From: baruch@nynexst.com (Robert Baruch)
Subject: Re: Just a few simple questions from a newco
Reply-To: baruch@nynexst.com
Organization: NYNEX Science & Technology, Inc
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 93 19:40:07 GMT

In article 2554@athena.mit.edu, tyadav@athena.mit.edu (T.Y.) writes:
> ============================================
>  fdeck@vyasa.helios.nd.edu (francis deck) writes:
> >What, exactly is the role of the "government" in an objectivist
> >system?  Does it extend beyond enforcing the law that one person
> >cannot infringe on another's rights?  That, it would seem, would
> >require the minimal assumptions, but some questions arise:
> >
> >1. Who pays for the government, and how is payment enforced?
> 
>  Two options have been proposed:
>  [1] Charity [2] Sales tax
>  
>  The charity option is very controversial. And doesn't make much sense
>  to me. But then, I could be wrong somewhere.

When I have said that without taxes, the government would be reduced to
donations, I should really have said that government is reduced to selling
a service, which people can either purchase or not purchase.

>  Sales tax seems most reasonable. If you get more property, you need more
>  protection, so you pay proportionally more.

A "tax" is usually meant to signify a _mandatory_ giving up of wealth.  So
if you get more property, and you must pay taxes on it to get more protection, 
this is another way of saying that if you get more property, you must pay
for it's protection regardless of whether you want it or not.  Sounds like
Mafia stories, doesn't it?

>  Income tax doesn't seem fair.

No tax is fair.  If a trade is to be fair, there must be two things present:

(1) A desire for the exchange
(2) The exchange takes place where the values of the goods are considered
    equal by the entites involved.

Example:  I collect swords for a hobby.  It is not unusual for me to pay $200
  for a particularly nice sword.  Some of you may feel that's insane for a _sword_,
  but then again, you're not me.  I value swords; some of you don't.  To me,
  the price I pay is equal to the value I put on the sword.  If the price is
  too high, I won't buy the sword because I feel that the exchange is not
  equal.

Example:  I pay taxes, in return (some may disagree) for services.  Some of
  these services are services that I don't want.  I don't want police protection,
  give me a gun and I'll protect myself.  I don't want to give that homeless
  person my money.  (If I did want to, I would do it myself!)

My very being rebels at the thought that a government (or anyone!) can extract 
payment from me through force (yes, force -- jail, guns, handcuffs, the works) 
for services I do not want.

Example:  I used to subscribe to a compact disc club called BMG.  They have
  pretty much every CD at 50% retail (which is nice).  The problem is that
  they would send these cards to me, and I had to return them in order to
  tell BMG that I didn't want to receive their selections-of-the-month.  The
  idea that I had to do work aside from communication, just to tell BMG that
  I _didn't_ want to buy anything, filled me with disgust.  The idea that
  I had to pay something for NOTHING I want was so absurd to me that I 
  cancelled the subscription.  Mind you, this was after I had requested a
  modified card which didn't require me to send it back.  Just for your
  information, other clubs I've made this request to have agreed to
  my wishes.

  Question:  Was my "loss" worth it?  Some may think so, some may not.  I
    value some things that others do not.

In article 725917952@therien, lewchuk@cs.UAlberta.CA (Michael Lewchuk) writes:
> fdeck@vyasa.helios.nd.edu (francis deck) writes:
> >What, exactly is the role of the "government" in an objectivist
> >system?  Does it extend beyond enforcing the law that one person
> >cannot infringe on another's rights?  That, it would seem, would
> >require the minimal assumptions, but some questions arise:
> 
> Government:
> 1.  Provides military, police, and emergency services.  This includes
>     making laws or adjusting them as required, maintaining prisons, etc.
> 2.  Provides basic education and standard of living to children.
> 3.  Taxes people to provide for (1) and (2).
> 
> I'll answer your questions below, from my knowledge of Objectivism and
> its current standard interpretation.
> 
> >1. Who pays for the government, and how is payment enforced?
> 
> The governed pay for government through taxes.  Payment is enforced by
> making tax evasion illegal.

