My hometown has a measure on the primary ballot to raise money for the local government schools. Cut backs in state funding have left them in a desperate state--forced to shrink or eliminate vital programs and services, which means the education of our local youth will suffer. This is tragic. Education is important and is worthy of receiving adequate funding. After years of homeschooling my children, both are now attending the local high school--so my children's education will suffer unless the schools receive more money.
In spite of these facts, I can not bring myself to support a law which uses the force of government to deprive others of their property. If people cannot be convinced to voluntarily provide financial support to the schools, I know of no moral principle which allows me force others to act against their best judgment. Our Constitution was written to protect the individual from precisely this abuse of power by government and the majority---even though this original meaning has been severely diluted and even lost in recent years.
For this reason, my local Measure E is immoral and should be soundly defeated.
For this same reason, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is immoral and should be repealed.
Use of government force to control how much and what kind of energy private citizens choose to purchase, is similarly wrong and should not be allowed.
What is at stake is greater than the plight of our schools, or the uninsured, or man's purported effect on climate. The peaceful coexistence of human beings is grounded upon the recognition of each individual's right to his own life, liberty and property--and only his own. We are neither masters nor slaves, neither our brother's keepers nor the kept.
This does not negate voluntary cooperation or pooling of resources and efforts to achieve community goals. (Many worthwhile projects can not be achieved without joint support and action.) It simply removes the use of force as a legitimate means of achieving one's goals at the expense of others.
The civilized world has come to recognize the immorality of enslaving another human being in order to employ his labor against his will. The next step in our moral progress is to recognize that a man's property is an extension of his life and liberty, and that to seize a man's property against his will is merely another form of slavery.
Until we are able to remove the intrusive hammer of government force from our private lives, our peace, good will, prosperity--and the moral character of our communities-- are in mortal danger.
To be moral in your interactions with fellow human beings, you must either convince him, or you must leave him alone.
22 comments:
What about the other side of the situation. Is it moral for your neighbors to benefit from your children's education, provided through the expenditure of your property, without contributing? If your and others' children are educated they will be better citizens, they will be less likely to commit crimes such as burglary, they will be more produtive, and they will have a better understanding of the human condition as well as their rights and their neighbors' rights. The benefits your neighbors derive from the first three consequences of education are obvious. The benefit of the last one is more subtle and will result from the decreased likelihood that they will be difficult neighbors. Specifically, they will be less inclined to be self centered to thepoint that they engage in activities on their property that deprive your neighbors of peaceful enjoyment of their property, ie they will be more likely to be considerate of their neighbors.
So, is it moral for one to join a community without contributing to the maintenance of all the attributes that make the community a desirable place to live? I don't think there is any force compelling your neighbors to live in your community. they could choose to live in a rural area that has no school district and therefore collects no taxes for its support.
It seems that if one follows the thread of your argument no democractically achived decisions are moral, because someone always will disagree and should not be forced to participate. Doesn't that result in anarchy?
Many Americans were against going to Iraq. Now, one can argue that it was necessary for the defense of our country. While that is still being debated, let's assume that it is true and that our activities in Iraq enefit everyone living the USA. Should those who opposed the war be exempted from contributing their treasure to support the war while benefiting from it? I don't think so.
Anonymous1
Anonymous,
Welcome back—as always, your questions are good for thinking.
#1 The morality of contributing to one’s community
Do my neighbors benefit from my educating my children, or my well maintained house and yard or a myriad of other things which I chose to do? Of course. Can they be required to reimburse me for that benefit? On what basis? On what principle do you base the idea of unchosen obligations? I can think of none.
You ask “Is it moral to join a community without contributing?” Before one can answer that question, you first have to ask, “What is the purpose and standard of morality?”
As living beings, we must act in order to continue our existence. As rational beings, we have free will and must decide what actions to take. I believe that the purpose of morality is to guide my decisions as to which actions to take, and that the standard by which I determine whether an action is right (good) or wrong (bad) is whether or not that action promotes my life –not just in the moment but in the in the widest context and for the entire length of my life.
So—within that understanding of morality, is it moral to join a community without contributing? If the community is one that promotes one’s life, then I would say the moral thing to do is to contribute. By contributing to the community, you are also promoting your own life.
