anti-Federalist ideas -- such as the defense of "rotation in office," or what today we call "term limits" -- are much closer to the principles of Randian minarchism than are those of the Federalists. And their many predictions that certain provisions in the Constitution would lead inevitably to the indefinite expansion of governmental power were exactly on point.

Some of the most distinguished Americans of the revolutionary era were adamantly opposed to the Constitution. These included George Mason, author of the Virginia Bill of Rights; Richard Henry Lee, who offered the original resolution for American Independence in the Second Continental Congress; and Patrick Henry.

In addition, the fact that we have a Bill of Rights is largely owing to the efforts of Anti-Federalists.

Ghs

Back to me. I maintain that The Articles of Confederation were wholly inadequate to govern 13 sovereign states, with each state having a militia and 11 states having navies. What passed as the federal government back then, asked the states for money, but there was always a money shortage. After I read the Articles I concluded: This is what a consensus usually brings.

I will agree with George that no new Constitution should ever be written. I would not trust anyone to rewrite one. However, we could fix the old one.

That power to coercively tax is the sticking point for our new Randian Government, and that is why I think a “Peoples Veto” OR Virginia Senate hopeful Jamie Radtke’s “The Repeal Amendment” is a partial solution on the way towards voluntary taxation. After this Veto amendment is enacted, laws are proposed and voted upon just as now by the National Congress, but the people or two thirds of the State's Legislatures reserve to themselves the right to veto any law, enacted by Congress and signed by the President.

Since any new legislation could be vetoed, the chilling affect on the bums currently in office would be the ultimate check and balance.

What was the worst thing . . . that's ever happened . . . to the Constitution as concerns the fulfillment of its proper role? It was not explicit enough. Do you have a solution for America, Jeff or other readers of Objectivist Living?

Peter Taylor

[Xray]

A lottery is taxation for fools?

I have not yet checked the numbers on my five mega-millions tickets. I think the jackpot was 312 million dollars and was won last night by someone in New York State.

I also have five Powerball tickets for tonight, Saturday. The jackpot is 125 million dollars.

Despite the odds, a lottery works, Xray. It is painless, though there are always compulsive gamblers out there. Lottery tickets in the states of Delaware and Maryland require that you pay cash. Credit card purchases are not allowed for tickets, which cuts down on revenue, but saves the compulsive gamblers from over - extending themselves.

I'm not saying a lottery doesn't work. If it didn't work excellently (mainly for the state), no state would have it, and they all do. My point was that to expect to win the lottery could be called irrational, given the minimal chances.

I'll keep my fingers crossed for you for tonight's Powerball though. Maybe you will be the lucky one, beating the odds.

Edited March 26, 2011 by Xray

[Peter]

George wrote:

8. “Invasive Per Se”: The Minarchist-Anarchist Debate

. . . The anarchist rejects the argument that the basic institutional purpose of the State is one which could theoretically be achieved by voluntary means.

End quote

Don’t you mean George?:

The anarchist *embraces* the argument that the basic institutional purpose of the State is one which could theoretically be achieved by voluntary means.

end of paraphrase

If State taxation gradually withers away in a Randian Government, as hoped for by Ayn, wouldn’t it then be a big step towards fulfilling a Rational Anarchist’s requirements for a good place to live?

What might be next on a Rational Anarchist’s agenda? In my opinion, there is no way around keeping the Federal Government as the final arbiter of disputes but private defense agencies that do not violate individual rights and do not initiate force exist now and could be expanded in the future. Mike Marrotta has proposed this and works (or owns) such a firm.

Every Objectivist wants the elimination of the invasive aspects of the current government until it is pared down to its “proper” functions. We are in agreement.

Xray Angela wrote:

Maybe you will be the lucky one, in which case all my previous argumentation would suffer a severe blow. ;)

Could you rephrase that to a slow, tender caress? Oh, I see you already edited and rephrased the Freudian slip.

