Please note that in this transcript, some of EricT's statements appear truncated. This is because he was pasting text to the channel from a text file and initially did not realize that IRC limits messages to 256 characters. This problem was corrected later in the discussion. Welcome to #GeekSpeak. Before we begin, I'd like to remind you that all channel logs are the copyright of the channel owners: Pankaj Saxena and Tom Wright. Logs may not be redistributed in any form without the prior consent of the channel owners. Tonight's discussion is on "The Proper Way to Finance Government" and will be moderated by Eric Taneda. As usual, the discussion will be conducted in keyword-protected mode. If you see someone off-channel whom you think would like to join the discussion and would not be disruptive, please message me or Wright. Go ahead, Eric. As we move towards a free society, sooner or later, we must confront the question of implementing a stable, long-term method of financing the government. I am going to proceed on the premise that the sooner we have a solution, the better In confronting a question like this at this point in history, there is a great danger of falling into rationalism -- there is simply not a great deal of direct empirical/historical data on wholesale abolition of taxes. This is probably one There, however, is an abundance of indirect empirical data. I am going to present an argument based on these. If I succeed, you will come to know the exact logistics how the government ought to be funded long-term. [Questions and Comments] That means you folks are welcome to make any comments at this time, I think. yep. :) Well, I am for EricT continuining his presentation Okay. Defining the Problem Solving any problem requires precisely defining it. This is how we will begin. We need to formulate the best possible way for the government to finance itself, long-term. We go into this inquiry with the premise that a solution must be possible. If a solution were not possible, it would mean either that our moral theory is defective (for disallowing a known stable way to finance government -- taxation), or I think getting rid of taxes must wait until indvidual rights as the political ideal are re-established, but I'd like to hear the other side ;) The premise that it "is possible" could be in dispute, but further comments withheld for now. The Five Critical Requirements for a Government Funding Formula: i) Moral (don't violate rights) ii) Sufficient (produce sufficient revenue to cover all legitimate functions) iii) Stable (it can be counted on for long-term financing) iv) Simple (logistically straight-forward enough to be free of loopholes which invite corruption) v) Doable (it can be realistically phased in) [Questions and Comments] Erik do your arguments follow from a strong (gold) currency? sorry Eric Eric: Are you allowing for special emergency needs like fighting wars? Betsy: I am, and will cover that later. You haven't said much for us to discuss yet. One important step is providing a model of the proposed government. Then, you can use existing bugetary figures to indicate the scale of finances needed. Brad: I will cover that. :) Seven Steps of Elimination Now, we are ready to begin our analysis, using a process of elimination. For this analysis to be valid, each step must be justified by enough empirical evidence to support it. I think point (i) deserves chewing for corollaries and implications. Does it inevitably imply non-coercive, voluntary funding, for instance? 1. 1. All government revenue is collected either: a) by force, or b) voluntarily. We rule out (a) on the grounds of (i) -- forcible collection violates rights. I don't think there is any question of being able to develop a voluntary system. This is something people need. People donate billions now to charities they don't even strictly need. Phil03: Yes, and that will become clear in a moment. 2. All voluntary revenue is collected either: a) by gift, or b) by trade. We rule out (a) on the grounds of (iii) -- good will is a response dependent on specific context and cannot be counted on remaining stable long-term. In Whistler BC, where I lived, we only had one paid firefighter -- the chief. Everyone else was volunteers. Capital expenses were often raised by fund raising drives. 3. All government trade revenue is collected either: a) by competition, or b) by monopoly. We rule out (a) on the grounds of (ii), (iii), (iv), and (v). A government-run enterprise subject to market competition is no more assured of long BradA: I don't think that would work for a full-scale government. 4. All government monopoly trade revenue is generated by either: a) monopoly on non-force services, or b) monopoly on force services. We rule out (a) on the grounds of (i) -- The government has no moral right to establish a monopoly on co I disagree with ruling out gifts. In fact, in is entirely proper to bequeth, say, funds for capital government projects, like a new courthouse, say. Eric: right. Which is why a gvt. lottery wouldn't work. He didn't rule out gifts, Brad. I think he said that you couldn't solely rely on them. Brad: How do you assure long-term stability of a stream of gifts? You can't. Tym: Can you explain why that won't work? Eric: There are services and other things that a government has a _natural_ monopoly on. There is a _lot_ to be said for citizen control of gov't funding Meaning that a trade basis is necessary. Services provided and paid for. Betsy: I'm getting to that. Tom: couldn't compete. tym: Why not? tym: A lottery is a form of gambling. <> Mencken avers that the framing of the issue may be what matters. It isn't so much an issue of getting those who agree to pay for it as it is dealing with those who don't agree or won't pay for it. good will is the *essence* of voluntary financing, in whatever form. Statistical facts are still facts. If people in fact donate on average, X millions to their community, that is a fact. Gifts can create an endowment fund to allow for long-term revenue and financing. 