Objectivism and Paul McKeever’s Theory on Taxation
April 3, 2008 by Paul McKeever
In response to my reply concerning the issues of government employment and government hand-outs, my facebook friend wrote, in part:
…I was also inexplicitly referring to your YouTube video on taxes and government where you, as far as I can remember, argued that charging people for protecting them could not be considered immoral.
I replied as follows:
I think I know the video (youtube title: “In Defence of Ayn Rand #4: Rand, Anarchism, and Taxes“) to which you are referring [NOTE: my facebook friend might have been referring, alternatively, to my Freedom Party video titled “Taxes, Justice and Wolfe“, in which I discuss the difference between sales taxes and other taxes]. In it, I briefly outlined some thoughts I was having (and continue to have) about whether there is a kind of tax that is not immoral. The general thrust of the rationale there was that:
1. According to Ayn Rand’s philosophy, one is likely not to make an objective assessment of the facts, evidence, guilt/innocence, and nature/degree of penalty where one is a victim of the wrong in question. Hence, government has a monopoly on law-making (and, as a result, on the justice system), thereby putting the retaliatory use of force under objective control. According to Ayn Rand’s philosophy, you should not go after the guy who you think is responsible for the theft of your TV. You should instead call the police and file a report.
2. Because Ayn Rand’s philosophy regards it as wrong to take the law into your own hands (except in the case of defending yourself from immanent harm/loss), it is right for the task to be delegated to others who have no personal involvement in the wrong in question; people who will be more likely to judge objectively and dispassionately. The people who fill those roles, in Ayn Rand’s philosophy, are part of the government.
3. According to Ayn Rand’s philosophy, it is wrong to trade the value of ones productive efforts for (a) a disvalue, or (b) no value at all. Therefore, it is wrong to act as police officer, judge, or warden without getting paid, and it is wrong to force someone so to act. In short: members of government should be paid to do the work that morality requires be done by them instead of by the victim.
4. This is where my theory of taxation/government finance enters the issue:
(a) if the victim can choose and pay for his own police officer, judge/jury, warden etc., those people’s continued living will depend upon delivering results that their payors – i.e., victims – want. The police, judge, warden etc. – to whom their tasks are delegated only because they are presumed to be unbiased, impartial, dispassionate, reasonable, etc. – would be paid in a way that discouraged them from being unbiased, impartial, dispassionate, reasonable, etc.. In legal lingo: they would be place in a conflict of interest (I use that phrase to represent a different conflict than that discussed by Ayn Rand in her essay about “conflicts of mens interests”). In short: if the victim is the person paying the delegates, the purpose of delegating is defeated.
(b) if, on the other hand, the police, judges, etc. are paid from a single fund, controlled by the government, then the purpose of delegating is not defeated: the police, judges, etc. have no particular reason for being biased in favour of the alleged victim or the alleged criminal.
(c) if it is morally required that we delegate; if it is morally wrong to require delegates to work without being paid; and if the purpose of delegation is defeated when the victim pays the delegates, but not when the government pays the delegates, I propose that it is right to pay into the government fund that pays the delegates.
(d) It is wrong, in Ayn Rand’s philosophy, to mooch or loot. To receive the value of policing, judiciary, etc. services without paying into the government fund that pays them would be morally wrong.
(e) Therefore, in the video, I propose the germ of a theory that it may be morally right to use force to obtain from such a moocher/looter his portion of the monies paid to the judges, police, etc.. This does NOT imply that it would be right to use force to require a person to pay for non-justice matters (e.g., health care, education, etc.): such use of force would be wrong.
(f) Finally, in the video in question, I discuss what sorts of taxes might achieve that result without resulting in an injustice. In that video, I exclude every tax except one: a sales tax. The reason: every sale involves the formation of a contract, and it is wrong for the contracting parties to take the law into their own hands should a dispute arise concerning the contract. In other words: it is a proper function of government to resolve such disputes (i.e., in the courtroom, pursuant to objective laws). Therefore, a sales tax amounts to a fee paid for the right to use the government’s services to resolve any dispute that might arise concerning the contract of purchase and sale. If one buys little, one creates few contracts and fewer possible demands upon the court’s services, so one pays little. If one creates a great many contracts, or creates contracts that are more likely to be litigated (e.g., purchases of land are more likely to be litigated than purchases of bubble gum) one pays more. Yet the “more” is achieved without arbitrary rates: a sales tax typically involves a single rate being applied to any price.