Peter Taylor

[sjw]

Btw, roughly how many real governments in history have been proper governments, in your judgment? More than ten? More than fifty?

Let's just say for sake of argument that 0% have been proper, that the best that's ever happened is that people imagined

their government to be trying to fulfill a proper role (however incompetently), but in fact it never really was trying, ergo the 0%.

Now let me ask you a question. How often have you actually been rational, as opposed to merely proclaiming that you are? 20% of the time? 10%? 0%?

Shayne

The "best" thing that's ever happened is that "people imagined their government to be trying to fulfill a proper role (however incompetently)"? That's the best thing that's ever happened? That people became delusional about the State? What was the worst thing?

JR

I didn't mean to imply that it was good that people were deluded, I meant to imply (for sake of argument) that government had only protected rights in people's imaginations. So, the closest governments came to respecting rights was in people's imaginations about what government was doing, i.e., that was the "best" they did.

Shayne

[Xray]

Xray Angela wrote:

Maybe you will be the lucky one, in which case all my previous argumentation would suffer a severe blow. ;)

Could you rephrase that to a slow, tender caress? Oh, I see you already edited and rephrased the Freudian slip.

Peter Taylor

It was ony after reading your post now that I saw one might interpret a Freudian slip into the unedited version. I swear I was totally unaware of that! I edited my post because it contained a logical fallacy. For (the premise of) my argumentation would of course not have suffered a severe blow from the fact of a single individual hitting the jackpot, and that's why I corrected my thinking error.

But meanwhile I'm beginning to shy away from using words like "(Power)ball" or "blow" in any context!!

Edited March 26, 2011 by Xray

[George H. Smith]

[This is a partial transcript of testimony given before The Committee of Angels. Questions and comments by the committee chairman are in italics. The first person to testify is the president of FOG.]

I understand that you represent all the governments on Earth. Is this correct?

Yes, sir. I am president of the Fraternal Order of Governments, or FOG. Our membership consists of all the governments, past and present, that have ever existed on Earth. I have been authorized to speak on behalf of FOG.

Do you know why you have been asked to testify before this Angelic Committee?

I believe so. The Deity has decided to draft a new Social Contract -- one that will secure the protection of individual rights. She is apparently unhappy with the job that FOG’s members have done so far.

“Unhappy” does not begin to describe how The Deity feels about this miserable situation. It has hitherto been the policy of The Deity not to interfere in political affairs and to leave such matters in the hands of earthlings. But the situation on earth has become so bad, things have gotten so out of hand, that The Deity appointed this Committee of Angels to undertake a full-scale investigation. After our investigation is completed, we will submit a report with a list of recommendations to The Deity for her consideration and approval.

I understand, sir. FOG has historically played a key role when this subject has been discussed in the past, and I believe that FOG will play an equally important role in future discussions.

.

Fine. Before proceeding, however, this Committee wants to be clear about what we hope to accomplish during today’s hearing. Our fundamental purpose is to ascertain the kind of institution that is best suited to protect individual rights. It is with this end in view that we will be interviewing representatives of various types of institutions. You represent the institution known as “government,” but we will also be looking into other types of institutions, such as churches, universities, labor unions, scientific organizations, insurance companies, and so forth. The Deity is convinced that the problems on Earth have become so serious that we should take nothing for granted. She wishes us to investigate this matter from the ground up and consider the possibility that institutions other than government might do a better job of protecting rights. In short, it should not be assumed as a matter of course that governments should be appointed for the job of protecting rights. We first need to inquire into the qualifications of FOG’s members for this important job.

I will be happy to answer any questions you may have.

Again, we want an institution that will undertake the protection of rights as its only proper task. Do you think that the institution of government can do this job better than any other institution?

Absolutely. No question about it.

Okay. FOG has a lot of members, so let’s narrow things down by taking a look at their resumés. Roughly how many governments have previously held a job with the primary purpose of protecting rights?

I would have to say none.

