@rlumley, I agree that the government should have police and military, I'm trying to get at why you think that. Why, if it's immoral for anyone to be asked to help support anyone else is it moral for the government to have a monopoly on the use of force? Especially since it can only do so by being funded by us? Why shouldn't we all just handle our own defense? I'm just trying to figure out the logic of your position, where it ends and why.

Basically what is so different about the use of force that it's in it's own special category?

Pragmatism. If there isn't a monopoly of the use of force, you have anarchy, which most of us know doesn't work.

Oh I agree, but I'm also not the one arguing that taxes and all government programs aside from those two are evil. I'm trying to get at why rlumley feels they are different.

Tax is fundamentally immoral.

Now I am :) And I do genuinely believe that.

Roads privatized?? bah!
A couple of weeks ago I read two articles by Libertarians (one in Cato.org) that actually proposed that Somolia was a libertarian paradise. Some things don't need to be mocked - they are self-mocking. I know of several African countries rich in natural wealth that are not getting developed thanks to the lack of roads - and the financial disincentive for any one single private entity to go it along and build those roads. (not to mention the lack of education... another one of those things that simply doesn't happen effectively unless it's socialized). Ever hear of the interstate system? How about the railroad system? How about canals before that? Would any of these gotten off the ground in any sort of effective way if it was left only to private concerns?

I agree with Dr. Oct - ideologies are of limited use... I read Atlas Shrugged... and I've read my share of writings describing a socialist utopia... neither is very realistic (though quite inspiring while reading). There is an element of truth in both. But, human nature being as it is (inevitably), there is no way either extreme will work.

There are, to my mind, three major problems with leaving it all to private companies: 1) public goods (example: defense)... there is no effective private incentive to provide public goods in a dependable manner, 2) common goods (example: natural resources), there are limited resources where private greed does not align with overall good...(see "tragedy of the commons"), 3) personal profit incentive - which, as we see in our current crisis, is very often not aligned with the profit incentive of the companies. These three are insurmountable on a society-wide basis absent some kind of regulatory structure to provide and align incentives.

Well then I guess we start from fundamentally different positions and are unlikely to get anywhere in this discussion. I guess at least we agree that a government with some sort of monopoly on force is a good idea.

What exactly is your position on healthcare then? I can't quite tell from your earlier posts, and this most recent post just muddies the waters further.

sorry didn't get in in time, my last post is aimed at TheGhostMaker

Well, I believe that the idea of tax is fundamentally immoral. It involves taking something away from somebody that they deserve. But, then again, it actually pragmatically is a pretty good idea, and if you had a choice between using government services and paying tax, or not using them and not paying it, you would choose to use them, because they do include things like roads. If you had a choice when filing a tax return to check a box that says:

I choose not to walk on any publicly owned property including pavements and roads, to not expect that I or any of my dependants be protected by the law, not to use the government health care, fire service, education, government funded university places etc. etc. Then I don't think many would choose not to pay tax.

That is why I am not actually contradicting myself. You can already check that box by declaring your home as an independent state, and then I don't think the government should stop you.

...and as far as the last of the problems I listed... without threat of being sued or jail, the only risk that executives take when robbing their companies is getting canned. Not much of a risk when getting canned includes multiple millions in severance packages, a speaking tour and a book deal.

@Dexter.Morgan - I've tried multiple times to read Atlas Shrugged, and The Fountainhead and keep getting bogged down in the terrible writing and characterization, I haven't managed to be inspired by any part of them I've read because it's so obviously a straw man argument, with flat one dimensional characters that telegraph their intentions and positions from the first time you meet them. Everyone in those books are either complete idiots and evil, or the so amazingly wonderful that you couldn't possibly stand against them.

I have read a fair bit of Ayn Rand's non-fiction work, and agree that there is a grain of truth in objectivism, and it's not a bad idea for someone to spend some time thinking about when they're an adolescent, but find it to be very lacking as an actual mature philosophy or economic system (the same is true of Marxism).

I will say that I did enjoy Anthem when I read it (of course I was also 14 and in 9th grade, so take even what's coming with a grain of salt), but that was mostly because it intrigued me as an interesting thought experiment in linguistics.

Ghostmaker: If you declared your home an independent state (logistic, management, and legal concerns aside) how long before the local gang takes you out so they can ransack your house and add the property to their holdings? Should we allow people to do such nonsense? If I'm your neighbor, I have a vested interest in the stability and safety of my neighborhood... even if you don't see it... and thus I would support the government coming in and giving you protection (and a road that serves us both) and forcing you to pay your fair share. You might as well say that as a freedom loving astronaut you have a right to open the airlock. No you don't.

@rhumley:
As I predicted, yours is the now threadbare argument of special exclusion common among conservatives (libertarians?) who are confident that they know the divine truth about which services the government should provide.

Chrisp presented a strong argument (in my opinion) for why systems such as healthcare can be more efficient under the stewardship of the government. Your arguments (thus far) have failed to address the issue in any tangible form; instead, you have invoked various levels of privileged knowledge to argue your stance (along with repeated attempts to divert the discussion seemingly more comfortable territory on taxes and impending economic doom, etc.)
If you don't mind, I would like to read your specific reasons for why the government is capable of providing the many other services you support, but unable to adequately provide healthcare.

For my part, I will admit that governments can fail where they involve an excess of bureaucracy. However, what your depiction of the evil government monopoly fails to address is the immensely skewed distribution of wealth and power in our society. This is one of the strange paradoxes of libertarianism in my opinion. We all know and mostly agree (I think) that democratic/semi-capitalist governments are prone to corruption and the influence of the rich.

