So in other words, you have no answer. Feel free to come back and post one when you do.
In other words? What ever you say.
I made a real argument. It wasn’t a “gotcha” attempt.
Ayn Rand would say the only legitimate functions of government are:[ol][li]the military, to protect the country from foreign invaders;[]the police, to protect the public from criminals; and[]the courts, to settle disputes amoung men.[/ol] [/li]
Note that these functions could not be provided by competing, private industry (you couldn’t have dual police departments on a single town, for example). And she suggested that some taxation could be avoided by selling voluntary “stamps”, which, if purchased and used, would allow you access to the court system in case of a dispute. Without the stamps, a contract would have no enforceability.
All other functions and services of a government require taking funds by force from productive citizens and giving it to others who did not earn it. What right do you have to tax Peter to provide services for Paul? A department to promote agriculture? Health care? Teddy bears for everyone? Not in the plan, since it could be provided by non-government means and might not benefit all. Protection of the borders is more universal.
No you didn’t. You just restated your rigid dogma. You theory of government has more in common with religion. We must accept what your book says government must be. I believe free people can choose the government they want. You want to keep them on a leash. I don’t treat free people like pets.
I guess you didn’t even read my post. I pointed out a flaw in your “majority rules” argument–you haven’t taken into account the fact that the majority can change over time whereas many government programs are hard to un-wind. But keep deflecting and avoiding, maybe someone out there is buying it (doubtful though).
With the number of laws we have, constantly having to re-approve them would be a major headache. Even starting from scratch eventually we would get to the point where it would be impractical. Talk about needlessly complex.
And when a law becomes unpopular enough or outdated, it eventually gets repealed, or stricken as unconstitutional.
Musicat, quick question. Say we’re living in Ayn Rand’s world. I’m buying “stamps” but my neighbor is not. Say somehow he swindles me out of money. If he’s not buying stamps and not part of the court system, does that meant that I can’t sue him and so I’m screwed?
The legitimacy of laws against theft and assault have nothing to do with majority support. Even if 90% of the country wanted to be free to rob and beat up whoever they like, it would still be ethical to try to protect their victims by outlawing such behaviour.
I just watched a PBS Frontline last night called The Warning, about the precursors (1990s) to the financial meltdown. Holy crap, was it worth watching – deserving of at least a couple threads.
At any rate, part of it discussed Greenspan’s view of the markets, influenced greatly by Rand’s beliefs. According to the program, Greenspan did not believe in legal protection from fraud (in the derivatives markets); instead, he felt that the markets would handle it. Total laissez-faire capitalism – and a clip of Rand testifying at a Congressional hearing (in the '60s?) was shown where she was saying something similar. WTF? I thought that one area of government Libertarians (assuming Randianism and Libertarianism can be used interchangably) actually support is the court system (contract enforcement)?
So, based on that, it wouldn’t surprise me if no, you couldn’t sue and yes, you’re screwed.
Some do, at least in public; personally I suspect it’s a for-public-consumption assertion. Something they say to avoid alienating people any further. But yes, there are more than a few who say they’d prefer the magic free market to handle that too.
Unfalsifiable insinuation is only wrong when other people do it, eh, Der Trihs? :rolleyes:
You are missing my point. I trust that the majority will do the right thing. Objectivists do not, and feel it is necessary to impose morality derived from an outside source.
I am willing to take the risk that the majority might vote to legalize the thuggery you describe, but I am confident they will not.
I treat the free citizen as an adult, while the objectivist treats them like a child who cannot be trusted with something as dangerous as free will.
The “majority” of citizens have voted for a government that spends and borrows more than it makes. This is how immature children with credit cards behave.
The majority frequently does things that I disagree with. But the principle of the democratic process as expressed by the majority is far more important than indulging my petulence when they do not choose to do things my way.
Yielding the right of a society to have the legitimate function of government they choose, to a minority just because they claim to have a higher understanding of ethics or morality is abhorrent to me.
I don’t know the best answer. The stamp idea was only a proposal and I doubt if the details have been worked out. That doesn’t mean they couldn’t be.
The simpliest suggestion would allow use of the courts if either party purchased a stamp. Might double the cost of a stamp, but it would solve your problem. Or a stamp could become attached to a contract (rather than the individual property of a participant), regardless of who paid for it.
The advantage of government run services is that they can operate at a loss, and that the government is answerable to the people. I think any vital services should be at least partly public (roads, food, water, electricity, healthcare, education, etc).
Why is this idea of “freedom” so important to people? What would you go out and do on Day 1 of Libertarian Land that you couldn’t do before?
And why is coercion bad by definition?
Rand Rover, I bet you’re glad your parents coerced you to finish school?
OK. I see what you are saying now (ie, now that you have fleshed out your argument from its start as a gotch). I have several responses:
-
You seem to think my theory boils down to “don’t use force.” That is not the case. It boils down to “use force only when justified.” Under my theory, the government is justified in using force to stop crime, levying taxes to pay for police, and not allowing a majority of citizens to vote for the government to stop doing either of these.
-
The idea that government should not be allowed to do certain things even if the majority wants to do those things is a very old and very mainstrem idea in the US. It is one of the foundational principles of our way of government. The US constitution and every state constitution contains limits on the government’s power. Therefore, your characterization of my theory of government as some bizarre attempt to impose morality derived from an outside source is patently absurd. The idea of limiting government is very accepted and mainstream.
-
The only innovation in my theory is in the scope of the limitations. Now, for a government to actually organize itself according to my theory, its constitution would have to limit its activities to only those that are legitimate. To do this, it would undoubtedly be necessary to obtain the will of at least a simple majority (ie, the government may have more complicated procedures to amend/enact its constitution). Therefore, if any government adopts my theory, then the limitations on the government’s power will be a product of the will of the majority. Stated another way, the necessary action to adopt my theory would be a legitimate government function under your theory.
Yeesh. This type of rot is one of the worst in your big bag of Der Tricks. When you think that a policy would have a negative effect, you always then go further and think that proponents of that policy specifically intend that negative effect to occur and are therefore evil. You don’t really care that proponents of the policy actually don’t think it will have that negative effect and believe that the policy will in fact have many positive effects.
Well, in the United States, since 1789, a legitimate government function would be “to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.”
Not all that much of a hard limit, really. Later on in the same document, and it’s additions, other limits were added, then some were removed. How those limits apply is where the arguments come from.
Tris
Now we are making progress.
The problem with your theory is, it presumes to define what the limitations of government are outside of the democratic process. That is what I mean by a moral absolute. I have no problem with limiting the powers of government. I trust the citizens to collectively confer those limitations, not accept them from a minority who claims superior moral authority. That is the difference between our theories of government.
I have no problem with this. So long as you stipulate that limitations of government should reflect the will of the majority and not a moral code imposed from outside the process, we are in agreement. If the people freely decide to adopt socialism, then everything that entails is a legitimate function of goverment. If they decide to adopt a libertarian ideal, then the legitimate functions of government are much more limited. But I don’t believe we should predetermine what is legitimate before the voice of free citizens is heard.