5. All government force-service monopoly trade revenue is generated by either: a) payment for using force against others, or b) payment for using force against self. We rule out (a) on the grounds of (i), (ii), (iii), (iv), and (v). The tym: People play games in Vegas against outrageous odds all the time, even with better odds games. Brad: My conclusion will differ from that. :) Gabe: maybe we better wait until Eric is done scrolling :) tym: Ok. Eric: If the government can't charge for protecting us, how is it to raise funds? Payment for using force against self?? (it is not necessarily clear at the time of the signing if there is a third party -- the government -- involved or not). It also introduces a problematic precedence -- that the government can be an "implicit" third party in any contract w Tom: I will get to that. up). Tom: I see no evidence why donations could not in principle work, in a culture in which it was expected to contribute your fair share. People willingly give billions to charities now. I am not arguing for it (there is not sufficient numeri BradA: Since we are trying to establish something which can be proved stable long-term, and since gifts are dependent on people's renewed good will on an on-going basis, it's not a good basis to count on long-term revenue. Brad:We are already assuming voluntary payments of some sort, so gifts could be a *part* of it, though not the entire percentage. EricT: Do you mean payment _to protect against force used against oneself_ by 'Payment for using force against self' ? Eric: Government does more than weild force, per se. It also enacts statutory and commercial law, and secures property rights, via such things as land registries and the patent office. Phil03: No. It means you pay the government, so that they are willing to recognize *your* signature -- so people you deal with will find your signature credible. Eric: You mean some sort of governement run registry? Tom: I will get to the specifics in a bit. But that's a strictly civil matter -- what about the issue of criminal proceedings? And the cops.. The government doesn't have an 'obligation' to provide military service. Remember, the government is merely an association, of a unique kind. It may not discriminate, which is perhaps what you mean, nor deny justice, but there is no *oblig they would be paid for out of the general fund consisting of the one standard method. For example, if there is a government in Ontario, it doesn't mean the government is then obligated to provide police protection services everywhere in the province. BradA: I would say that any gov't which failed to provide for nat'l defense is an ineffective gov't Brad: The government takes over authority on the use of force; and military and police protections are aspects of using force, so by acquiring a monopoly on force, it acquires the obligation to use it when necessary. Brad: I disagree...the governemtn *would* be obligated to protect individual rights in a free society. I think the argument here is one of percentages: how much of the revenue will come from up-front payments like contract enforcement fees and how much will come from "gifts" which are a more general recognition by an individual of service Are we ready for the next step? It can establish the rules of municipal incorporation, and a police act governing erection and operation of a force, but you can NEVER escape for the need of men to initiate the actions their life requires, including organizing and financi Go ahead, Eric. The action that my life requires, which would result in government being funded, is that I need to sign contracts, and have my signature be credible. This is a universal and permanent need and market. Eric: Please continue, I think we need to know how you think a government can be properly financed. 6. All government force-against-self-service monopoly trade revenue is generated by either: a) per-units of contract basis, or b) per units of time (subscription) basis. We rule out (a) on the basis of (ii) and (iv) -- having a government a loss of the prior peace of mind, knowing that a simple signature is sufficient to make one's promises credible. Your pastes are being truncated at 256 characters, Eric. Eric: I don't understand your argument re good will. Are you saying that a method is needed to insure funds, even if the conditions which give rise to good will disipate? We have that already: taxation. :) Precisely BradA "This is a universal and permanent need and market" ... are you talking about ubiquitous use, or a *single* provider/government, when you say "universal"? Eric: I'm getting lost in all of your short-hand a) i) ii), etc. Ok, I'll slow down and elaborate. Please do. :) <> Mencken suggests that a detailed argument of this type might be better presented as an essay which all are encouraged to read in advance, and then respond to on line. Brad: I'm saying that since the government must exist long-term, an it must be financed on an on-going basis, the revenue base must be stable. Gifts are anything but stable. Mencken: "single provider" within a geographical region called a nation, by definition of government. Eric: I agree, but how would you propose paying for the services? Phil: The important point here is to not collectivism or deify government. If it is ever turned into something beyond an association comprised of and serving the interests of its citizens, then all manner of violations are possible. It bec I have to disagree with that premise. _Which_ government? Is a moral government going to be deprived of funding by citizens' voluntary funding? Tom: I'm getting to that. BradA: Yes Hi all.. I am sorry for being late.. I am very interested in this topic, and will ask questions later. I will try to read some of the comments first, not to interrupt ongoing conversations. Phil03: The government has to be set up in such a way that it can count on