Ayn Rand-Good For You, Bad For Everybody Else
the author is of course ignorant about Objectivism and pure Huffpost anti-producer. I commented. consider commenting. in order to not go crazy, just pick one thing she says and take that on. Let us know on this post if you do so we can like your comment. Battle! we have the world to win
_______________________________
From the article:
Moreover, Rand also (naively) believed that, in a free society, taxation should be voluntary because the "proper services" of a government -- like the police, armed forces and courts of law -- are obviously needed and citizens should therefore be willing to pay for such services.
_______________________________
It is obvious to me that the author of this does not understand the position Ayn Rand took on the voluntary taxation to pay for government.
She wrote on this topic in the essay “Government Financing in a Free Society”, published in The Virtue of Selfishness:
Any program of voluntary government financing has to be regarded as a goal for a distant future.
What the advocates of a fully free society have to know, at present, is only the principle by which that goal can be achieved.
The principle of voluntary government financing rests on the following premises: that the government is not the owner of the citizens’ income and, therefore, cannot hold a blank check on that income—that the nature of the proper governmental services must be constitutionally defined and delimited, leaving the government no power to enlarge the scope of its services at its own arbitrary discretion. Consequently, the principle of voluntary government financing regards the government as the servant, not the ruler, of the citizens—as an agent who must be paid for his services, not as a benefactor whose services are gratuitous, who dispenses something for nothing. (Ayn Rand)
Also the form the tax takes is extremely critical.
For example an Ad Valorem tax is a complete violation of freedom and the principal of private property. A transfer tax on property, is very different even if the amount is identical and here is why.
Ad Valorem property tax is what you pay to the county on the appraised or estimated value of your property. This is in perpetuity and forever. In essence you are “renting” from the County government the property you pay for. Even when your mortgage is paid for, or you paid cash you are FORCED to continue to make these payments to the government.
A transfer tax ends after it is paid. If you wrap it into your mortgage like you would additional funds to build a garage, once that mortgage is paid you pay NOTHING ever again on the monies used to pay the transfer tax.
If I pay cash for my property, once that transfer tax is paid which funds the people and infrastructure to retain these records is paid, never again to I have to pay the government as long as I reside in my property. I can improve my property add buildings, and do not pay more for my success and labor as I expand my property. The government has NO claim on the property at all. That is a voluntary tax paid when I decide to purchase, not a forced tax in perpetuity.
In states where cars are property taxed the same is true. Go to the car dealer pay 40k for your car, and then do not pay the property tax and see who owns that car. They (Government), like your home will strip it away from by force and sell it to someone else. That is NOT freedom.
When Government provides a service and charges for it, this is voluntary. You do not want fire protection for you home, do not pay the fire department.
However in this areas you would find the free market resolve the problem and provide an industry to address such things. Oh Wait!!! Insurance!!!! Which is voluntary.
When I take out a mortgage the only reason insurance is required is to protect the Bank who has an interest in your property until that mortgage is paid off. Again voluntary. Do not want to pay insurance, then save money, pay cash, and take all the risk yourself.
Property taxes are forced on us to fund the education of other people’s kids. I do not have kids, yet I am forced to pay property taxes to fund things I never chose to have. No different than me buying a 100’ yacht and then expecting all my neighbors to pay for and maintain it.
When we are FREE and responsible for ourselves it is good for everyone rich and poor, especially when we have to pay for our own choices and decisions without forcing others to pay out of their heard earned product.
So these liberals and people who do NOT reason and think have no clue what freedom really is and what it really means. They have been so indoctrinated into a nanny state they are willing to give up all freedoms and become not only slaves to the state but also wards of the state forsaking any individualism they have left.
The Book 1984 is a good example of this. Disagree and you are sent to room 101.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3U83QLo...
Thank you for the rant on property taxes. It is so difficult to get across to most people the fact that such taxes establish that, in effect, you are renting your property from the gov in perpetuity...! One of the balms available in the Gulch is to read stuff such as you just wrote over my morning coffee.
Jan
I have been under the old impression that Ayn Rand didn't weigh in that much on the U.S. Constitution and what would be proper government form. It seemed that to me back then her emphasis was in framing a personal philosophy and a basis of morality for conducting one's life. Government plays a big role in her novels, but also seemed somewhat peripheral to the main theses. This now doesn't make total sense to me and some premise checking I believe is called for.