Now, should the community then be able to force you to contribute? That is an entirely different question. Not everything that is moral is something which belongs in politics.
It is “right” (good, moral) to express gratitude when someone does something nice for you---but that does not mean that we should make it illegal and punishable by law if you fail to say thank you? The realm of political action is narrower than the realm of moral action.
#2 Lack of democracy leads to anarchy
Democracy, or rule by majority vote, is not a system of governance which I support. Unconstrained popular rule leads to tyranny of the majority over the minority—the smallest minority being the individual.
Again---what is the standard by which we determine the role of a proper government? It is the same standard by which I would determine whether or not any interaction with others is moral: the absolute prohibition of the initiation of force. The use of force prevents a person from acting on their own best judgment. Since we live and die by our judgment—it is an attack on another’s means of survival to impose by force your judgment for theirs. You must convince them—or leave them alone. And vice versa.
The form of government I support is a constitutional republic in which the government is limited to the defense of individual rights---and the majority is prevented from using the mechanism of the government to initiate force against anyone. Moral solutions to the challenges we face must be found within this “box” that excludes the initiation of force from human intercourse. This is not anarchy—but it does significantly restrain the power of the community. No man can morally be made the means to another’s ends without that man’s consent. Period.
I don’t suppose I will convince you—but I hope I have at least clarified my stance.
You seem to be preoccupied with the notion of force. I presume this derives from Ayn Rand's philosophy, which was a result of her asocial nature and the scars left by her experience at a young age in totalitarian Russia.
In the US there is no force. Force would require yourinability to leave the town, county, city, state or country in which you live. I can't speak for you or your neighbors, but I'm guessing that you knew when you moved into your community that the schools were supported by taxes, as agreed by the citizens of your political area. If you didn't like the agreement that the citizens of your community had reached, you were free not to buy the home where you live and your neighbors were free to do the same.
I think you agree that it is immoral to join a community, knowing what the rules are, then refusing to contribute to activities that benefit all. If levying taxes is immoral, then not contributing is more immoral. Here's why:
By levying taxes you are compelling your neighbors to pay for a benefit they are receiving. By not contributing, your neighbors are extracting benefit from all their contributing neighbors' wealth. The former is just mandating that citizens pay for what they are getting; it's an even exchange. The latter is taking away from the entire community without compensation; it's essentially theft of benefit.
As a practical matter, we can't have our military supported on a voluntary basis, nor the police, fire, emergency services, courts, etc. They would all collapse under the weight of funding confusion. So, while it may be nice to yearn for a utopia in which everyone acts rationally in their self interest, resulting in the most efficient, highest use of people's time and money, but it's not practical. If it were achievable we wouldn't need the government at all. Not for military, not for courts, not for police, and all of your neighbors would recognize the benefit of good schools in your community and would voluntarily pony up to support them. But that isn't the case, so we need a slightly more vigorous form of 'encouragement.'
The current discussion is a good illustration. Most people who don't want to pay the taxes would argue that they aren't receiving any benefit. Two examples come to mind. One of my neighbors voted for McCain because she "had money to protect." I.e. she liked the Bush tax cuts and didn't want to pay taxes. When it came time to send the kids back to school, she was one of the first to complain about having to send her kids to school with more than $100 of supplies. She couldn't figure out that her tax break resided only temporarily in her pocket before she gave it to the school. The other example is the repeated opposition to raising our mill levy to pay for a recreation center. It never fails that the most vocal opponents to paing an extra $60 in taxes are also the loudest complainers when they have to spend $100 to replace the mailbox that was demolished by local youth who were recreating at their expense for lack of constructive outlets for their energy.
Anonymous1
RE: "You seem to be preoccupied with the notion of force."
I don't think I am "preoccupied" with the notion of force because that implies that I am being distracted from the central issue. I think coercion vs persuasion and voluntary interaction IS the central issue which divides proper and improper human interaction.