This seems like a strong libertarian argument (to me), for why we should keep the government out of *everything.* But of course, we still need the services, and if they're not wholly or partially government run, then they're partially or wholly owned and run by private enterprise. And who owns and runs the private companies? Well it's the rich, powerful people who are simultaneously corrupting our governments.

This is why I personally cannot accept any arguments about the government's flaws as a monopolistic institution. The insurance companies, (and other businesses that lobby the gov. so heavily) are similarly dominant and able to act with impunity.

Dr. Oct: yes... I had the "advantage" of reading all that nonsense when I was a teen. Bad writing wasn't as obvious to me back then... and the ideas, innocent as I was, were seductive.

Ah, but the fact is that that is harming me far more than it is harming them. Nobody ever would choose to go it alone.

Then there is of course the philosophical point that you make. I disagree with it. You have a right to protect me, and a right to stop me from being riotous myself, but you seem to think you have a right to my money because You want Me to spend it on You. Essentially, you think I should have to pay for your benefit. Why is that justified? It certainly isn't the natural state of affairs, is it, that I should be compelled to spend my money and the fruits of my labours on somebody other than myself.

As a freedom loving astronaut, I have a right to open the airlock in my private aircraft, yes, but not if I agreed not to when I let you aboard, and not if I am in somebody else's aircraft.

That was to Dexter Morgan's penultimate post btw

@Ghostmaker: You said,
"...the idea of tax is fundamentally immoral. It involves taking something away from somebody that they deserve."

Who says anyone *deserves* anything, including their salary (whole and untaxed)? I think I know what you mean, but I can't agree because there is no divine rule stating that you deserve $10/hr for job X. This leaves only our man-made institutions to regulate.

Consider that your paycheck, while presented as a 'gross' amount and then showing deductions for taxes, is only meaningful within the society that a government provides. It's very likely that the business who employs you depends on services from the government to do whatever it does to make money. Some of their income is then passed on to you as an employee, minus the taxes which went to the government so it could pay its employees who are also doing something that contributes to the same economic process.

The idea of taxes being immoral seems a complete and utter fallacy to me. The government is more than just a practical compromise, it's an absolute necessity which provides a huge portion of the environment, tools and resources through which everyone else is eventually paid anyway. We don't pay taxes like we pay a home-owner's association, because we like the amenities. We pay them for the services they provide in a long chain of productivity which allows us to live our modern lives.

Government, when aligned with business, is an instrument for the concentration of wealth and the protection of the wealthy. Business, without government, is an instrument for the concentration and protection of the wealthy... The only solution is government that is not aligned with business - and who protects and serves those whose interests run counter to the (short-term) interests of the wealthy and powerful.

Oh, I'm sure if I'd read Atlas Shrugged or The Fountainhead in my middle or early high school years I'd have found them to be much more engrossing. And even having not had a chance to read those two books, the research I did on Anthem for a project in school did lead me to become rather enthralled with the idea of objectivism for a time.

As I said there is certainly a grain of truth in there, individuals acting in self interest can in many contexts provide much better results than more controlled systems, and there is certainly something to be said for the general emphasis on the rights of the individual. But the objectivism takes it to an extreme, without all that much thought or pragmatism. As I said I think it's probably actually good for people to go through a phase in which they become interested in objectivism and such, I think it helps them to see themselves as important as individuals and it plants the seed of realizing that when you can harness peoples self interest to get things done it's often a good idea.

But at some point I think most people should probably "graduate" to a more well thought out philosophy. I remember for a time thinking of objectivism as "existentialism lite." Of course I meant specifically Nietzsche-an existentialism there, but the point is that there are other philosophies that make more sense, have more thought involved, and don't basically just argue that everyone should be a jerk.

Ghostmaker: your ideal works well in areas with sparse population and no infrastructure... the American west, pre-1850 (outside of cities), for example... Once your activities are close enough to mine to effect me then things get much more involved. There are still even now plenty of places in Alaska and elsewhere where you can live like Jeremiah Johnson, if you so desire.

"...and don't basically just argue that everyone should be a jerk." LOL

I find it funny and illuminating how in the recent public interest in Ayn Rand in the U.S.... and all the "tea-bagging" idiocy, and people saying that they're going to "Go Galt", how no one actually is "Going Galt"... and how the conservative states yelling most about the intrusions of the federal government (Texas, anyone?) still are happily accepting federal aid. (Indeed, the "red-states" overall accept more than they pay in tax...). And those who are actually rejecting some aid (South Carolina and Louisiana) are only rejecting unemployment benefits (!)... (certainly they wouldn't reject anything that benefits the rich and powerful).

Help! I'm surrounded by straw men!

Dexter.Morgan, why do you think that that's the case? In built up areas it is better, because everyone will freely choose to go with the government, because the government is even more important.

@TheGhostmaker - "Help I'm surrounded by straw men!" is exactly what I'd say if I found myself in an Ayn Rand novel. Hehe. (no this doesn't really contribute to the discussion at all, but... I just had to say it).

lol @DrOct.
I was thinking of a retort in line with the philosphical company that Ghostmaker's been keeping, but yours is much funnier. :)

Just wondering if either of you fancies arguing against my specific viewpoint, or you want to go on with attacking people with a somewhat similar view?

Oh, sorry I thought I was just going off on a tangent about Ayn Rand since others brought it up, I wasn't really trying to argue against you specifically.

I don't really have a specific argument against your position, I don't think that taxes are immoral, but in a practical sense we seem to have a similar position so I'm not really sure I need to argue with you about whether they are moral or immoral. I don't think I'm going to convince you, and I don't think you're going to convince me on that point (though I do see where you're coming from). So I was going off in another direction.

Sorry if you got the impression I was trying to argue against your "viewpoint." I wasn't.