Ayn Rand on Politicians, Ideas and Compromise

"Commentators often exhort some politician to place the interests of the country above his own (or his party's) and to compromise with his opponents--and such exhortations are not addressed to petty grafters, but to reputable men. What does this mean? If the politician is convinced that his ideas are right, it is the country that he would betray by compromising. If he is convinced that his opponents' ideas are wrong, it is the country that he would be harming. If he is not certain of either, then he should check his views for his own sake, not merely the country's--because the truth or falsehood of his ideas should be of the utmost personal interest to him."

--Ayn Rand, "Selfishness Without a Self," Philosophy: Who Needs It

19th-Century Capitalism Didn't Create Poverty, But Reduced It

Here's an article by Yaron Brook and Don Watkins on the near-laissez-faire capitalism of the 19th Century:

Capitalism In No Way Created Poverty, It Inherited It

-----

Related Posts:

How to Show That Taxation is Robbery

QuickPoint 2: Altruism Supports Coercion...

Why "Anarcho-Capitalism" is Wrongheaded

The Nature of the Morality of Rational Egoism: Short Notes

The False Freedom of "Equality of Opportunity"

In mainstream discourse in the US, "equality of opportunity" is taken as an uncontroversial rallying cry for both "conservatives" and "modern liberals." It's typically seen as a more reasonable alternative to the openly socialist "equality of results."

Don Watkins, of the blog, LaissezFaire, has written two posts exposing the fact that "equality of opportunity," taken literally, is just as irrational and unjust a notion as "equality of results." (If it's not taken literally, then it's an extremely vague term and shouldn't be used.)

What matters for the justice of a society is not "equality of opportunity" but the absence of initiated coercion.

Just Say "No" to Equality of Opportunity

Who Needs Opportunity?

-----

Related Posts:

On Fairness and Justice: Their Meanings, Scopes, and How They Are Not the Same

How to Show That Taxation is Robbery

QuickPoint 2: Altruism Supports Coercion...

Why "Anarcho-Capitalism" is Wrongheaded

Objectivism rejects anarchism for very good reason.

In the following link, Dr. Harry Binswanger explains why an officially established ("monopolistic") government is necessary for a free society, and why the "anarcho-capitalists'" objections to it are baseless:

Anarchism vs. Objectivism

 -----

 Related Posts:

 How to Show That Taxation is Robbery

 QuickPoint 2: Altruism Supports Coercion...

The REAL Fiscal Cliff

While politicians and the mainstream media in the US have been busy talking about the tax laws that expire at the end of 2012, we are approaching the real "fiscal cliff" very rapidly. This cliff is further in the future and no one knows exactly when we will fall over it, but the US will fall over it if it doesn't change direction immediately and drastically.

The US Federal debt currently stands at over $16.3 trillion and is rising by about $1 million every 40 seconds. The CBO projects massive annual deficits for the next 10 years.

The economist, Peter Schiff, spells out the harsh reality of the situation the US is getting itself into in the following set of videos:

QE stands for "Quantitative Easing," where the the Federal Reserve creates new money and uses it to buy financial assets directly from banks. QE generates an increase in the money supply.

To paraphrase Ayn Rand: The majority of people in the US can ignore reality, but they can't escape the consequences of ignoring reality.

The Federal Reserve is setting the US economy up for another huge crash and a round of hyperinflation. Yet, given our history, it is not hard to predict that when the big crash happens, "scheming businessmen" and/or "unscrupulous financial traders" will take the blame from the mainstream media and dominant public opinion.

This Objective Standard article describes the deeper philosophical problem: The Moral Cliff

-----

Related Posts:

What Caused the Financial Crisis: It Wasn't Capitalism or Deregulation

Fossil Fuels and Environment: McKibben vs. Epstein, Full Debate

On November 5th at Duke university, renowned environmentalist and AGW proponent, Bill McKibben debated Alex Epstein of the Center for Industrial Progress, on the effect that fossil fuels have on the human environment. Bill McKibben took the position that fossil fuels were harmful and an immediate threat to the human environment, while Alex Epstein took the position that fossil fuels continue to improve the environment we live in.

 Here is the YouTube video of the full debate:

 Here is a debate highlight from the question period: What does Bill McKibben really advocate?

Another highlight: Are affordable fossil fuels a "market failure"? 