As to Ayn Rand’s psychology—I wouldn’t begin to make any presumptions about it, nor do I think it relevant to evaluating her philosophy. As to her philosophy, beginning with her metaphysics (Existence exists. Consciousness exists. Consciousness is the facility which perceives that which exists.) and epistemology (which includes the validity of the senses, logic and Law of Identity), I do find it convincing and it has led to my conclusion that the initiation of force is anti-life in all forms: private, public, singly or as a group.
I choose to live in this country, and I do pay my taxes. But taxes are put in place through a process in which a majority is allowed to take my property even if I have not been convinced to voluntarily relinquish it. If I choose to withhold payment of tax, I will be forced to pay--through seizure of my property and possibly physical incarceration of my person. I would call that force—and there is nowhere in this country where it is not employed. Maybe even nowhere in the world.
The relationship between a citizen and the government (or the community) is a very different relationship than one of private contracting--and I think your argument conflates the two. The entire function of government is to have a monopoly on the use of retaliatory force against those who initiate it—which is why the government powers must be carefully and rigorously defined and limited. The essence of private interactions should be voluntary. Not everyone will refrain from force or fraud, and when they don’t, government in the form of the military, the police and the courts can serve as a way to objectively arbitrate and protect. That’s the only “more vigorous form of encouragement” I am wiling to accept: the use of force limited to retribution for and protection against others who initiate it, formulated in written, objective laws.
I disagree that we can not have the fire department, emergency services, education and health care all on a completely voluntary basis. I do agree that the police, the courts and the military are proper functions of the government---but that voluntary funding of these vital functions could and would be possible. I will see if I can relocate the writings which provide alternative private funding ideas—and these are not “utopian” in that they do not assume the entire population to be rationally self-interested and well behaved. They are systems which consistently respect the individual rights of life, liberty and property and severely limit the functions of government making it actually affordable.
I can not account for the inconsistency of your neighbor—but clearly inconsistent she is. That problem arises from not thinking in principles and not working to exculpate contradictions in one’s thinking when they exist.
to repeat from earlier statement: you have a right to your own life (liberty and property) and ONLY to your own. Not to anyone else's. Not by theft, fraud nor by majority vote.
RE: "You seem to be preoccupied with the notion of force."
I don't think I am "preoccupied" with the notion of force because that implies that I am being distracted from the central issue. I think coercion vs persuasion and voluntary interaction IS the central issue which divides proper and improper human interaction.
As to Ayn Rand’s psychology—I wouldn’t begin to make any presumptions about it, nor do I think it relevant to evaluating her philosophy. As to her philosophy, beginning with her metaphysics (Existence exists. Consciousness exists. Consciousness is the facility which perceives that which exists.) and epistemology (which includes the validity of the senses, logic and Law of Identity), I do find it convincing and it has led to my conclusion that the initiation of force is anti-life in all forms: private, public, singly or as a group.
I choose to live in this country, and I do pay my taxes. But taxes are put in place through a process in which a majority is allowed to take my property even if I have not been convinced to voluntarily relinquish it. If I choose to withhold payment of tax, I will be forced to pay--through seizure of my property and possibly physical incarceration of my person. I would call that force—and there is nowhere in this country where it is not employed. Maybe even nowhere in the world.
The relationship between a citizen and the government (or the community) is a very different relationship than one of private contracting--and I think your argument conflates the two. The entire function of government is to have a monopoly on the use of retaliatory force against those who initiate it—which is why the government powers must be carefully and rigorously defined and limited. The essence of private interactions should be voluntary. Not everyone will refrain from force or fraud, and when they don’t, government in the form of the military, the police and the courts can serve as a way to objectively arbitrate and protect. That’s the only “more vigorous form of encouragement” I am wiling to accept: the use of force limited to retribution for and protection against others who initiate it, formulated in written, objective laws.
I disagree that we can not have the fire department, emergency services, education and health care all on a completely voluntary basis. I do agree that the police, the courts and the military are proper functions of the government---but that voluntary funding of these vital functions could and would be possible. I will see if I can relocate the writings which provide alternative private funding ideas—and these are not “utopian” in that they do not assume the entire population to be rationally self-interested and well behaved. They are systems which consistently respect the individual rights of life, liberty and property and severely limit the functions of government making it actually affordable.