(g) For the greatest certainty: Ayn Rand did not make the argument I propose here in point 4. If it is a rational implication of Ms. Rand’s philosophy, it is to my credit. If it is not a rational implication of Ms. Rand’s philosophy, it is to my discredit alone, not to hers and not to the discredit of her philosophy.
Today I set a Google Alert for the words “Ayn Rand” and “objectivism”, so they now email me every time those words arrive on one of their servers. Your blog was my first Alert. So, greetings to a fellow ship passing in the night!
I used to be a permanent fixture on the forums, but had to abandon it for lack of time. That eats on you though, and I have vowed to try to drop a few posts into the blogosphere now and then without getting entangled. So:
My first comment must be about the graphic design of your pages. The difficulty of reading white type on a black background is exceeded only by the difficulty of reading white type on a white background. There are also philosophical implications to this. Your choice is inappropriate because the purpose of the blog is to render complex ideas clearly so that they will be easy to grasp and process. Also, the choice to invert the dark on light scheme is almost always motivated by a desire to be dramatically different from other sites, which is a very un-Randian, other-directed standard. I actually started to read you and left, but returned later when it occurred to me that I could copy and paste it into my email client and change the colors back to a more legible scheme.
Once I did that I was able to spot the errors in your theory of taxation, which follow in inverse order of importance:
“(d) It is wrong, in Ayn Rand’s philosophy, to mooch or loot. To receive the value of policing, judiciary, etc. services without paying into the government fund that pays them would be morally wrong.”
Your definition of a just (and unjust) exchange among men has become in this instance concrete bound. You are assuming that 1) that the exchange between protector and protected is strictly one on one, 2) that there is such a thing as a moral (just) price in a voluntary exchange among men, and 3) that the exchanged in question must necessarily be tangible.
Models abound with which one can demonstrate that there is another way, but the best is the internet.
re 1) How many and how complex are the exchanges among men that got me Google’s Alerts?. Answer: impossible to count.
re 2) How and by whom were the values established that those who funded my receipt of the Alerts received in their exchanges that enabled me to receive them? Answer: in any voluntary exchange, the price will come to rest at the point where each party values what is relinquished less than the value gained on his own terms.
re 3) How many of the values were money, how many good will, how many only the long shot possibility I would buy some product, and most important, how many of my benefactors got enough from some people that they were able to give it to the rest of us for free? Answer: all of the above.
Yes, the laissez-faire capitalist government and police and armed forces will be financed exactly like the internet. If you are concerned with undue influence, write a better constitution and vote with your shopping cart.
Another mind block I think many suffer from in trying to explain this is that such a government cannot exist in the first place without the dominance of an objectivist culture in a society. Methods to finance government without taxation must be pondered and discussed only in the context of such a society, not in the current context.
Ultimately, however, this was your primary sin:
“(e) Therefore, in the video, I propose the germ of a theory that it may be morally right to use force to obtain from such a moocher/looter his portion of the monies paid to the judges, police, etc..”
It is never moral to use force. And it is never practical to be immoral. Your inability at the time to grasp how a voluntarily financed government could succeed was not a justification to resort to the immoral use of force. That is the justification that gave us the governments we have today — “well, how else can we get the job done?”
If you had not capitulated into pragmatism, you would have held off on your theory of taxation and read more objectivist blogs and forums, and eventually you would have figured it out.
Michael M
Hi Michael. Thanks for reading/visiting.
I thank you for telling me about the difficulties you had reading my blog. I don’t have that difficulty, but I’ll try to find something more easy on the eyes for readers.
As for the current colour scheme: its best not to psychologize if wondering about why I picked the colour scheme I have. I simply used a template that matched the Freedom Party of Ontario’s texture and colour scheme. Freedom Party’s slogan is: “Let’s be Frank: Some things are black and white”. I’ve always found white backgrounds to be harsh. White on black doesn’t bother me in the same way.