Obama "Read Ayn Rand" and Gets Her Views Wrong

In a Rolling Stone interview published today, Barack Obama distorted and misrepresented Ayn Rand's views. Ari Armstrong of The Objective Standard responded to the president's statements here:

 Obama, Unsurprisingly, Gets Ayn Rand Wrong

The Ayn Rand Center's blog also responded with analysis of Ayn Rand's actual views and context that should help people understand those views:

 Obama on Ayn Rand: The Annotated Version

Link Highlight: Introduction to Objectivism Playlist

Here is a playlist of YouTube videos providing an introductory overview of Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism. Please give it a like if you enjoy it:

 Introduction to Objectivism - Best Playlist

Free Market Revolution by Yaron Brook and Don Watkins

Free Market Revolution: How Ayn Rand's Ideas Can End Big Government is now available at Amazon.

From the description:

A look at how our current crises are caused by too much government, and how Ayn Rand's bold defense of free markets can help us change course. 

The rise of the Tea Party and the 2010 election results revealed that tens of millions of Americans are alarmed by Big Government, but skeptical that anything can or will be done to stop the growth of the state. In Free Market Revolution, the keepers of Ayn Rand's legacy argue that the answer lies in her pioneering philosophy of capitalism and self-interest -a philosophy that more and more people are turning to for answers. In the past few years, Rand's works have surged to new peaks of popularity, as politicians like Paul Ryan, media figures like John Stossel, and businessmen like John Mackey routinely name her as one of their chief influences. Here, Brook and Watkins explain how her ideas can solve a host of political and economic ills, including the debt crisis, inflation, overregulation, and the swelling welfare state. And most important, they show how Rand's philosophy can enable defenders of the free market to seize the moral high ground in the fight to limit government. This is a fresh and urgent look at the ideas of one of the most controversial figures in modern history - ideas that may prove the only hope for the future.

To anyone who is relatively unfamiliar with Ayn Rand's ideas, but interested in solving our current economic and cultural problems, I encourage you to read this book. I encourage anyone who is very familiar with Rand's ideas to tell friends about this book, loan your copy to them, or give it to them as a gift.

To purchase, click here:
Free Market Revolution: How Ayn Rand's Ideas Can End Big Government

How to Show That Taxation is Robbery

The following article is not a general proof of the Objectivist principle that the initiation of physical force is destructive to human life; but it will show that taxation is equivalent to robbery and, when carried out for wealth redistribution, is actually more harmful to more people than the robberies committed by criminals in First-World countries. (A general proof of the destructiveness of initiated force does exist, and I may go through it at some point in the future.)

The Hypothetical Showing the Connection

If I have earned, say, $1,000 this week through my own labor, and another man comes up to me, points a gun at me, and tells me to give him the money, so he can pay his rent, is this robbery? Is it legal for him to do it? What if he tells me it's for his friend's rent? Is that robbery/legal? What if he gets 9 of his friends and they all tell me I need to give him my money? Is that robbery/legal? What if the 10 men write up a document that says I have to give him my money, and they include me in a vote to affirm or reject the "law" that says I should give him my money? They all vote “yes” on the “law” and I vote ”no.” “Now,” they tell me, “we as a society of 11 have drafted a law that says that you have an obligation to give us the money. We have taken a vote and you have been outvoted. As a part of our society, you now owe us this money. If you don’t give it to us, we will imprison you at gunpoint. If you don’t like what we are doing, you can leave our territory.” Is THIS robbery? Yes, the same forcible imposition of the wills of others upon me has been made. Is it legal? Yes, actually; it is now "legal," because a law has been voted on and passed. It is legal robbery. So, the question is: How many people does it take before this practice ceases to be robbery? A hundred? A thousand? Ten million?

Let's change the hypothetical a little. Let's say that I have grown up on my parents' farm. I take over the farm and carry on with my life. Let's say that, this time, the ten men come to me and tell me "We're going to take a vote on whether to build a bridge across that river a mile behind your property." I say,  "But I don't need or want a bridge there. I never cross that river. I do all my business on this side of it."

"Well," they say, "we are all going to collectively decide whether to build that bridge." They all vote to build the bridge, and I vote not to. "It's settled," they say, "we'll build the bridge. We'll all be free to use it, and all eleven of us will share the cost."

"But I have no business over there; I won't use it and I don't want to pay for it." I say. "If I wanted a bridge there, I would either build it myself, or pay someone else to build it, and I would own it. If I eventually decide to use your bridge, I'll pay you for access at that time."

"You're going to pay your share," they say, "or we're going to imprison you at gunpoint. By living among us, you have implicitly signed a Social Contract that says that you will help pay for anything we decide to do. You have been outvoted, so we, collectively, have decided to build the bridge. If you don't like this arrangement, you can move far away."

"But all I have been doing is living here. I didn't ask to be a part of your collective 'we' and I signed no 'Social Contract.' My mere existence is not 'consent' to anything. Why should I have to move out of my home if I don't want to have money extorted from me to pay for things I don't want you to do?"