I can not account for the inconsistency of your neighbor—but clearly inconsistent she is. That problem arises from not thinking in principles and not working to exculpate contradictions in one’s thinking when they exist.
To repeat what I have said elsewhere: you have a right to your own life (liberty and property) and only to your own. Not to anyone else’s. Not by theft, by threat, by fraud no by majority vote.
What principle do you suggest be the one guiding human interaction?
My point is that you choose to live where you live and therefore implicitly accept the conditions of living there. If you were in totalitarian Russia and were denied freedom of movement, including the freedom to leave, I would acknowledge the use of force.
This country did once have private fire departments. They were supported by those who paid, who, in turn were provided a firemark to put on their property that alerted a fire company that the owner had paid for the services. I don't know the history of why that system disappeared, but I can conjecture that it was too confusing, uncoordinated, and inefficient.
THe problem I wrestle with is that when we all live for ourselves it's only a matter of time until we infringe on others. It seems better to have those infringements codified than to have them assert themselves with caprice.
So, let's take the issue of the armed forces, one of the valid functions of government, accordeing to the Austrian School and Libertarians. About half the country was opposed to Iraq. So, let's take that in the larger sense and say that half the country is not infavor of supporting the armed forces. Should the other half pony up for the whole bill, letting the recalcitrant half enjoy the benefits, or is it a valid use of police power to thwart their attempts to take your property in the form of enjoying the benefits you provide? How would your totally volunteer system work? Please show me how it would not end up like the PTA, with a few families/parents shouldering the load for everyone and the majority of the parents reaping the benefits.
Beth, I could not agree more - why should I work so that another person can play? Why should I be taxed to provide a benefit to another? The reasoning used is because I can afford it and they are too poor. Once we open the 'need' can of worms we have today's society. The needy and the redistributers all cannibalize the efforts of the productive few. In the end we are left with irresponsible people and resentful people and a society that is falling apart. Everyone is so busy minding the other guy's business they stop living for themselves.
And BTW, I wish you the best with the black ribbon campaign. cheers, gs
Garret, it's natural for one to resent having non-contributors benefit from one's labors. I question, though, the benfit to the contributors of denying the non-contributors a subsistence. If your taxes went to zero you would still live at roughly the same standard of living, or perhaps slightly lower. Prices for everything you consume would adjust to the new discretionary money supply. In addition, you would have new out of pocket expenses owing to economic friction derived from the inefficiencies of the free market. (See the example of private fire companies, above) Further, part of the money no longer paid in taxes would be spent to protect yourself from the social unrest associated with increased disparity between the top and bottom of the wealth scale. In other words, you would need to voluntarily pay more to support an expanded police department. In the end, you would likely not gain materially and you may well lose in terms of peace of mind and convenience.
Your argument focuses on the benefits flowing from your taxes to those who do nothing but 'play.' You should also take a look at the other end of the scale. Namely, the corporate world. Entrepreneurs and small corporations don't get tax breaks when they start a company in the average town. Large corporations do, at the expense of the entrepreneurs and everyone else living in the town. Moreover, the multinational corporations avoid taxes by shifting their profits off shore, on paper. Examine price transfer accounting and you may be just as irate over your subsidy of corporate business as you are over your subsidy of those who do nothing but 'play.'
Finally, you wieghed in on your desire to keep yours. We were discussing the philosophical underpinnings of a force based taxation system. If we make all the current mandated taxes voluntary, how do you see that working? Personally, my experience with the PTA suggests that the majority of citizens would say 'screw it, let somebody else pay,' and the whole thing would collapse into chaos. The solution in the case of fire companies is easy. If you don't have 'our' firemark on your property, we let it burn. It's not so easy in the cases in which the benefits to individuals can't be separated from the aggregate benefit, such as in the case of funding the military.
We've kind of gotten off track. Back to the question of force vis-a-vis taxes. What is your solution? Will it obviate the need for you to grumble about paying taxes that benefit those who don't pay? Or, should we just get rid of the miltary and rely on the rational actions of other nations and people?