And you think that this will make me respect the government?  Forcing me to
pay them?  Don't you think we would all be better off if you sold something
only to those who wanted to pay for it?  

> 
> >2. Who polices the government?
> 
> Nobody, since government has so few powers it is unlikely it would need
> real policing.

Nobody, because you have given the government enough power that it doesn't
need to be resposible to you.  After all, you have given the government
the power to take your money away, and your property.  And why?  Why is
a government able to decide what you want better that _you_ are able?  Do
you so degrade humanity that tyranny is the only way to keep people alive?

> You could also say that the voter "polices" the government
> in that a government performing clearly stupid actions would be voted out
> in the next election.  Technically the government could be "policed" by
> making its budget public, since any other action it takes (military,
> legal) would probably be noticeable by the public anyways.

You could say that, but since most people have gotten sick of politicians
who really don't do anything useful with the money they steal from them, that
most people couldn't care less who was in office -- they'll get screwed
either way.  Why do you think voter turnout sucks?  I mean, this past
election certainly raised the level of voter consciousness, but look at
what had to happen beforehand!

> 
> >3. Suppose two governments claim jurisdiction over a territory,
> >   or over a particular race, sex, &c within a boundary.  How
> >   is this resolved?
> 
> Negotation or war.  It is highly unlikely that such a situation would be
> resolved in any other way under any system.  Objectivism has little to do with
> international politics.  It is more an internal than external system.

Are you saying that governments own territory, race, sex, etc?  Why is
an object not owned by private citizens?  Who paid for it, anyway?

> 
> >4. Is it possible for the government to be operated with 100%
> >   efficiency?  What force prevents the efficiency of the
> >   government (i.e. the assessed cost to the people) from
> >   assuming an arbitrarily bad value?
> 
> Presumably people will be informed (somehow) about the true nature of
> the cost of items.  Managers could be fired, etc.  Generally since people
> themselves monitor things like emergency team usage and response time, if
> there was a problem then generally people would know about it, wouldn't they?

Only if they could keep track.  Think about it -- if I pay a lump sum
(call it "taxes") to get services A, B, and C, while also receiving
services D through Z5, do you honestly expect me to look over the books
of those services I don't benefit from, or don't want?

Be reasonable.  I act out of self-interest.  Services which I do not want
don't interest me.

> Plus, a government could impress the people by cutting costs if costs were
> too high.  Also, government expenses could be "fixed" somewhat, such as a
> fixed salary for elected officials, adjusted as per inflation each year.

Of course!  This way there is no incentive to cut costs, since salaries
are fixed, and you don't get rewarded for your innovations!  Brilliant!
Cut costs in a service, and I may be impressed if my taxes go down by 5%.
Do you see that happening?  The issue is whether I should pay taxes at all!

> 
> >5. If an individual or corporation were to prove (objectively)
> >   that he could manage the government at lower cost to the
> >   people, without any degradation in quality (say, by using
> >   a novel technology, or by accepting lower wages), then
> >   should that person get the contract?
> 
> Technically the government should be mandated to maintain the best in
> technology and thus the most efficient services.

Of course.  The government should mandate itself to maintain the most
efficient services.  After all, with no-one to answer to, the only way
to guarantee quality is to _force_ the guarantee!  

> While any service could
> be "contracted out", the government's job is to:
> a) establish a code of conduct based on the rights, freedoms, and obligations
>    of the citizens and maintain this as a code of law.
> b) establish a military and maintain the security of the nation.
> c) provide an equal start for all members of society through schooling.

Whether they want it or not.  Whether the "rights, freedoms, and obligations"
are agreed to or not.

> 
> In some sense, we are not talking about "efficiency" here but "security".
> An army operated by a government instead of a private firm is duty bound to
> that government (and thus that country).  Same with a police force.  I'd
> rather a nation maintained its own military rather than hired out soldiers
> that were more efficient because you can always have your own troops; you
> can't always find cheap mercenaries, especially in wartime when you actually
> need them.