You write:
Actually, I made none of those assumptions.
As to your point 1: I actually propose a system in which the beneficiary does not have a one-on-one trade with the judge, police officer, etc.
As to your point 2: such an assumption is not a necessary implication of anything I said, though clearly it is true that it is immoral for a payor to pay a monetary price for something when the value of that amount of money (to himself) is greater than the value (to himself) of the thing he is getting in return.
As to your point 3: such an assumption is not a necessary implication in anything I wrote, and I’m quite familiar with the fact that not all values are monetary or material (for example, some values are spiritual).
You write:
I’m not saying you’re an anarcho-capitalist, but that’s the same line most anarcho-capitalists give. In effect, they argue that, by being able to choose your police force and judge, competition will somehow cause judges or police officers to be unbiased. They never explain how that is true. As to constitutions: constitutions are laws. Laws are no more effective than the men who obey, interpret or enforce them. If judges are “shopped” for, it is simply naive to suggest that those who want to win despite having the demonstrably weaker case will not seek a judge who will treat the law and evidence in a way that improves his chances of winning. In the system we have in Ontario, for example, the courts have to take special steps to prevent parties and lawyers from knowing, in advance, who will be sitting as their judge. This is done to avoid “judge shopping”.
You write:
That argument makes no sense. If by “objectivist culture in a society” you mean that everyone would be an objectivist, then that is like saying: “Such a government cannot exist without a society of honest, moral, law-abiding people”.
A moral, law-abiding people, would pay for the judicial and policing services rendered by the government whether or not that payment was required by law. My point, in the video(s), was that dishonest, immoral, people would not do so, yet would be receiving the benefit of a judiciary and policing. They would be mooching; incurring a debt for the services received; and requiring them, by law, to pay for the legitimate governmental benefits received would be of the nature of a debt collection.
You write:
That’s false, if the ethics in question is Objectivist ethics. Ayn Rand’s philosophy is not pacifistic. The principle in charge of the use of force is that it must not be initiated to obtain a person’s life, liberty or property unjustly. That principle does not imply that it is immoral for the government to use guns to shoot and kill a person if it is the only way to stop him from murdering someone; that principle does not imply that putting a convicted criminal in a cage, thereby taking away his liberty, is somehow immoral; and that principle does not imply that it is immoral to seize a debtor’s property (after proving, in court, that the debt exists), sell it, and use the proceeds of the sale to pay the amount owing to the creditor.
You write:
I agree, which is why it is both immoral and impractical not to pay for the judicial and policing services one receives from government employees.
Finally, do remember that I have not said it is necessary to impose a tax in order to fund government. The question is, rather: Is there a tax the imposition of which would not be immoral?
Hey Paul!
Interesting theory, but ultimately I don’t see how the sales tax, like any tax, is not a violation of property rights.
The key question(s) is here is: does a person have an absolute right to his property, to dispose of it as he sees fit (except for violating rights), to use his property in voluntary deals with people , or not? If he does, then he shouldn’t have to pay an additional fee to the government in order to ensure that the contract is held up in court in case things go awry.
As Ayn Rand said, I think, if the person isn’t willing to pay the government to enforce his contract, then he shouldn’t get the services of the government (e.g. court systems), and if he tries to rectify the situation (i.e. put the laws in his own hands) then he should be arrested as a criminal.
I have no qualms with this, since the vast number of contracts that _would_ be paid voluntarily would be more than sufficient to cover the government’s cost of operation, I would think.
Keep up the good work!
Roderick
“ships passing in the night” was prophetic. We are both headed in a similar direction but that’s about it. So, instead of arguing point by point, we have to find the most fundamental point that is the source of these other differences. I’ll try this as a starting point:
The question is, rather: Is there a tax the imposition of which would not be immoral?
Freedom is a prerequisite for living a human life. The only way one can interfere with freedom is by physical force. The only kind of interaction among humans that preserves the freedom of each is voluntary exchange of values. The only other kind of interaction among humans that is possible is involuntary exchange of values and that can only be achieved by initiating the use of force to gain or withhold a value belonging to another.