-Anonymous1
Anon1 and Garret,
Thank you for your comments. I am regretfully going to have to bow out of the discussion for the time being. I hate to have to do this as I find that my thinking improves greatly when challenged in the way it is in these exchanges. Unfortunately, I have a relative who is seriously ill and I need to make him my priority for the near future and can not give this the time and thought is deserves to offer an adequate answer.
I did have time to put together a short list of resources which will give you an idea of the kinds of things that could possibly work within the constraints of voluntary funding of government. We have to start somewhere...and that's all these are, just a start.
Here's the link to the google doc:
http://tinyurl.com/GvmtFinancing.
Respectfully, Beth
Beth, sorry to hear about your personal problem. Hope things work out for the best.
Anon1, as Beth seems to think you are sincere, I will begin with that assumption thought the inconsistencies in what you write makes me think otherwise. I’ll pick out a few examples.
“denying the non-contributors a subsistence”. Are you suggesting that I should show more concern for an individual than that individual shows for themselves? Do you believe that even though a person rejects the opportunity to support and better themselves, there should be no consequences - that I should feed, cloth and house them? I happen to believe that I have no right to stand in the way of someone striving to better themselves but my responsibility ends there.
“you would have new out of pocket expenses owing to economic friction derived from the inefficiencies of the free market.” This idea is directly out of the Marxist playbook - that because there is a profit motive involved in capitalism, of necessity, socialism is more efficient. You fail to understand that capitalism is the voluntary exchange between willing parties, without a third party, your socialist state enforcer, demanding his cut. If you simply look around you at the goods that are in abundance, where prices decline despite the value being inflated out of our money, at the electronic industry and the food industry, you will see where free market forces interplay to drive costs down.
“Entrepreneurs and small corporations don't get tax breaks when they start a company in the average town. Large corporations do.....”. How can you label this as a mark of a free market or capitalistic system? Who grants the tax exemptions? Is it not the very same officials who collect them from everyone else, who use force to redistribute the wealth they seize from those who live productively?
Do you believe that our current system is a reflection of a free market or capitalist system? Do you believe GE, GM, the major banks and a wealth of other companies, when faced with a fickle market that no longer supports them, should be able to go to the government and force the people who don’t want their products to pay them anyway?
But it is much more than a resentment for paying for lazy people - it is the abuse of the most valuable teaching tool ever invented. When we pay people to do things, they usually keep doing those things. When we pay for bad habits we encourage them to continue and in the end, we have a society without thinking people, a society on the verge of collapse, sort of what we are facing today.
As to the armed forces and paying for the Iraq war, well, the Iraq war was cheap. Less than three weeks in it was over. It is the Iraq peace that has cost America dearly and that also is driven by an erroneous thinking process. American force should be used to keep America safe, not as human shields to stand between stone age tribal waring clans.
Since this is Beth’s page I’ll refrain from saying more but if you choose to continue the discussion seine44@gmail.com gets my attention.
Cheers, gs
OK. Garret, you are missing the point. You obviously advocate for voluntary donations to the government. Yet, no ralistinc way of doing this is offered. The link Beth provided starts off with the acknowledgement that there will be freeloaders. So, those who pay will be paying for thos e who don't.
Focusing on support of the military (as this is one function of government we both agree is ligitimate and necessary) please compare the morality of the use of force to make everyone pay versus the morality of the half of society who will decide not to pay but will benefit from your support of the military.
No, I don't think our economy is free, nor is it capitalistic. It is largely corporate welfare, which dwarfs the social welfare many, including you, seem to fixate on when arguing 'why should I pay for those who choose to play?' It's just that the 'corpofare' doesn't appear as a line item in the national budget.
Regarding social Welfare, your assumption that recipients are perfectly capable of working, but choose not to, comes off more arrogant that you intend, I'm sure. Think beyond yourself for a moment. Not everyone is as capable as you are. And people often find themselves in situattions in which they need some help. No, I don't think Welfare should be a way of life, nor should it be the family business for genereations. But I choose to assume, perhaps incorrectly, that Welfare fraud, for that is what I described, is a small fraction of the total social safety net.