"Well if you don't like it, that's too bad," they say, "the ten of us have more guns than you do. So you're going to do what we say and pay us, or we're going to put our guns to use."

The Analysis

Hopefully, this section should be stating what is obvious by now. That you don't have a gun being waved in your face on tax day does not make paying taxes voluntary; the guns will appear eventually if you fail to pay. The number of people who helped to point the gun at someone is not a part of the definition of robbery. The number of people having the gun pointed at them is not part of the definition of robbery. Any number of people can be robbed by any number of people. Thus, there is no numerical basis for saying the above scenarios are robbery, while taxation imposed by majority vote/representatives in a country is not. Nor is there any relevance if the taxes are imposed on everyone, including the voting majority; robbers can use their own money for a cause, yet still be guilty of robbing others to pay for that cause. Nor is the amount of money the victim(s) or perpetrator(s) have part of the definition of robbery. The robbery of a wealthy victim is still robbery. Nor does it matter that, in modern societies, those who carry out the robbery are part of an organization with the function of protecting the citizenry from other force initiators (robbers, murderers, foreign invaders, etc.) It does not follow that, because the government protects us, it has the right to rob us, any more than it follows that, because it protects us, it has the right to carry out contract killings for the mob.

Someone might object that dictionaries typically define "robbery" as "taking something from someone by unlawful force or threat of violence," while taxes are "lawful." But, as I hope the reader saw in the hypothetical, to say that something is lawful simply means that some individuals, who take themselves to be a governmental body (i.e. empowered to use force beyond immediate self-defense), have written down a directive on a piece of paper and intend to enforce it. That something is "lawful" says nothing about the moral propriety of it. (Would anyone today say that, because anti-Jewish laws were passed by a duly elected Adolf Hitler, they were thereby morally justified?) Therefore, "unlawful" should be stricken from the definition of "robbery" as a nonessential. (1)

But robbery must still be distinguished from recompense and fines imposed as retaliation for coercion initiated by individuals/groups, (i.e. the punishment of those who have already robbed or otherwise victimized others by coercion.) Hence, the proper definition of robbery is: "taking something from someone by initiatory force or threat of violence."

Taxation does fall under this proper definition of robbery.

Redistributive Taxation vs. Fines for Wrongdoing

Some people will try to justify redistributive taxation of the wealthy by invoking the idea that the wealthy got that way by graft, fraud, government favors, or otherwise doing things that violate the rights of others. In some cases, especially in today's mixed economy, this may be true. However, the mere fact that someone is wealthy does not show that this is how he became wealthy. The government should not be in the business of granting special favors to anyone, and fines, recompense and/or jail time imposed by the courts are the appropriate means of dealing with extortion or fraud, when it can be proven in a specific case.

Taxation, on the other hand, is the forcible taking of money that was, by the government's own determination, obtained by legal means. No force or fraud has been shown to be involved; no one's rights have been shown to have been violated. So, in taking redistributive taxes, the government is stealing money from those who earned it and giving it to those who did not.

A Few Fallacious Arguments for Government Robbery (Taxation) Refuted

Argument: "But isn't government taxation for its basic, legitimate functions (police, military, courts) just the government collecting what citizens owe it for protecting them? How is this any different from the government enforcing private contracts?" Refutation: In living under a government, I am delegating my personal right to retaliation and recompense against those who injure or rob me. This delegation is necessary in order to ensure objectivity in the implementation of such retaliation and recompense. But I have not been given any choice but to submit to this delegation. Since I have not voluntarily entered this arrangement, I cannot properly owe anyone (by force of law) for any element of it that I have not voluntarily chosen to take part in. I cannot legally owe anyone for what they have done without my consent, whether implicit or explicit. (Though, if I have violated someone else's rights, then I have implicitly chosen to be subject to their retaliation, through government.) This is unlike private contracts, in which both parties voluntarily agree beforehand to be bound by them.

Argument: "All known governments rob citizens for funding. Therefore robbery is necessary for the existence of government." Refutation: This is a form of argumentum ad populum. That the vast majority (or all) of the people one knows of have chosen to do something, does not make it necessary, or good, or optimally practical. That none of the governments in the world prior to 1776 had been constitutional democratic republics did not warrant a pronouncement that such government is impossible or impractical. (See the last section of this essay for more on the practicality of a tax-free society.)