long-term revenue. Expecting that somehow, gifts will show up, does not suffice. I think he's saying that police shouldn't have to cut their numbers in half one month and then back to normal the next because the gifts failed to arrive in volume that month. I'm not sure that would happen, though - adequate financial p Subetai: Binswanger's solution. Which is? Tym: what is binswanger's solution? We are talking about a statistical universe of hundreds of millions of people -- and also an accumulation of capital over time, presumably Please elaborate on B's sol. If 300 million people are that ticked off, something _is_ wrong with the gov't Eric: are we at the part of the show where we can discuss B.'s solution? I think it is preferable for the government to operate in a clean business-like manner, rather than acting like some kind of special benefactor operating for the benefit of others. Re: use of force. There is a difference between the objective use of *whatever force and means exist*, from the assertion that the existence of a government implies the necessity to supply services. I would prefer I can complete at least this section. ok Okay, go ahead, Eric. Government is not a business Government is not a business, but it is not a charity either. 7. All government force-against-self-service subscription monopoly trade revenue (phew!) is generated by either: a) flat rate to cover all legal entities, or b) rates commensurable to size and quantity of contracts. We rule out (a) on the People have the right to form a government, and the government functionaries have a responsibility to establish objective processes and enabling statutes etc. There is no duty imposed on participants to satisfy the existential needs or des Eric: Ok, explain what you mean by "a business-like manner." Is it ok to ask a question, and to present thoughts that I have? <> Tym notes that Eric's method is scholastic in its exhaustiveness 8-{) Brad: You forget that the persons going into "governmental service" would do so on a voluntary basis. ask away. :) Tom: Business-like means they do what they are contractually obligated to do, and earn their revenue by providing a valuable service. Incidentally, they have to provide police, military, and court functions (except contract enforcement) w Your notes are getting clipped, EricT. This is all we got of last: the government would not raise sufficient revenues to pay for all required services. This metho on the role of a monopolist in these areas, deprives citizens of their ability to form their own police, military, etc., services. I'll cut down the lengths. Eric: Are you proposing a "competing governement" scheme? Why must they provide physical and legal functions without charge? Why not user fees? "Police protection" is not a homogenous good, despite government pretense. Differs with need, location, and political pull. ooh, competing governments stink of libertarianism. Bad idea. TomM: I think he's just said the opposite Mencken: This is a useful and enjoyable format, especially for an issue of this nature. Tom: No, I am saying that the government, by being a monopoly on force (as it ought to be), thereby acquires an obligation (to provide protection), and a natural market advantage (to provide certain services nobody else can sell). I don't think you can rule out 7a. like that. "small" contractual transactions, most notably retail sales, probably form the largest part of the economy. The former Ma Bell was (for 95% of the U.S.) a monopoly de jure that very much wanted to be paid for its services. Mencken: That's an example of an immoral monopoly. Eric: if you are trying to set up government protection so it is not a protection raket, then i agree, but I'm not sure that is what you are saying. Eric: You have asserted gifts, ie. donations, are unstable, but offer no proof. Very many large charitable or benevolent organizations exist long term on such a basis, and have quite predictable revenue. Also, you ignore that measure can b It's a coercive monopoly too,isn't it? BradA: Useful, yes, if one keeps up the connected argument. IRC isn't well suited to that. Brad: Many charities have successfully propsered long-term, but many charities have also folded up, for lack of funding. Charities compete with each other, like businesses, and an given charity can't be counted on to last. so a stable, just govt. would need a hell of a good publicist. What factors would lead to a moral government drying up and blowing away because nobody funded it?? I think the gift-vs-fee argument is futile. Why not have both. Fees for things that can easily be fee-ed (like a contract enforcement fee) and "gifts" for everything else. Charitable donatins are not contractual, they are one-way "transactions", i.e. the donor gets nothing in return. therefore, they should not be taxed by the flat-rate transaction tax. Phil03: The main problem I see is not the government drying up, but rather, that there is no easy way to phase in donations, when taxes are present. segelbe: that is what I was thinking. EricT: I don't know who in their right mind--for as long as the government was a moral one--would stand idly by while it failed. The idea of funding next week's payroll with last week's donations is fallacious. Organizations don't work like that. You build up operating funds and such long term, which smooths out local blips. You would have many months advance of rev brada: Plus charities often set up long-term donations, where they receive a certain amount of money year after year consistently, instead of in lump sum, etc. That's the purpose of endowments for unis etc. Eric: like for the next biennium or five years. Brad: i think gifts are a marginal concern...let's hear something more sustaining. How many people here would start sending in donations to the government, while you are still taxed? I have often heard objectivists say that a govt lottery is an excellent way to bring in revenues for the govt. I also