Are there inconsistencies in my arguments? Perhaps. But there is one consistent thread in my outlook. I look at the glass half full. There is limitless opportunity here. I have a lot. More than most of the people in the world. I could to nicely with a lot less. Finally, I prefer to focus on what I have rather than fret that someone might get something for free. I see this outlook in my children, by the way. They are absolutely terrified that one or the other will get by with doing a little less, or that the other one will get a little more. It's exhausting!
Thank you for the invitation to debate you privately. I prefer to debate here, so others can offer their views. I'll have more to say about voluntary 'taxes' after I peruse the link Beth provided. I'll note here, though, that no viable alternative to 'forced' taxes has been offered, yet.
Anonymous1
I looked at the link on voluntary funding of the government. Unfortunately, rather than a well conceived plan for implementing such a scheme, the document just pines for the utopian dream in which everyone behaves rationally and morally and so would contribute to the effort. Simultaneously it acknowledges that there would always be individuals who don't contribute.
The author has several examples in which citizens voluntarily contribute to support police and fire forces, and extrapolates to the case of no taxes, and asserts that citizens will voluntarily support them.
It's interesting that the author would use a case in which donors receive a tax benefit for supplementing police and fire budgets to conclude that they would fund the whole budget without enjoying a tax benefit. I think it is a nice wish, but it fails to take reality into account.
In fact, the whole document is no more robust vis-a-vis capitalism than the Communist Manifesto is vis-a-vis communism. They each describe their utopian renditon of their respective ideology. Now, you can argue the morality and rectitude of each system, but in the end either system would work splendidly in the absence of human nature.
Beyond that the problem of force is not satisfactorily addressed. Freeloaders do, in effect, take the payers' property by force, although more subtly than our tax system does. In fact, while the method is different, the result seems to be the same. YOU have to work while THEY play. YOU pay for police, fire, military, and so on, and THEY let you. The issue of food, shelter, clothing, etc. is trickier and would undoubtedly involve theft as well as donations to assistance organizations. ADmittedly, theft of food, shelter, etc. would be punishable, but theft by failing to contribute would not. In the end, though, I can't imagine that everyone isn't affected, just like now, save for those with sufficient tax shelters.
Anonymous1
Anon1, why do you have such difficulty looking in the mirror and seeing your fellow citizen? Why do you think no one shares your views on what is important and those things would only be available if others are forced to contribute?
But you fail to see the main point of relying on a bureaucracy to 'keep it all together'. When the majority of people in a society have no comprehension of what is important and needs their voluntary support, that society is in terminal decay and a collapse is inevitable. By using force to keep things together we guarantee they will fall apart.
I'm sorry Garret, but you seem disconnected from reality. I let it slide when you asserted that the Iraq war was over in three weeks. Tha "mission accomplished" sign was intended to dupe the low information citizen into believing the war was over, when, in fact, it was just beginning. Also, the mission was to install a democracy in Iraq, a mission that is far from over.
Your statement "no one agrees with you" is ridiculous. In fact, many people agree with my position, while far fewer agree with yours. It may seem to you that everyone agrees with you, but if you look beyond your parochial enclave, you will find the Ayn Randers are a minimal and marginal group.
You still haven't offered a practical solution for implementing voluntary support of the government. I suspect there isn't any; only wishful utopian desire that evryone will suddenly act rationally, morally, and with consideration of their fellow humans--a wish that is as old as humanity but has yet to be realized.
By the way, Garret, do you own any stocks or have a 401(k) or participate in a pension plan?
-Anonymous1
Dear Anonymous1,
Sorry that you found the references I sent not specific enough to address your challenge. I think it is an important question that needs to be answered--and I am confident I can at least outline the beginnings of a such a system. Unfortunately, you have chosen to reengage at a time when I just am not able to set aside adequate time for this task. I hope you will check back periodically, and when my life settles down, I will try to construct an answer.
B
Anon1, on one point you have my agreement - we are night and day, thankfully. When you say many people agree with your position and few with mine, do you fully understand my position? I stated that I am more than willing to pay my own way. Does that mean, as I suspect, that you are unwilling to pay your own way? That you hold the belief that I should feed, clothe and house you? That you are willing to place a gun to my head to get what you want?
I’m also fully prepared to pay the cost of keeping you at bay. Should you show up on my doorstep, don’t be surprised if I’m willing and quite capable of looking after myself.