The act of initiating force against another is immoral, because the perpetrator implicitly forfeits thereby his own right to freedom from initiated force, which is not in his own rational self-interest.
And because of that fact, the use of force against a person who initiates the use of force is not immoral if it is defensive and seeks to protect or retrieve the value taken or prevent further similar actions.
You may not pass moral judgment on the use of force without first establishing whether it is initiated to gain or withhold a value or it is defensive to protect or retrieve a value. The distinction between the two types of force is crucial to understanding Randian capitalism. I made a false assumption about the depth of your knowledge of objectivism. Otherwise I would not have said “it is never moral to use force”. Among long-term devotees of Rand, the phrase “to use force” clearly implies initiated force.
As you know and we agree, the government is charged with the task of sustaining this scheme of relationships among men. In no way did I mean that citizens would “shop” for their protection as the anarchos do. But if in some small town WalMart volunteered to pay for the police force, they would be controlled by (in addition to the laws) their customers (the protected) who could use their shopping habits (and boycott) to influence how the police function would be managed.
Remember, the more power that is given to a giant corporation by its customers, the more fragile that power is.
To establish such a government does not require everyone in the country to be perfect. It does require a long lead-in time during which the number of persons who understand and support it increase to a position of dominance sufficient to get the laws passed. And that will not be in your lifetime or mine. It is impossible to fantasize how it would be financed other than to show, as I did, that incredibly complex and costly institutions can be financed without force and without everyone having to pay full market value for benefits received. And that would not be immoral on their part. Voluntary exchanges are inherently moral regardless of the relationship of values given to values received.
Taxation is an involuntary exchange of values effected by initiating a threat of force. Taxation is not an act of force seeking to defend values or retrieve values taken. Taxation is therefore inherently immoral and there are no exceptions.
“Practicality” is never a valid argument for anything. If a nation of people wants a capitalist society, they will have to figure out how to do it without initiating force against each other. If they can’t they will not be free, and they will not be moral. They will be Libertarians, who choose capitalism for practical reasons — because it works. But capitalism does not work just because it makes mankind wealthier than all other systems can. It works because freedom is moral. Libertarians cannot make that connection. Consequently, they will quickly turn to some innocuous taxation scheme — like excise taxes — when they cannot figure out how to finance government without initiating force. Once that door is cracked, it is only a matter of time until you are back to where we are now. Pragmatism is an insidious, pervasive evil.
Hi Roderick:
You write:
I’m not comfortable with the whole idea yet myself, but I’m trying to subject my ideas about a sales tax to some well-reasoned debate. Part of what motivates me is the unfortunate fact that Ayn Rand did not write all that much about how a government should be funded, and she did not write anything (so far as I can remember) comparing and contrasting different forms of taxation, or different forms of funding for government. Anarchists have taken advantage of that vacuum in order to argue that all forms of government funding would ultimately involve the immoral use of force, such that Rand’s pro-government stance is logically inconsistent with the rest of her philosophy. I’m trying to reconcile Rand’s “government monopoly on the retaliatory use of force” with: (a) the fact that no person morally provides the value of government services without receiving values in return, and (b) the issue of people who refuse to provide value for the governance services that – according to Rand’s philosophy – it would be immoral for them to do for themselves, or to do by paying agents directly (as the anarchists propose). That the latter sort of person will always exist in some number is a reasonably safe bet (consider, for example, that even anarchists who claim to share Rand’s metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics would never voluntarily pay a government for the justice services they receive from it).
You write:
I disagree that that is the key question. The answer to that question is clear: yes, a person has an absolute right to his property. But an absolute right to ones property does not imply that one can incur debts, not pay them, yet continue to keep ones property. Nothing in objectivism claims that it is wrong for the government to enforce a court order by seizing property and selling it to satisfy a debt proven in court. To the contrary, objectivism regards both the refusal to repay borrowed value, and the failure to use force repayment and achieve justice, as moral wrongs.