recall reading that Rand did not have anything against this method. However, I will have to say that is horribly wrong. EricT: How many do home schooling? :) Good question, I would but they would be small to start with. even though it might not start out as one. This will kill the entire industry, and enterprises would not even have a chance to enter the market, which they would in a society with a tas rate. Eric: that's a borderline situation. Oughta establish its viability in principle first. Here's a cool thought -- Government could never institute involuntary funding i.e. taxation, even in war. War would have to be paid out of endowment and current donations. No more endowment/donations ... pretty strong vote against war I ruled out lotteries on the grounds that the government has no right to estalbish a monopoly there; and if it doesn't it's subject to competion, and no guarantee of profit. Again, I think the emphasis is on "selling" (in a good way) the people on a particular endeavor. any comments? :) Matt: A flat tax is still a tax...we are looking for a way to voluntarily fund the government. Did everybody understand step 7? I think I came in too late for step 7... erict: What about the existence of Las Vegas? They have a pretty steady profit. Matt: Which means those who need it the most should pay the most...like an insurance policy. Tom: I forget nothing. People go into *specific* government positions. And this has nothing to do with whether having entered a job in government, *I* become obligated to provide police protection for *your* new city. Tom: I did not say that I want a tax.. I don't but I believe that a lottery is even worse. and that is something advocated by many objectivists and Ayn Rand TomM: "The" government ... is this assuming a unitary government for, say, the extent of the U.S.? Or could this be construed as applying in each proper-government county-sized area, say? Gabriel: That's dependent on the current cultural context. Nothing in human nature requires that they always gamble. erict: And there lotteries, with their outrageously horrible odds, do well in the midst of games with much better odds such as blackjack. Eric: all you have to do is get people to agree to contribute well in advance. If not enuf people do, we "have no government" that year. So we can not blame socialists or any other people if we one day make that mistake erict: I don't see that changing any time soon, even in an Objectivist society. EricT: You're saying that a contract between Disney and George Lucas over sums of $100 million and 100 pages long should be charged more than a one pager between two people over $2,000? :) erict: Plus that can be one method, not the only one. That's sensible Yikes. Government is NOT a business. It is very dangerous to even implicitly model it on business. It is an organization that performs an invaluable service, but not an economic one. The best system as i see it is an vouluntary, flat transaction tax. Being voluntary means you don't have to pay it , in which case the contract is not enforced by the govt. Tym: That's appropritae for an ad hoc organization or project, not for government. Government revenue has to be stable long-term. Eric: why wouldn't that be stable? Phil: es A union is also a (potentially) valuable organization, but it is not economic. You don't "buy" services from it. Gabriel: If the one method is sufficient, introducing additional methods only adds complexities which can bring about corruption. Therefore, if one method is sufficient, it should be the only method. <> Mencken wonders what "contract not enforced by the government" (when the fee isn't paid) means. No legal recourse? If one party doesn't pay the fee, the one who does has no recourse? Yeah Brad ... the concept of "service" in connection with gov't seems a bit suspect erict: That's a big *if*. If the Fed isn't supported by it, local govt's or state govt's may be. However a government is financed, protection must cover everyone wihtin the bounds of the government enforcment area. Gabriel: I'll get to the numbers soon. Is everybody clear on step 7? :) Tom: Yes, correct. Keep going, Eric. Mencken: Although there is no top-down duty to provide police protection, *where* police protection is instituted, it must operate according to certain rules, and it can be defended that emergency response within the area be provided witho With a contract enforcement fee you can pay a small insurance fee when the contract is made and a much larger fee if and when you want to use the courts but haven't insured your contract. TomM: "enforcement area" ... how defined? We have arrived at our answer. I think this line of reasoning has enough backing to qualify for the cognitive status of at least "probable" at this point. We will now go on to add further evidence, and present a method of definitely brin Mencken. Both sides must make provisions for the fee to be paid. if not, then yes, it will not be enforced. what s wrong with that? Are there other morally right options to fund a govt, than doing it voluntarily? I don't believe so. Mencken: Defined by the country or smaller areas under it's umbrella (such as states, cities, etc.) I think it's pretty clear that whatever is done *must* be voluntary. Testing the Formula Using Current Demographic Data. Let us test our new formula using conservative figures. Doesn't disallowing protection of a contract to a party who's paid in good faith constitute a violation of his rights? Eric: Uh, I'm lost...what have we resolved? Mencken: Not if he knew in advance that he was trusting the other person without further recourse. TomM: Yeah, but I've always wondered what defines the "country." Then in this model it wasn't a contract ... it was a piece of paper Subetai makes a good point, which I share. I don't think any one revenue measure is appropriate, not necessarily for a specific govt. nor for different levels. I think different methods will apply best to different