Your view that I’m disconnected from reality, that the Iraq war’s mission statement was “to install a democracy in Iraq” shows me that you hold a belief that government may make any rules they want, that you are far removed from the founders belief, that there are limits beyond which a government has no authority. I happen to hold an entirely different view of the proper use of American troops than you appear to have. Subjecting them to death in order to provide a human wall between two belligerent factions is not one of them.
You look for a solution for implementing voluntary support for government - easy. Stop funding the irrelevant and it will happen by itself.
And yes, I am self supporting, own stocks, investments and a pension. I also have no debt.
cheers,gs
Garret, first let me say I'm happy you have no debt; it would suck to be carrying debt in retirement. I asked you whether you own stocks for a purpose. I don't care that you are self supporting, an owner of stocks, or debt free anymore than I care that you went to the store for bread, regardless of how impressive you thnk that is or how enamored you are with your success. I do care about your stock ownership because it reveals an inconsitency between what you say you believe and what you do.
I gather from your postings here and on your blog that you subscribe to Ayn Rand's philosophy. You seem to attempt to convince your readers that you live logically and rationally, and that you advocate personal responsibility and accountability.
If this is the case, your stock ownership, and that of anyone else who professes to subscribe to Ayn Rand's philosophy, is hypocritical, or you really aren't as logical and rational as you claim and you don't understand the philosophy you profess.
The purpose of the corporate form of business, and with it stock ownership, is to avoid personal responsibility and accountability. As a stockholder you are accountable only to the extent of the cost of your shares. The Ayn Rand level of accountability would be the proportion of liability commensurate with the proportion of your ownership. E.g., if you paid $10 for 10 out of 100 shares you own 10%; so you would be accountable for $100,000 of a $1,000,000 judgement. It gets pretty risky pretty fast, so it might make you a little more diligent in knowing what your managers are doing with your company. And, more likely, it would scare investors away and we would not have the vast complex busness world that produces so many things we enjoy.
You could avoid this inconsistency in your professed philosophy by investing only in bonds and advocating for the abolition of the corporate form. However, doing so would not allow you to participate proportionally in the earnings of the companies whose stocks you own, while avoiding liabilities from the actions taken by managers on your behalf. This, by the way is a form of socialism: you get to particpate in the profits, and if the company goes bankrupt others get stuck with your debt (privatization of profits and socialization of losses). You would also earn less money in the long term.
I just don't see how you square the stringent personal responsibility standards of objectivism with the willful avoidance of resonsibilty inherent in the corporate form. Personally, I think we should abolish the corporate form and revert to partnerships in which liabilty is shouldered by the business owners, just like in a sole proprietorship.
In addition to the above inconsistency, there is the inconsistency of legally establishing a collective. As has been argued on this blog in the past, objectivism holds that all rights are individual rights and there is no basis for rights acruing to the collective. Well, a corporation, be it a commercial one or one of governemental division (e.g. a town) is a collective. In both cases decisons are made that may not please all constituents (stockholders or citizens).
Please tell me what it is that allows you to accept the shirking of responsibility and accountability in stock ownership, as well as the decisions made on your behalf by managment when making money for all constituents is the intent, but doesn't allow you to accept the decisons made by elected officals with the intent of benefiting all constituents.
Also, I want to thank you for your plan for implementing voluntary financial support of the government. I intentionally chose the military because it is something we both agree on (I agree with you, by the way. We shuoldonot have gone into Iraq; Sadam was the only thing holding ack the Sunnis and Shiites from one another.). It is necessary and it is a ligitimate function of government. I think your method of implementation leaves out human nature and the well studied economic phenomenon that shows that when in a group there will always be those who don't contribute. Your argument suggests that you will be willing to pay the bill. This, of course, is ridiculous. Just think, if in the extreme, nobody else is willing to pay, are you going to pick up the tab? If there is no way to force everyone to contribute to the support of the military, we would soon have one guyon an old jeep for a military.
