From: sa114984@longs.LANCE.ColoState.Edu (Steven Arnold)
Subject: Re: A Warning to the Uninformed
Date: Mon, 04 Jan 1993 20:02:48 GMT
Organization: Colorado State U. Engineering College

In article <76057@apple.apple.COM>, brandyn@Apple.COM (Brandyn) writes:
|>     Now a specific query along these lines:
|> 
|> lewchuk@cs.UAlberta.CA (Michael Lewchuk) writes:
|> 
|> > [A good Objectivist government...]
|> >     Provides basic education and standard of living to children.
|> 
|>     I've seen this idea expressed a few times now, but to my knowledge
|> this is not from Objectivism.  Does anyone have a reference for this?
|> 
|>     From OPAR (Objectivism, the Philosophy of Ayn Rand) page 366:
|> 
|>         [The purpose of government] entails three and only three
|>         governmental functions.  In Ayn Rand's statement, these are:
|>         "the police, to protect men from criminals--the armed services,
|>         to protect men from foreign invaders--the law courts, to settle
|>         disputes among men according to objective laws."  Any additional
|>         function would have to involve the government initiating force
|>         against innocent citizens.  Such a government acts not as man's
|>         protector, but as a criminal.
|> 
|>     Welcome to America.
|> 
|>     -Brandyn (brandyn@apple.com)

	Ah, Brandyn from Apple, the computer company I love.  Any employee of
Apple Computer is a friend of mine.  Think ya can wangle me a deal on a Quadra?!
	Anyway, in response to your post, I think one of the goals of this board
is to DEBATE Objectivist ideas, to openly disagree with them if so desired, and
to present counter-philsophies if necessary to do so.  Hence, I don't think that
every assertion needs to prefaced by, "According to Ayn Rand..."  Or Leonard
Peikoff or Nathaniel Branden or Alan Greenspan or any of the other members of any
past or future inner circle.
	Second, I think that government can provide some services beyond those
Rand mentions without violating the right to property.  I have tried to explain
this distinction before, and I'll try once more.
	First, a service must benefit the one who pays for it, in approximate
proportion to the amount he pays.  Second, EXCEPT WHERE IMPOSSIBLE, people ought
to have the right to refuse the service and refuse to pay.  But in some cases it
is impossible to have a service at all in a country where everybody does not
simultaneously benefit.  For example, a national defense force benefits everybody
who lives in this country, like it or not.  You simply cannot live here and not
benefit.  Furthermore, the benefit is measurable and delivers real value.  Since
receiving the benefit is a NECESSARY fact associated with living here, it follows
that if you choose to live here, government can reasonably infer that you agree
to accept the benefit of national defense and pay taxes to uphold it.
	The same is true of national roads (a service not mentioned by Rand
above).  It is virtually impossible to live in this country and not benefit from
the roads.  Even if you never drive, the food you eat is brought to you by them,
the materials for the house you live in were delivered by them, and the benefit
to you is real and measurable.  To really and truly derive no benefit from the
roads, you'd have to be a hermit with no contact with the outside world -- in
that case, I'd support not taxing such an individual for roads.  But almost
nobody lives like that.  Those of us who don't can be obligated by merely living
in this country and benefitting from the road system to pay taxes for the roads.
	A service which clearly DOESN'T qualify is Social Security.  It is very
easy to determine who benefits from Social Security -- those who get the money
benefit.  It is very easy to tax only those who hope to receive some benefit
someday.  Since it is easily possible to determine who benefits from Social
Security and who doesn't, the service should be optional.

Steve