levels, and that there can always be a mixture. Brad: Consider that what is true in arguments (Occam's razor) is also applicable in organizational logistics. I also think the best approach, is to push for wider deployment of voluntary measures, and see how much revenue they raise as taxation is reduced and non-proper departments and such are eliminated. Convergence will naturally take place, em Tom: I'm referring to step 7. A person pays the government money to make his signature eligible to be enforced in a court -- so he can sign contracts and be credible. Menken: a country is a geographical region in which a certain set of governmental functions are limited to. Brad: I don't think people would send in gifts to a government that is confiscating money from them at the point of a gun. Given the economic explosion that would occur without taxation, I think even modest levels of endowment for gov't functions would result in adequate funding if securities were part of it Betsy.: the concept of insurace is intersting, but the govt shouldn't be doing that, a third party should. (i.e you pay the privateinsurer a fraction of the tax, while the tax remains unpaid, with the private insurer agreeing to pay court co Eric: in other words, contractual insurance? TomM: Since states, counties, etc. aren't "countries," it seems, I still wonder how that "geographical region" is defined. Smaller ones are likely to bring closer agreements, perhaps. My method is completely distinct from insurance. Eric: That is a possibility and so are several other things mentioned. I see no reason not to try as many voluntarty plans as possible, even at the same time, and see which works the best. Eric: I buy lottery tickets NOW from time to time. No, I wouldn't send massive cheques while the govt was still wasting so much money and coercing me and others so improperly. Betsy: If a plan can't be phased in, it's not viable. Government is involved with contracts because which _private_ organization can enforce a decision? Contractual disputes are just that -- disputes Tom: I don't think we should try to define (and in some ways defend) contries. Countries are something created in the interest of govts. It is a sort of defense for them. Their functions are not limited to any extent objectively.. i.e. th Joe: That is a possibility with court fees set high enough to cover police, prisons, etc. Eric: you still ahven't shown why contractual donations aren't practical. Mencken: It extends to the geographical area to which it can enforce its laws. What never seems to be talked about is what happens to contracts made in good faith but where no fee is paid. Is all mutual but non-government court settlement (arbitration etc.) to be banned? Tym: There's a place for that, and I'll (try to) get to it. Mencken: Settlements are fine, but not enforceable. Eric: Many different plans can be tried and, if sucessful, expanded. Is thast what you mean by "phased in?" TomM: In light of Desert Storm, that apparently extends to southern Iraq on Washington's part. :) Matt: You would choose taxation over a voluntary lottery? That is bizarre. The govt need not monopolize lotteries. The whole value of the govt lottery is that it is helping to pay for the govt. Why do people buy raffle tickets in general? Then you've made a 2d level agreement ... with the arbitration company. That also can be seen as a contract which ultimately would have to be backed up by gov't Betsy: If there is no clear plan of action, nothing gets done. Virtually every American relies on the enforceability of his signature, to go about his daily business. Credit applications, rental and lease contracts, mortgage contracts, all require enforceability of the signature, to be fully function Mencken: No, you ae dropping the context...US laws are not enforcible there. Let me do this in smaller chunks. Eric: couldn't you apply the same rationale to police enforcement? What you said about uneforceable contracts? In fact, lotteries are an excellent method, since they offer a value (entertainment, and a chance to win some money), and have great elasticity, so that if revenue were a bit low, promotion could be raised. Why do lotteries advertise, NOW? What does "not enforceable" mean? Any repo action to seize a stolen truck that is clearly marked "General Electric" is not allowed if GE didn't pay its fee? Tym: No, because people have no way to forsee being attacked by a criminal or foreign enemy. <> BradA notes he is seriously behind in the conversation. Brad: Sure.. a lottery may be voluntary for you, who are not in that field of business. That does not make you better than people making a career out of receiving welfare money. Eric: So you're talking about a fee for signature registry or signature guarantee with the proceed funding govt? TomM: I have a friend departing for Kuwait this week, in the armored cavalry, who might disagree with you about that. :) proceed=proceeds Mencken: If the truck is registered as the property of GE, then no repo action would be permitted; if the property is registered undre the leasing company, then it can take it at its pleasure, regardless of contractual considerations. Betsy: yes Betsy: (If I understand you correctly) Eric: You rule out lotteries, because it can't monopolize them and then there is not metaphysical guarantee of revenue??? This is enormously rationalistic. government lotteries exist in spades NOW, in competition with many private forms of But that's my point: What if GE didn't register its property with the government? Does it have no recourse? Would any repo effort even when ownership is plain and clear be barred? Here's a real world, empirical way to show whether you're right or not EricT: Does the state of Nevada have a state lottery, and how much does it make? And this is a context in which people are already expropriated from massively by the same agency. How can you possibly then dismiss this as viable, given such enormous sum of EXISTING