Argument: "Without coercive redistribution from the rich to the poor, the poor would riot and/or commit more crime and make life worse for the rich. Therefore it is in the self-interest of the rich to let the government rob them for this purpose." Refutation: This argument takes egalitarian opinions of the poor as an unchallengeable, metaphysically given absolute. It is a confusion between the metaphysical and the man-made. Human philosophical beliefs are open to evaluation and change. That any number of those who are poor believe in coercive redistribution does not make them justified in that belief. It doesn't make them any more justified than a single robber who believes he should be able to bash your head in if you don't give him your money. The laws of the society should be set up and enforced against those who would threaten violence, absent government redistribution. Any egalitarians--poor, middle class, or rich--should be convinced that redistribution is wrong, and that societal justice means getting what we have earned in a free market. This is the path to the most productive and peaceful society. (Should abolitionists in the US have said "Abolishing slavery will cause problems. It's in the interests of a peaceful society to maintain the status quo, so let's not fight for abolition"?)

Argument: "Without government robbery to build roads and infrastructure, there would be no roads and infrastructure, or at least, very poor infrastructure and roads without rules." Refutation: Infrastructure (utilities, roads, etc.) can be built and operated through private/nongovernmental means. Private contracts can govern the operation of such services. The rules of private roads would be contractually enforced as conditions of their use by customers, because no responsible person wants to drive on unsafe roads. No one wants to put himself at the mercy of the whims of a private company for access to the road in front of his house, thus long-term contracts would likely be standard at move-in to specify conditions of access to, and pricing of, the road.

The Destructive Consequences of Government Robbery, Briefly

Most people can easily identify the destructive consequences of robbery by individuals or by gangs. They see the harm it does to the victims, physically and psychologically. They see that if such robbery became pervasive in their society, it would create a fearful climate, antithetical to enjoyable living. They can see that it would paralyze people with uncertainty and sap their ability (and motivation) to plan, to save, to become wealthy and successful by honest means. (What use is it to invest in a factory if it can easily be raided at any moment by a gang of thugs.)

What most people seem unable to identify are the destructive consequences of government robbing the successful and productive to give to the unsuccessful or unproductive. People either don't identify these as destructive consequences, because they are considered "normal," and "an inevitable part of life in society" today, or they file them under "caused by unfettered capitalism." Most people unthinkingly accept that government robbery is necessary--that our society would be worse off if the government didn't rob people on behalf of the poor, the elderly, the sick, scientific researchers, schools, infrastructure construction, etc.

But the destructive consequences of government robbery are all around us; they are not inevitable, and they are not the result of unfettered capitalism. Government bailouts of businesses maintain inefficient business practices, and incentivize risky, irresponsible and corrupt behavior by corporate officers.  In the same way, government welfare incentivizes wasteful and irresponsible behavior by the poor at the expense of taxpayers. The virtual government monopoly on roads has created a stagnant and chronically underfunded system. Long commutes through roads and freeways clogged with traffic have become accepted as an inevitable part of life by tens of millions of people in the US alone. Almost no one today sees the efficiency, dynamism and radical improvement possible to a system of private roads, highways and mass transportation. (2)

How Would Government Be Financed Without Taxes?

In order to be funded without taxation, the state and federal governments of the US would have to be substantially smaller in size and lower in budget. Such a government would be restricted to its proper functions: police, military and courts.

Ways to fund a proper government without taxation could include fees for government enforcement of contracts, voluntary donations, fines for lawbreakers, small fees for "losers" in civil trials, and lotteries. (I recommend this article for more on this issue: How Would Government be Funded in a Free Society? along with Ayn Rand's discussion of voluntary government funding in The Virtue of Selfishness.)

------------------

(1) Dictionaries reflect common usage that may be confused and/or improper. Thus, they should not be taken uncritically as authoritative, especially in regard to philosophically relevant concepts. For more on the issues of essentials, objective concepts and definitions, see Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, 2nd Ed. by Ayn Rand.

(2) I make a certain distinction between the level of harm caused by compulsory taxation for government in its proper functions and compulsory taxation for improper government programs, such as welfare/bailout functions. The former is still wrong, but is destructive in a minor way. The latter is far and away more destructive to the well-being of people in the society that practices it.

Recommended books: Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal by Ayn Rand Capitalist Solutions: A Philosophy of American Moral Dilemmas by Andrew Bernstein

What Caused the Financial Crisis: It Wasn't Capitalism or Deregulation

Below are links to Yaron Brook's explanation of how the US housing bubble and financial crisis happened. Yaron Brook has an MBA, a Ph.D. in Finance, and was a professor of finance at a university.

Here is a short video on what caused the crisis: Did Capitalism Cause the Financial Crisis?

Here is a course that goes through the details of what happened and why. The video is in the center column of the page, at the top of the "Video & Audio" section: The Financial Crisis: What Happened and Why

Ayn Rand's essay: What is Capitalism? (YouTube audio)

Capitalism at The Ayn Rand Lexicon.