Imagine that X borrows $100 from Y, promising to repay it at the end of the month. He buys a tool with it. At the end of the month, he has no money, but still has the tool. It is perfectly moral/right for Y to prove in court that X owes him $100. Also, once the court issues its order, it is perfectly moral/right for Y to take that order to the Sherriff, knowing the Sherrif will then use or threaten physical force to obtain the tool and other property from X (an amount of property the sale of which is likely to generate proceeds large enough to pay Y what X owes him). The absolute right of property does not apply in the case of that property because: that property doesn’t belong to X once the court orders that the value of that property is owed, by X, to Y. To the contrary: after the order confirms it, Y has an absolute right to property in question (or, at least, to the value of it once sold).
You write:
I don’t recall Rand ever saying that a person should not receive government justice services if he isn’t willing to pay. Do you have a cite for that? Is it in her essay on government finance?
Here is post in the middle of another short thread on this same subject: http://drhurd.com/members/index.php?name=PNphpBB2&file=viewtopic&p=906#906
Actually the internet was created by the US government when seeking to develop a multiply redundant communications network which would survive a nuclear war.
As far as I am aware the government’s original ownership of the infrastructure was the reason for internet access being free in the US.
The data packet technology was created by researchers at government owned and funded UCLA Berkeley, and is also known as the ‘Berkeley Packet’.
This is what makes it possible for different hardware and OS’s to standardise their communications.
To present the internet as an example of anarcho-capitalism is at best delusional, at worst mendacious.
Incidentally, the WWW was invented by an Englishman working at CERN in Switzerland, a government-funded sub-atomic particle research establishment. As is usual with English inventors he made nothing by way of personal fortune.
The inventor of SSL, the basis of internet monetary transactions, is another example. The best he could manage was a civil-servant job with the GCHQ code establishment; when three American students re-invented SSL non-secretly 15 years later they made billions of dollars each.
Paul-the ‘government’ never has the right to expropriate me, regardless of any ‘service’ they claim to be delivering. They are, and will remain, nothing but a group of other people, people to whom I am not indebted or obliged to pay attention to unless they argue rationally and convince me to volunteer myself.
Simon, sorry if I misled you. I assumed my example of GoogleAlerts made it clear that my example was not the origin of the internet but rather the way it functions and the way it is sustained. It is a vast and complex system that produces and delivers values planet wide. Payments for it and the values it delivers for others are frequently not proportional to values received, and yet it is sustained entirely by moral, voluntary exchanges. That it was born in a government program, that the transmission of it is still regulated, that government now subsidizes some aspects of it — these are inconsequential to the achievement that it represents.
[Correction: the example is about financing a capitalist government. It is not an example of how to finance the absence of a government, i.e. anarcho-capitalism.]
——————————-
Voluntary financing of government, while intriguing, is not a philosophical issue. It is logistical. No judgement of the efficacy of objectivism or any part thereof, such as laissez-faire capitalism, may hinge in any way on one’s ability to describe how government would be voluntarily financed in the distant future. There are simply not enough facts on which to base such speculation.
When debating with an opponent of objectivism or capitalism, the only victory worth expending your effort for is a concession by your opponent that all initiated force is to be avoided. You want your opponent to adopt that principle so thoroughly, that he is no longer inclined to ask how government would be funded. He has to come to the realization on his own that generations will pass before it becomes necessary to precisely design such a system. And when it does come to pass, government will have already evolved into such a system anyway.
2 answers/citations I have on this topic in my research… Ayn Rand – THE VIRTUE OF SELFISHNESS 15. Government Financing in a Free Society
1)I don’t recall Rand ever saying that a person should not receive government justice services if he isn’t willing to pay. Do you have a cite for that? Is it in her essay on government finance?
In a fully free society, taxation—or, to be exact, payment for governmental services—would be voluntary. Since the proper services of a government—the police, the armed forces, the law courts—are demonstrably needed by individual citizens and affect their interests directly,the citizens would (and should) be willing to pay for such services, as they pay for insurance… There are many possible methods of voluntary government financing. A government lottery, which has been used in some European countries, is one such method. There are others. Suppose that the government were to protect—i.e., to recognize as legally valid and enforceable—only those contracts which had been insured by the payment, to the government, of a premium in the amount of a legally fixed percentage of the sums involved in the contractual transaction. Such an insurance would not be compulsory; there would be no legal penalty imposed on those who did not choose to take it—they would be free to make verbal (or private) agreements or to sign uninsured contracts, if they so wished. The only consequence would be that such agreements or contracts would not be legally enforceable; if they were broken, the injured party would not be able to seek redress in a court of law.