None? Out of thousands of governments in history, not one has been dedicated to protecting rights? Where did you get this statistic? From some deranged historian who really hates FOG?

No, sir. That is the estimate of Mr. Shayne Wissler, one of our greatest defenders. Mr. Wissler has also pointed out that few if any governments in history have even been interested in protecting rights.

Are you saying that members of FOG have no track record in the field of protecting rights?

Not exactly. Things are a bit more complicated than this.

I don’t understand. Please explain.

FOG members do have a track record in the area of rights. As Ayn Rand pointed out, governments have historically been the greatest violators of rights. We are the undisputed world champions here. No other institution even runs a close second.

Let me get this straight. You, president of FOG, claim that no government in history has undertaken the protection of rights as its primary purpose, and you even say that governments have been the greatest violators of rights in history. None of your members has even been seriously interested in protecting rights. Yet, despite this atrocious record, you want this committee to recommend that the institution of government be given the exclusive job of protecting rights?

Yes, sir. We want to be proper governments.

.

And a proper government is....

A proper government is a government that has as its purpose the proper purpose of protecting rights. I believe Mr. Wissler, who has a way with words, put it something like this.

Are any of the current members of FOG proper governments?

No, sir. All our members are real governments, not proper governments. As Mr. Wissler has pointed out, no real government has ever been a proper government.

None of your real governments has been up to the job, eh?

None has really been interested in the job in the first place. Some of FOG’s members might have protected some rights here and there, but this has been a hit and miss thing. If you want a systematic and reliable defense of rights, then you don’t want a real government. You will need a proper government of the sort that has never existed, as explained by Mr. Wissler.

Here is what I don’t understand. If, by your own admission, governments have historically been the worst violators of rights, and if no government has seriously undertaken the protection of rights, then why should this committee recommend that the institution of government be given the vital job of protecting rights? Why, in short, should we look to government as our model institution? You are proposing, in effect, that we appoint foxes to guard hen houses, while stipulating that we use proper foxes rather than real foxes. Perhaps you will claim that we can train real foxes to become proper foxes, but my question is this: Why use foxes at all? Why not look for other animals, such as guard dogs, that might do a much better job? Why assume at the outset that foxes, and only foxes, can possibly guard hen houses?

Sir, I don’t wish to be disrespectful, but anyone who advocates that something other than foxes should guard hen houses is an anarchist. Anarchism will never work. We cannot have a bunch of different animals out there guarding hen houses. Chaos and violence will follow.

Why is that?

Uh, I’m not sure. I think I read it somewhere. In any case, Mr. Wissler has proposed an elegant solution to our hen house problem. We find some kind of animal that can guard hen houses without eating the chickens. Then, no matter what animal this may be, we simply call it a fox.

We will take Mr. Wissler's suggestion into consideration. Thank you for your testimony.

Ghs

[bmacwilliam]

Bob,

Anarchy vs. government is a political manifestation of an underlying ethical theory, that theory being a subset of ethics in general: natural rights theory. Your thought that wealth is the foundation sounds like you substitute wealth for natural rights, and that just isn't right, and leads and is leading to fascism. The best American Founding Fathers were not capitalists, they were primarily defenders of Man's Rights. The Declaration of Independence doesn't refer to wealth or capitalism, it refers to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

But the best answer I can give is to read my book: http://www.amazon.com/Individual-Rights-Treatise-Human-Relations/dp/0984587004/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1301087220&sr=8-1

The subject we're talking about here is discussed in a section on Economism/Fascism.

Shayne

Well, again I think that substituting strictly wealth as the foundation might lead to this, but that's not really what I mean. Having a little trouble articulating it I guess.

In the same vein as 'your freedom to swing your arms ends where my nose begins', my idea of wealth is perhaps more appropriately described as 'your freedom to choose ends where the consumption of someone else's wealth begins'. Is that more clear? Perhaps we're not disagreeing on anything substantial.