I am now thinking of going back and examining this perception with what I now have gained over the years. Looking forward to it. I did re-read Anthem recently and what a refreshing experience!
Never saw that coming.
(Madelynne Wager, CEO Brightest Young Minds.
http://bym.co.za/about-us/team/madelynne...)
Wrapping paper... you never know what's inside.
Snap their hands off--or maybe heads.
Fortunately, Balko is starting to publish in other places again.
I don't understand why people think that, unless its maybe just how Rand's personality came across.
The word "selfishness" derails all further understanding. The altruists think of themselves as virtuous; after all, Jesus died for them, and that's to be emulated. It's the stickiest, most powerful meme in the culture.
That's why Rand went so extremely to the opposite end of the scale. And why the bleeding hearts associate hers with heartlessness, greed, exploitation; and they don't realize they are doing exactly that with their redistributionist schemes!
Rand never claimed the markets were fair and she cited exactly why they weren't: government interference and cronyism. And it isn't as if she is the only one. Many other economists have noted the very same.
The next line told me all I needed to know about the article's author: "And our world is not as straightforward as her philosophy assumes."
Have you ever noticed that when a liberal gets cornered about a specific, central policy failure resulting from their ideology, their response is always a deflection about how complicated, nuanced, or contextual the problem is? The underlying assertion is that there is always something particular about that instance that makes it a unique instance - something out of their control over which they should as a result not have to take responsibility for. And yet all this time all they keep doing is insisting they need MORE power: more things under their control they can later blame someone or something else for when they fail.
My statement to liberals: you show me you can take responsibility for the little things - good outcome OR bad. You're like a teenager who wants to drive but not pay for the car insurance or gas, and blames the other party when you run a red light and get in an accident. Part of growing up is taking responsibility for one's actions. You want me to treat you like an adult? Act like one.
Got interrupted & never got back. Think it's too late?
I suggest Ms. Wagner re-read AS carefully and consider the fundamental truths that are clearly detailed in that document.
I wonder if the website editor asked her to write a more critical piece on Rand because someone didn't like the first one.
It's a goal-not a moral duty [edited to add happy face]
Galt was the destroyer because he was taking away the great minds upon which the economy depended. Not feeding your enemies is not the same thing as attacking and destroying your enemies - although it might ultimately have the same result.
If we don't win the world then what is the alternative? Just going on our way. Shrugging? And isn't that the ultimate destruction?
The question really is whether it is possible to achieve a reasonable society via reformation of an existing society or whether it is necessary to start from scratch like America's founders did.
I don't see any phoenixes rising either. This is why I am more convinced than ever that it is time to start working on Atlantis.
I think we do need to put a good face on Rand's philosophy, whenever we get a chance, but we can accept that the return may not be visible for us: Would we have even known about our happy allosaur if he had not also joined the Gulch?
Not replying to such articles is, I think, falling into the same trap that let us ignore socialists in education...because they were sequestered there and could not possibly do much harm...
Jan
I came to Objectivism about 50 years ago through the influence of a college friend. I pestered him with lame questions concerning the periphery of the philosophy until he finally refused to talk to me any more. "Go read Atlas shrugged," he said. "There is no point in my discussing Rand with you any longer."
As for an Atlantis, we must seek to be as wise as those who cast aside King George. There were really rather few of them.
An example of typical government involvement in about anything.
The EPA was born and the first task it took on was to clean up the North Eastern Fishing companies. These companies after all were dumping the waste from fish process on a beach. This made the beach ugly and polluted the ocean.
You see there was a beach where virtually all the fish processing plants in the north east would put the waste from the fish (bones, guts...) and the seagulls would clean up the waste. It had been this way since colonial America before the revolutionary war. The EPA in its wisdom thought this bad, so they banned it.
The result was that land fill started to occur and the seagulls, no longer able to gain their own food as it had been given to them for over 100 years, started to drop dead in the hundreds and then thousands. The stench of the rotting corpses was linked to the businesses poor practices in waste disposal and the EPA saved the day with clean up crews.
At this point we have increased tax requirements twice, once to police the businesses so that the waste did not end up on the beach, and again to clean up the mess the change in law created.
Fast forward a decade where homes built on top of the waste landfill sites sank into sinkholes. Business was blamed and people began to sue the fish processing industry. Did government step up to fix the wrong they created with the policies they laid out? No, business was again made the bad guy. Result Fish processing plants and fishing companies alike began to close and did not renew the now very costly permits that paid for the government created costs to clean something up that had an excellent and natural process of disposing of the waste.