facts in their favor? Brad: People's tendency to gamble is not a metaphysical characteristic of human beings, but dependent on their philosophy to a large part. Long-term financing has to survive any shifts in people's tendency to change their gambling habits. phil: Texas has one, and it rakes in billions. Phil: Hoosiers have a lottery too ;) EricT: why so complicated? why not just have a system like the current sales tax system? why all this busines with registering signatures! You're all missing my point. _Nevada_. Home of Las Vegas, Reno, etc. -- billions upon billions spent on private gambling joe: It's not that complicated registering it just once. erict: There's nothing wrong with gambling as entertainment. phil: sure. Brad: Does the amount of revenue justify a way to finance the govt? No way! That is a defense for a communist revolution, and should not even be considered by somebody who advocates Objectivism. Gabriel: No, but there's nothing inherent in human nature that requires that they perpetually gamble with the same frequency. In other words, is it in fact the case that gov't lotteries don't "compete" with private gambling? Nevada is an ideal test case Eric: If you're considering selling a product or service which will generate sufficient revenue on a steady basis, a little market research before the fact would be very good planning. Eric: Ok, so you register once...and this once in a life time payment is supposed to finance the entire government? Matt: I'm sure that's not Brad's position, nor that of anyone here I know Matt: Eric's just trying to show that the moral is the practical :) Brad: The bolsheviks made a pretty good profit in their revolution in 1917.. does that justify it? Betsy: Market research is not enough to find a service which is going to be perpetually marketable. Matt who said the *govt lottery* would be the only game in town , de jure erict: Since humans have free-will there's nothing "requiring" them to do anything with that type of "metaphysical" frequency that you speak of. that's "jour" :) Eric: 'Nothing in human nature requires that they always gamble.' It sounds like you are trying to search for some metaphysically intrinsically guaranteed form of financing, apart from all consideration of known facts and experience. Why a Here's another way to fund gov't: Auction off _all_ government land in the West and in Alaska, including mineral and timber rights ... halt all taxation ... and put the proceeds into a professional manage mutual fund. The explosion of the no de jure as opposed to de facto erict: I'm not saying that should be the only method, but it could be used as an adjunct, and perhaps for local or state funds. oops, my mistake. :) I, for one, think the lottery and voluntary donation deserve further consideration, at least tkTad: I didn't say that, but it might be? To let the govt start running a small lottery is like just prohibiting Objectivism on the Internet. "well, we're not prohibiting libertarians, liberals or conservatists..." Correct? phil: Great idea...of course, it will have to wait until the proper role of government is accepted by the government (or those who can enforce it). BradA: If a method of finance, soundly based on empirical knowledge about the needs of producers, can assure long-term finance without relying on particular habits people have, it is the better method. Joe: re contract insurance. I think it is an excellent idea. Companies could sign agreements with the government, letting them use a logo and such claiming they employ contract insurance. Most companies would use it. Matt how is it that states today run lotteries and Vegas is expanding ? matt20: I don't see how that follows. Brad: Production is a metaphysical need for human beings. Gambling is not. Matt: I don't believe that anyone is suggesting that private lotteries should be outlawed Let's not forget too ... without the welfare state and paying for NATO and other military involvement having nothing to do with our actual self defense, the scope of gov't would be vastly smaller Eric: signing contracts is a "habit" of people too. Why must there be only one method for financing the government. Why not try them all? So long as they violate no one's rights. It would be the best way to fund the court system at the state level, and possibly the military. My favorite way of financing is selling advertising and news coverage rights to government functions. You could run (the legitimate functions of) LA county for ten years from the revenue generated by the TV and book rights to the OJ trial It's not ungermane to note that govt. lotteries pay out less than 50% of receipts, far less than even the most predatory slot machine -- but lotteries have no competitors, unlike the casinos. phil: excellent point. the amount of money really required to run a govt. is likely *tiny* That's good Betsy :) Tom: Contracts are an integral part of production in an organized society with division of labor, and production is not mere "habit" -- it is a metaphysically necessary thing for people to do. Betsy: what if you were the defendent? ;) tkTad: I don't care if it is good for the business of gambling/lotteries. I did not say that private lotteries won't have a chance to expand. Betsy: Provided that the gov't did not have the power to prohibit coverage with an outrageously high price I mean the proceeds from selling gov't lands would be in the hundreds of billions, and an economy without taxation would be a gigantic Hong Kong mencken: Carribean stud poker is nearly that bad odds wise. I hope if we lived in a more rational society, no one would watch the OJ trial except to listen to a summary and the verdict. mencken: It was a house edge of around 40% but people flock to it! Govt lottery means the govt. is going into business, and I don't think govt running a business, whether lotteries or software or anythng else, is a good idea. It creates unfair competition for existing people inthose