The problem that arises as I see is this: When one applies a strict, liberty based foundation of ethics it leads us to the Randian conclusion that charity, in any form is always entirely optional. I find this nothing less than completely absurd on many levels, not just the moral. I truly think this is simply not reflective of the reality of what we are and how we developed as a species. I believe partial altruism is without a doubt truly an objective and necessary part of human nature and is defensible on an scientific basis. It simply CANNOT be rationally dismissed. Rand's logic I think is solid on this, but her description of reality is incorrect.

The partial confiscation of wealth is therefore entirely justified. The only question remaining is degree. This is a slippery slope if wealth is not held as a critical guidepost. Confiscation is valid ONLY if a) it serves to provide the necessities of life OR b ) it serves to create greater aggregate wealth. The recipient of (a) does NOT have the freedom to NOT contribute with labour if capable.

This leads to almost entirely (but not completely) respecting individual liberty and also leads to mankind's most critical component of progress - wealth.

Edited March 26, 2011 by Bob_Mac

[sjw]

Very amusing George, however, sarcasm is not an argument. Also, as I have already basically pointed out, the funny story you gave there could be altered by substituting "morality" for "government" and would be about you making fun of someone for not embracing amorality.

Morality is the philosophic system that identifies what human actions are good or bad. Just because all previous moral systems were actually immoral systems, doesn't mean we start calling our new, better system amoralism.

Likewise, government is the institution that enforces the laws of the land. Just because it chose to enforce bad laws rather than Natural Law doesn't mean we call our Natural Law institution anarchism.

Shayne

[sjw]

The problem that arises as I see is this: When one applies a strict, liberty based foundation of ethics it leads us to the Randian conclusion that charity, in any form is always entirely optional. I find this nothing less than completely absurd on many levels, not just the moral.

This is one purpose of competing governments -- to sort out disagreements on this level. If you are right then your community will prosper. If Objectivists are right then theirs will. In either case, we will find out through voluntary activity who is right, but at the foundation has to be pure voluntarism; you shouldn't get to have your say by fiat, that's how wars are started.

Shayne

[George H. Smith]

Very amusing George, however, sarcasm is not an argument. Also, as I have already basically pointed out, the funny story you gave there could be altered by substituting "morality" for "government" and would be about you making fun of someone for not embracing amorality.

Morality is the philosophic system that identifies what human actions are good or bad. Just because all previous moral systems were actually immoral systems, doesn't mean we start calling our new, better system amoralism.

Likewise, government is the institution that enforces the laws of the land. Just because it chose to enforce bad laws rather than Natural Law doesn't mean we call our Natural Law institution anarchism.

Shayne

My dialogue doesn't give an argument. It formulates a question -- the same question I asked yesterday but which you did not understand. Would you care to answer this question now? If not, all you need do is say that you don't wish to deal with it, and I won't bug you any more.

Ghs

[bmacwilliam]

The problem that arises as I see is this: When one applies a strict, liberty based foundation of ethics it leads us to the Randian conclusion that charity, in any form is always entirely optional. I find this nothing less than completely absurd on many levels, not just the moral.

This is one purpose of competing governments -- to sort out disagreements on this level. If you are right then your community will prosper. If Objectivists are right then theirs will. In either case, we will find out through voluntary activity who is right, but at the foundation has to be pure voluntarism; you shouldn't get to have your say by fiat, that's how wars are started.

Shayne

Elections provide us with competing governments no?

The thing is, you can build a "proper" function of government based on a number of foundational rights variations.

Anything labeled "natural" clearly should reflect the "nature" of the subject. The idea of a human nature without recognizing inherent altruism is simply absurd.

I find it interesting that while an ethics can be deductively derived from any foundation, and in that sense are 'correct', and loudly proclaimed as so, the obvious objective truth is that the foundation of this is clearly based on a fringe morality - one that is not reflective of human nature in any larger sense at all.