-Anonymous1
Dear Anon1
Finally…I have had the time to reread your comments and try to decide which of the many points to respond to. Many of the points you make indicate a misunderstanding of my stands. I think I would learn a lot if I was able to think and write on each one, but unfortunately, I don’t have the time to address them all —so I will choose just a few. I will do so in chunks, and do them in an order which makes the most sense to me…which means addressing the issue of funding government last. Because where I end up depends on where I begin, this is the logical progression for me.
My father-in-law is still quite ill, so at any time I may have to bow out again for a while. However, I have enjoyed our exchanges in the past, so I’d like to continue if I can.
Here is my general plan:
1. Points you raise which I would like to know more about
2. Living only for yourself vs. majority rule
3.Utopian vs realistic proposals
4.Thoughts on voluntary funding of government.
1. Points you raise I would like to know more about
A. The burden or cost of corporate welfare
You state that the amount of corporate welfare “dwarfs” social welfare. You certainly could be right on this…I have no data either way. I think it is a key point and would love to know more. Direct subsidies, bailouts, government-sanctioned monopolies (including licensing), tax breaks, import quotas, tariffs--what else should be considered? What could we do to get a better handle on this? Do you have any good sources which elaborate on this?
B. Corporations
I know very little about the legal theory and justifications behind incorporating. You raise some intriguing points about them, especially in relationship to responsibility and accountability. You raised some of these months ago and I was beginning to do some background reading on the history and structure of corporations—and can not recall what got me to set it down, although I suspect it was the growing debate over health care policy. Someday I would like to get back to this topic, but lately my time seems to have become far too scarce. (The supply has stayed the same of course---it is the demands upon it which have skyrocketed.)
More later.
Anon1, given a logical argument, that showed me to hold an inconsistent viewpoint, I would alter that viewpoint. Personally I don’t see where you have made your case. Is see rationalization in your argument, not reason and logic.
Your claim that you have a better understanding of Ayn Rand’s viewpoint than I do is not supported be the fact that you and I are having a disagreement about the appropriate place to use force. If you have studied AR and rejected her premise on the use of force, you have failed to understand anything about Ayn Rand.
About individual liability for corporate debt, a multipage essay could hardly do justice to that subject, so here are just a few thoughts.
The corporate rules and regulation we currently live with were established many years ago by political leaders who saw these to be the best means of organizing responsibility. You say I should reject these rules and set my own rules of accountability. Are you saying I should do jail time? Do you expect me to accept the government’s legitimacy of using force to make me pay for what I don’t want to pay, but revolt and voluntarily dig out my wallet when you say I’m not paying enough?
If you knew anything about Ayn Rand, you would understand that the consequences of voting in leaders who bring in laws limiting corporate liability should be borne by the voter who did so. And if you think there is something wrong with these rules, you should be arguing your case in front of the people who make the rules, not the people who follow them.
Again your understanding of Ayn Rand is shown to be shallow by your belief that a corporation is a collective. Using your logic, all groups and associations would be outlawed. Such is not the case with Objectivism’s interpretations. Any and all individuals may pool resources, organize and conduct any legitimate business, but they do not have the right to use force to imposed their viewpoint. A single individual’s rights may not be violated.
Space and time are my enemy and while there are many more things that can be said about the why and how of corporate rules, I’ll leave that subject.
We still have differences on the subject of the Iraq war. At this stage I’m still not convinced that America was out of line for removing Sadam. I am only convinced that using American soldiers to separate the Sunnis and the Shiites is totally beyond the requirements for the defense of America and places foreigner lives above American lives - something I truly abhor.
As to the ‘one old guy in a jeep’, if I were the only person willing to pay for defense, America’s ‘best before date’ would be long past. And that brings me back to my main point, a point you have not addressed and I urge you to consider most carefully.
The major flaw in using force to fund something is that the individuals doing the funding lose sight of the importance of what they are funding and instead develop a resentment for being forced. They lose sight of the value of that ‘something’. It becomes inevitable that ‘something’ not valued will be lost and that is happening to our freedom - a tragedy Ayn Rand and all of her followers are trying to avoid. It is a cause with which we could use your help.
Cheers, gs
For the next installment of my response, see today's (6-16-10) post "Is the idea of voluntary funding of government utopian?"
Garret, I followed Beth to her newer posts and put my response there.
Anonymous1
Post a Comment