areas, among other prob Tym: If I were the defendent I would want a really PUBLIC trial like that. Wright: I did not mean that anybody believes that. Eric: More that one method leads to corruption? That is a bizarre claim. Why not whatever combination of methods which raise sufficient revenue? If it is stability you are looking for, then disparate methods will be vastly more stable than if we lived in a more ration society, the OJ trial would have lasted about ten minutes. Matt: In that case, I don't quite understand your objections Subetai: There will always be the hairnet crowd that will buy that kind of scandal. uh, that's rational. Eric: I agree, but stating the gov will get money via contract enforcement is the same thing as sayign it will receive money for police/military protection. Gabriel and it has the qualities of a lottery , re Car,Stud Poker Brad: If one method is sufficient, then addition of more ways only makes corruption more likely. The simpler the logistics of a solution, the less likely unexpected consequences follow. Wright: The govenrment should auction off TV rights etc to the highest bidder, sell advertising space on the courtroom wall, witness stand, etc. I really don't agree with that EricT Tom: that was what I was saying earlier. Sounds like monism to me. Sube: People will always be interested in trials That's like saying a single stock is more reliable for investment than a mutual fund Betsy: Sounds like a good idea Eric: why? If one method can be shown to be perpetually stable, what possible reasoning can lead to adding more complexity? <> Mencken still misses how contract enforcement is not a business -- if the government is to be ruled out of running any business. Unexpected consequences can be dealt with when they become apparent. No reason to condemn a system out of hand because it might have unexpected consequences. EricT: That's rationalism in spades. Perpetually stable? Proven how? Omniscience? Betsy: re contract insurance: That is an excellent suggestion. That eliminates all questions of the propriety of this method, I think. Eric: I think the more means of gaining legitimate revenues, the better. Wright: My objections are against that objectivists advocate govt run lotteries as a moral way to finance govt. It is not. Subetai: I think if a particular method can be shown stable long-term, the burden of proof is on any oter proposed system (or combination) to show its superiority. Betsy: Although methods would have to be arranged to prevent advertisers from affecting the decisions of the court EricT: The framers of the Constitution thought import/export duties, excise, and poll taxes would be perpetually stable. It barely lasted 125 years. Eric: you seem to want to skip induction with this "perpetaully stable guarantee". Eric: Superiority in what terms? All you need to show is that it has the potential to raise money. Matt20: please explain, since I think it's established that the govt would not have exclusive rights to a lottery. matt20: Why not? Subetai: Provided there is already a steady stream of revenue, there's no *need* for more sources of revenue. Matt: Are you saying that lotteries, in and of themselves, are immoral? Tym: Do you disagree with the statement that people will perpetually place value on having their signatures enforceable in the courts? Eric: you mean that if you already have a full-time job, you'll never need any other means of making money? segelbe: I am not saying that there will be no chance for private companies to prosper. I am saying that they have nothing to in the field of business what so ever. Not in any kind of business. Well, what I want to know is what the hell is going to happen when we all have replicators! EricT: That's changing even now. Digital signatures, or autorecognition via retinal scans, etc. Tom: The government is not like a private invidivudual, with unlimited aspirations for more wealth. The government needs what it takes to protect rights,and not a penny more. Eric: no, but I'm saying circumstances change. In an economic downturn there will be fewer contracts. Eric: Why not? If people are willing to pay, the government should take the money anyway. If it can't be spent on legitimate functions of government, put it in a trust fund that'll pay interest and provide for future needs. Matt: As a result of a gov't lottery? I find that an incredible statement Eric: nothing is "guaranteed". Mencken: Be clear that it is civil redress we are discussing. Criminal charges would still apply, if applicable. If I purposefully defrauded you, without insurance, you might not be able to sue (or might have to pay the higher fee), but yo Wright: I am saying that govt involved in business, in and of themselves are immoral. That is my thesis in one sentence. Ahh, I see Gotcha. Tym: This is an issue of necessity. Necessity in this context is an aspect of identity. A is necessarily A. A is guaranteed in this sense to be A. Eric: your proposal is elegant, but it doesn't "guarantee". You could also raise money by auctioning off the right to name government buildings, court houses, etc. Many churches and hospitals and universities are financed with the funds from naming rooms and buildings. matt20: Why "in an dof themselves?" At any rate, however it is financed, the rights of *all* the citizens within the jurisdiction must be protected -- at least to a minimal dgree. I mean, what if I never sign a contract? Is it improbable to believe that people, if asked and presented with good reasons, will write out a small regular check for govt. financing? EricT: You're proposing to fund gov't "perpetually" on the idea of providing identification services based on an ancient technique which is being superseded in reliability by technology Gabriel: The proper role of a govt does not involve running businesses. It only involved protecting the right of the citizens. Nothing else. Eric: People are already sending in 'gifts to a government confiscating...' in