After all, you wouldn't want the price of something to actually reflect
it's demand, now would you?  

> In short, some "inefficiency" in terms of cost is sacrificed for
> security, which is the only intent of military and police forces.  If the
> intent of police forces was not security, then of course lower cost would
> prevail.
 
> >7. What are the rights which the gov't protects?  Do I have
> >   the right to prevent someone from building a skunk farm
> >   next to my house for the purpose of devaluing my and my
> >   neighbors' property so he can buy them up cheap?
> 
> 1.  You have the absolute right to your own property.  Your person is
>     considered your property.

Except when the government wants it.

> 2.  Nobody has the right to interfere with your property unless you give
>     them permission to.

And of course, permission is ALWAYS given to the government, whether you
explicitly give it or not.

> 3.  You have the right to act in any way which you deem reasonable when
>     not in violation of (1) and (2).

This is so laughable that I don't even know where to start.

> Technically the "skunk farm" case is a legal problem since it would eventually
> be generalizable to any type of air pollution.

Of course it's a legal problem.  After all, if the ability to negotiate 
equitably between you and your neighbor is taken away by a government,
then that government is the one who decides the case.

So who decides?  Who is given the power?  Is the power to be given voluntarily
or not?

> 
> >8. Could a person voluntarily give up his rights in exchange for
> >   money, say by some contractual agreement?  Suppose I
> >   offered everyone in a large region to give up all their
> >   rights, including the rights to leave the region, and sell 
> >   me all their land in return for a chance to win a dose
> >   of some ultra-pleasure-drug by random drawing?
> 
> The contract would be ruled invalid.  You would wind up with all of their
> land and nothing else.  You would still be obligated to hold that lottery.
> Either that, or the entire contract could be ruled illegal.

To what rights does this question refer to?  If you are talking about the
right to your own life, property, and liberty, then that is something that
you cannot give away -- it is yours.  To admit that you do not have a right
to your own life, liberty, and property is to admit that you are worthless.
No human should claim that he is worthless, let alone claim that OTHER
humans are worthless!

However, let's suppose this contract goes through, simply because both sides
agree to it, and not because someone ELSE decides it.  Then the ones who
gave up their rights have agreed to all that they are worthless, and therefore
they have no rights.
 
> >9. How are the rights of infants protected? 
> 
> The government has the duty to protect the life and guarantee suitable
> education and upbringing of its citizens under adult age.  There is no
> real difference from our current system in this respect, although I'm not
> sure of the Objectivist view on whether post-secondary eductaion is a "right".
> If so, colleges would be essentially "free" by a voucher type of system.  You
> would get ($$) to spend on college(s) of your choice and thus obtain higher
> education.

Never mind where those $$ come from!  After all, education is a RIGHT, and so
the money to pay for it should be TAKEN from other people to safeguard their
RIGHT!

The reality of the situation is this:  education represents a product or service.
This costs something to produce.  To give it away for free implies that the giver
considers it worthless (there's nothing wrong with that!), or that the giver
considers the pleasure he gains worth something (there's nothing wrong with
that, either).  Now ask any educator whether he would be willing to work
for no money.  You will find very few takers.  

So we have determined that educators should be paid, otherwise there will be
no education (except by force).  Education is a service.  If I choose to
buy a service or good, then I may pay for it.  If I don't want a service or
good, I should not have to pay for it.

The reality is that some people will not be able to afford education.  If you
don't like it, then donate money to these people.  DO NOT TELL ME THAT I MUST
GIVE MONEY IF I DO NOT WANT TO!  If you do tell me this, then you have no 
choice but to force it from me with a gun.

When I pay my income taxes, I certainly don't do it out of duty or respect!  I
do it because the government has a nice jail cell and a shiny pistol waiting
for me.

--Rob