2) I’m trying to reconcile Rand’s “government monopoly on the retaliatory use of force” with: (a) the fact that no person morally provides the value of government services without receiving values in return, and (b) the issue of people who refuse to provide value for the governance services that – according to Rand’s philosophy – it would be immoral for them to do for themselves, or to do by paying agents directly (as the anarchists propose).
It may be observed, in the example given above, that the cost of such voluntary government financing would be automatically proportionate to the scale of an individual’s economic activity; those on the lowest economic levels (who seldom, if ever, engage in credit transactions) would be virtually exempt—though they would still enjoy the benefits of legal protection, such as that offered by the armed forces, by the police and by the courts dealing with criminal offenses. These benefits may be regarded as a bonus to the men of lesser economic ability, made possible by the men of greater economic ability—without any sacrifice of the latter to the former. It is in their own interests that the men of greater ability have to pay for the maintenance of armed forces, for the protection of their country against invasion; their expenses are not increased by the fact that a marginal part of the population is unable to contribute to these costs. Economically, that marginal group is nonexistent as far as the costs of war are concerned. The same is true of the costs of maintaining a police force: it is in their own interests that the abler men have to pay for the apprehension of criminals,regardless of whether the specific victim of a given crime is rich or poor. It is important to note that this type of free protection for the non contributors represents an indirect benefit and is merely a marginal consequence of the contributors’ own interests and expenses. This type of bonus cannot be stretched to cover direct benefits, or to claim—as the wel-fare statists are claiming—that direct handouts to the non-producers are in the producers’ own interests.
Good points Chris.
In response to your question about whether Rand ever said “a person should not receive government justice services if he isn’t willing to pay”: I don’t recall her making such a statement (which is not to say she did not…I just don’t recall it). However, I do have a recollection that someone else – perhaps Leonard Peikoff, on his podcast, or Yaron Brook of ARI – did draw such a conclusion.
As to whether everyone would pay voluntarily: I’m pretty sure not everyone would pay. Recently, there was a story in the USA about a fella who did not pay his $75/year fee for fire service…the fire service arrived and stood watching as the man’s house burned to the ground (they had come only to protect neighbouring houses from catching on fire). I don’t think a government that stood idly by (because of non-payment) would continue to govern for long: people would just come to regard the government as something that does no good for anyone except “the rich”, and would probably begin to take “justice” into their own hands…there must be some examples in history, but none come to mind.
That said, if all government finance were voluntary, and the finances were pooled (rather than each person choosing from among a number of competitive ‘governments’ or police services), there arguably would be no conflict of interest…except perhaps when payors and non-payors were having a dispute: cops and judges would be likely to hold a grudge against a non-payor…indeed, it would suggest something negative about the non-payor’s character, and that negative impression could make the difference in a case decided on the credibility of each witness’ testimony. Counterpoint: many already believe that the wealthier folks in society are given preferential treatment in our courts, and by our police, so a switch to voluntary financing might not lead to any significant additional cynicism.
On insured vs. uninsured contracts: I would regard an unenforceable (i.e., uninsured) contract as a contradiction in terms. I think the uninsured “contracts” would, in law, be not contracts but a form of gift-giving.
Incidentally, my views on this topic have continued to develop…toward the idea that those who do not pay should not expect police to come to help them. If, without police assistance, they decide to engage in vigilante conduct instead of simply paying their damned bill, they could – like now – be charged accordingly.