When few American companies would renew the fishing permits much of our fishing waters were licensed to Canadian companies and the north eastern fishing industry became an hard hit area of the economy.
We have our work cut out and for the most self-interested reason: this is not the kind of world we want to live in.
exactly
I hope Gulchers will do this kind of thing often for any articles that use Ayn Rand's name to get higher Google rankings. It might just help some people see the light.
"'Objectivism assumes that hard work is the primary determinate [sic] of one's success.' . This is not true. . Objectivism posits that the value of a person's contributions determines his or her success. . Contributions arise from skill, inventiveness, creativity, focus, persistence and, yes, hard work. . If hard work were the determinant, a ditch digger would be worth more than a back-hoe operator. . The greatest of the contributors to value is inventiveness. . When I invented a new way to make lubricating oil flow away from machines at a factory where I worked, it became "the mason principle" and I was promoted as a result. . Try that with a shovel and sweat. -- j"
first, the sic word is determinant.
second, this is so fundamental a point that the
author trivialized Rand by claiming it. . but the
biggest problem with the article is the claim that
Objectivist principles tend to allow businesspeople
to gang up against us. . monopolies, collusion,
the whole gamut of nasty stuff. . I'm working on
a way to refute that.
you may have a better way. . Do It! -- j
to gang up against us. . monopolies, collusion,
the whole gamut of nasty stuff"
I don't have a great refutation, but my thought is all that nasty stuff crops up under any human system. She acts as if she's comparing it to some ideal system that eliminates those elements.
In countries with honest book keeping it goes under a heading COG for Cost of Government
Here we pretend businesses are just plain folks.
Beyond that flawed premise the article is just another apologist for a world worse than any depicted by Ayn Rand. Left Wing Fascist Socialism. Given the state of todays education I see no reason why this individual should conclude anything else. Philosophy like math is SOOOOOOO HAAAAAARRRRRRDDDDDD
As Ms. Wager says, sometimes managers work out sweetheart deals with their boards. Some people find a way to pay negative taxes.In life's lottery some parents help their kids with time and money, and others are abusive. Some people develop health problems and others stay healthy despite bad habits. I agree with her, but she says that as if gov't has the solution to make those problems go away and make life fair.
I disagree with her saying Objectivism supports "judging others' situations without empathy". It's saying (based on my limited reading) forced empathy is a horrible thing that destroys the human soul.
I tend to put my foot down on my prerogative to make a personal judgement on anyone or anything I choose - with or without empathy. (This aversion to judging may be a spinoff of the groupthink that is being trained.)
So, while I agree that Rands philosophy is incorrectly labeled as being without empathy (as is any rational thought process - look at Mr Spock), I think the real issue is the right to judge.
Jan
Perhaps what some people think judging means is "condemning". That usually happens when two people meet whose premises are at odds, and neither can see the other's viewpoint in order to find the point of "no conflict of interest." Without that, the ideas go to battle, and the people go to battle, with escalating demonization and condemnation of that which threatens the comfort of their own unquestionable ideas.
So people who see things rationally are accused of lacking not only empathy but also sympathy because they refuse to concur in error. And how do we know there's error? Check those premises, back to the singularity. Rnad has given us the flowchart with flawless logic.
I have another whole essay on how logic and emotions collide. It can wait.
This reminds me of what Rand says about the world "selfishness". It often is presented as selfish-and-cheating/stealing, so she purposely used the word in the title of Virtue of Selfishness to make a distinction between self interest and using force.
Similarly, there's judging people and trying to make them follow your judgments, which are completely different.
It is an uphill battle to get a positive connotation on 'selfishness'. I personally find it more productive to undermine the case of being 'non-judgmental'. Since I tend to be personally xenophilic, it is pretty easy for me to deflate a lot of the common assertions that go with being judgmental.
Jan
Jan, speakin' plain
Since almost by definition most college grads have never been exposed to Reason, it stands to, well, reason, that they would need their own language. I'm sure there's an equivalent "UN speak" (even when they're speaking English), and no doubt "Presidential Press Secretary Speak"...etc.
The government can't "fix" that, nor should they. And any rhetoric about "leveling the playing field" or "making incomes more equal" is just that, meaningless political rhetoric.
And whenever they try, even with good intentions (a rather big assumption), they still only succeed in making people worse off.
My posts are labeled "Alan L. Falk."
Load more comments...