So, anarchists are indeed 'overgrown teenagers' as I see it, simply because of a unsophisticated or underdeveloped morality. Of course a better word for this when it appears in adults is 'deviant'.

Bob

[Peter]

Nice parody, George. Oz wrote:

No, sir. That is the estimate of Mr. Shayne Wissler, one of our greatest defenders. Mr. Wissler has also pointed out that few if any governments in history have even been interested in protecting rights.

George H. Smith also wrote on July 31, 2000 12:33:38 -0500

I agree with Peter that philosophy is important "to changing the world." Philosophy is concerned with fundamentals, and freedom cannot be sustained without an appreciation of its basic principles.

end quote

And politics is the action arm, of philosophy! Your selective historical view may be biased. And here, I thought you were starting to get a fire in your belly. What happened to those “few if any governments?” Isn’t America one of the few, that at the minimum, attempted to protect individual rights?

Shayne just wrote:

I didn't mean to imply that it was good that people were deluded, I meant to imply (for sake of argument) that government had only protected rights in people's imaginations. So, the closest governments came to respecting rights was in people's imaginations about what government was doing, i.e., that was the "best" they did.

end quote

Ayn Rand worked for several candidates throughout her life and I prefer her Patriotism, optimism, and activism. She said during her West Point address:

Is man a rational being, able to deal with reality--or is he a helplessly blind misfit, a chip buffeted by the universal flux? . . . . I can say--not as a patriotic bromide, but with full knowledge of the necessary metaphysical, epistemological, ethical, political and esthetic roots--that the United States of America is the greatest, the noblest and, in its original founding principles, the only moral country in the history of the world . . . . you have preserved the spirit of those original founding principles and you are their symbol. There were contradictions and omissions in those principles, and there may be in yours--but I am speaking of the essentials . . . . Since I came from a country guilty of the worst tyranny on earth, I am particularly able to appreciate the meaning, the greatness and the supreme value of that which you are defending. So, in my own name and in the name of many people who think as I do, I want to say, to all the men of West Point, past, present and future: Thank you.

end quote

Oh, and atheist that she was Ayn then roared out, “God Bless America!”

Objectivist government is clearly based on the United States Constitution. Will you guys actually produce something to aid in the patriot’s battle to save America, so that no one will be tempted to think, You are full of **it, Shayne. You are full of **it, George.

Guys? Drink a big glass of water. Grab a newspaper. Then get back to work.

George wrote to Shayne:

It formulates a question -- the same question I asked yesterday but which you did not understand. Would you care to answer this question now?

end quote

America the beautiful, is the answer, Shayne. America the beautiful!

Peter Taylor

[sjw]

Very amusing George, however, sarcasm is not an argument. Also, as I have already basically pointed out, the funny story you gave there could be altered by substituting "morality" for "government" and would be about you making fun of someone for not embracing amorality.

Morality is the philosophic system that identifies what human actions are good or bad. Just because all previous moral systems were actually immoral systems, doesn't mean we start calling our new, better system amoralism.

Likewise, government is the institution that enforces the laws of the land. Just because it chose to enforce bad laws rather than Natural Law doesn't mean we call our Natural Law institution anarchism.

Shayne

My dialogue doesn't give an argument. It formulates a question -- the same question I asked yesterday but which you did not understand. Would you care to answer this question now? If not, all you need do is say that you don't wish to deal with it, and I won't bug you any more.

Ghs

Just because you claim that I didn't understand your question doesn't mean that I didn't squarely answer it. If anyone else here thinks I didn't answer your question, let them reframe it and I'll answer it.

Shayne

[sjw]

Elections provide us with competing governments no?

[sjw]

Objectivist government is clearly based on the United States Constitution. Will you guys actually produce something to aid in the patriot’s battle to save America, so that no one will be tempted to think, You are full of **it, Shayne. You are full of **it, George.

I said *for sake of argument.* I did not claim that the US government wasn't the best that has existed or that it didn't substantially defend Man's Rights.

Shayne