I’ve been talking about this issue specifically for a few years now, and maybe I should write more about it… I want to correctly address your points…
1st paragraph) You commented that “I don’t recall Ayn Rand ever saying or making such a statement that “a person should not receive government justice services if he isn’t willing to pay”: (which is not to say she did not…I just don’t recall it). MCKEEVER
Ayn Rand did NOT say that… She said the opposite. “…those on the lowest economic levels (who seldom, if ever, engage in credit transactions) would be virtually exempt—though they would still enjoy the benefits of legal protection.” RAND
So i think your comment would read “a person should receive government justice services EVEN if he isn’t willing to pay” …
2nd paragraph) As to whether everyone would pay voluntarily… I’m pretty sure not everyone would pay. MCKEEVER
I am not sure what you are missing. I can talk fire services all day, and those are good points, but it’s irrelevant, as most fire services are run by volunteers, and there are many better private examples anyways. Regardless. the idea that NOT everyone will pay, YET everyone will receive, is not a contradiction, so long as the payer is NOT forced.
so your point above is wrong 4(d) It is wrong, in Ayn Rand’s philosophy, to mooch or loot. To receive the value of policing, judiciary, etc. services without paying into the government fund that pays them would be morally wrong.
If I am assaulted, call 911, and receive government services, yet NEVER pay into the Insured Contract System of 1% of Sales that pools the government $’s … I still get the benefit. Rand did say I should and would be willing to pay for such a service, and life would almost make it mandatory, however, Rand also said it would never be compulsory.
3rd paragraph) That said, if all government finance were voluntary.. MCKEEVER
I agree with most of your 3rd paragraph, “except perhaps when payors and non-payors were having a dispute”, Again, though, it wouldn’t be mandatory, and any perceived grudge develops against non payers, I say ONE more good reason to convince everyone to be a payor. That’s how the world works.
4th) On insured vs. uninsured contracts: I would regard an unenforceable (i.e., uninsured) contract as a contradiction in terms. I think the uninsured “contracts” would, in law, be not contracts but a form of gift-giving. MCKEEVER
Um, I guess I think about contracts in different terms. Which is why I said above i should write about this more…
I would say, things like uninsured contracts and private justice would work like this… IF a Gov’t like Insured Contract System of 1% of Sales is not compulsory; there would be no legal penalty imposed on those who did not choose to take it—they would be free to make verbal (or private) agreements or to sign uninsured contracts, if they so wished. The only consequence would be that such agreements or contracts would not be legally enforceable; if they were broken, the injured party would not be able to seek redress in a court of law.
Private Contract companies would spring up, offering 0.5% of the sale, but NO private company or person has the right to use force in the manner that distinguishes contracts from gift giving. However, I could see shame and public liability, as two methods a private company could offer to privately insure a contract. Would they be worth 0.5% of the sale, Maybe… Even down to Private Justice like Police or a Prison could theoretically work VOLUNTARILY. People go into Boot Camp type stuff all the time, and again, as long there is NO Compulsion, you could image all sorts of private dispute mechanisms that use no force but offer results based on real human social interactions.
SO, if in the end, I can walk away from uninsured contracts, and the payor is a gift giver, there is no moral contradiction. The dynamics seem right to me…
5th) Incidentally, my views on this topic have continued to develop…toward the idea that those who do not pay should not expect police to come to help them. MCKEEVER
Wow, Hmmm. If my entire hypothetical 1% sales system is voluntary, and provides for a surplus, it would be Immoral to expect otherwise.
That is, Rand said “These benefits may be regarded as a bonus to the men of lesser economic ability, made possible by the men of greater economic ability—without any sacrifice of the latter to the former.. It is important to note that this type of free protection for the non contributors represents an indirect benefit and is merely a marginal consequence of the contributors’ own interests and expenses..”
I would be hard pressed to assume the opposite.
5)b If, without police assistance, they decide to engage in vigilante conduct instead of simply paying their damned bill, they could – like now – be charged accordingly. MCKEEVER
If, without police assistance or uninsured contracts, they decided to privately pay for these services, there would be no legal penalty imposed nor force applied to them, and they would still enjoy the benefits of legal protection in every other area.
…) finally, I understand your points on a sales tax, and the dispute mechanism, etc, but i disagree. A sales Tax, the way you outlined it would be a government compulsion. No initiation of force, and retaliatory force only by independent actors, if i understand i right.