the form of lottery reciepts. So you are just simply wrong. I don't agree on the lottery question.. in what way is it different from a charity holding a raffle? The point is this: there are many non-coercive ways of generating income for the government. There's no reason not to try them, because we've decided one method is the "best" involves Phil: No, the government is providing the service of backing up a person's intent to follow through on a promise. The particular form of the promise (signature, digital authentication, etc.) is immaterial. No technology will ever change Segelbe: Especially if an individual or company could brag that they were a "Proud supporter of our local police department." Subetai: I agree. And the government should have an eccess of needed funds in case of an emergency, such as a war. I think that several of these topics can be discussed on their own Wright: The difference is: the govt is involved in business. matt20: That's like saying that since in capitalism all property is privately owned, then the government cannot occupy any buildings since they would be public. As long as any given method is voluntary, why should it be omitted? I really have a suspicion that a properly scoped gov't could readily get more funds than it legitimately needed matt20: That just doesn't follow. Tom: I had a solution for that, which I will (hopefully) get to I disagree somewhat. there are ways we can "a priori" figure out which of the various systems is best. Wright: Do you see the difference between a charity and govt running education? Do you see a difference between a charity and govt running the businesses in whatever field you will work in, when you have graduated? joe: Really? How's that? Gabriel: Yes it does phil: How true, and very necessary. How is it supposed to know how much moeny it will need next month -- say, if wide-spread riots break out and more protection is needed? <> Mencken still doesn't see anything being suggested about dealing with those who won't pay the voluntary fees. Are they not allowed to make contracts? Prevented from doing so? Keep going, Eric. I'm going to skip the order, and address the issue of emergency funding first. Gabriel: i was referring to something about 50 lines up :-/ matt20: On what basis do you make that assertion (that the gov't cannot be involved in *any* business whatsoever)? Eric just to clarify, you would not suggest that an voluntary funding schemes would be phased in *today* ie providing the types of *services* the current form of govt does, welfare and the like ? Financing Wars and Other Emergencies Emergency financing, e.g., in the event of a war, can be achieved by combining the voting process with a pledge system. All those who vote in favor of a proposal (e.g., entering into a war), thereby pledge to pay a specified amount of mon Tom: you'd need evidence...just as you'd need evidence that the US would have to be prepared for two major wars and one regional war simultaneously. And what if (far from a rare scenario) one party is not under the jurisdiction of said government? tkTad: I am saying phase it in immediately. joe: Oh. Mencken: Whoever has even remotely hinted at banning arbitration or private resolution of disputes? What a bizarre notion. courts are for precisely when all attempts at private mediation fails, and when (implied) force is necessary. Hmm.. I see the point, Matt. It is something to consider, but I see differences between a lottery and socialized industry Gabriel: Because it violates my, or any other person's, rights. why would i voluntarily fund a statist policy ? Tym: My point is that without an excess of revenue for ordinary governmental events, the etra-ordinary would break the bank quickly. Wright: The govt run lottery is a socialized industry That last point sounds good, Eric. tkTad: You don't have to. But you might find the service valuable enough to purchase. matt20: How's that if it doesn't have a legally enforced monopoly in the field and it is not using involuntarily collected monies for its funding? Mencken: people would be allowed to make volluntary contracts without paying the sales tax. However, in such a case neither party would have recourse to law if they wanted the contract enforced. what's so difficult to understand? hey all. Matt: No, it isn't actually BradA: Well, when it gets to that point, what's done if the contract isn't registered? And no private recourse is allowed? Is the whole mess put into government receivers' hands? joe: Not having recourse to the law spells disaster of gangs to enforse contracts. Eric: the "pledge" system is what Binswanger was suggesting for normal gvt. operations. Now, I'm going to backtrack to applying some empirical data. Eric tha tis one of the problems perhaps it is just semantics but *purchase* re govt service ? Gabriel: You are just making it harder for yourself to understand. It simply violates my rights if govt runs businesses. matt20: Why?! Prove that, Matt. matt20: You haven't given one reason so far. I want to hear this. Tym: I don't think that works, since pledges are easier to pursuade for limited-term issues, but not for long-term issues. Mencken: I think that someone should be allowed to go to court evenb if they hadn't paid in advance -- but the would have to pay a helluva lot more if they did it that way. The difference is no seizure of property, no gov't monopoly Wright: Yes it is.. A socialized industry does not have to be monopolized. It just have to be socialized tkTad: Purchase the service of having your signatures be credible to people you deal with. Eric: what about the issue of running the gvt. for the next five years? I doubt that an agency like the (West) German Treuhandanstalt, which did just that, is strictly a function of a proper government, however well it did its job. Betsy: That would be one solution. Or if they don't pay, they only get minimal protection. Betsy: Like places with volunteer fire depts or private fire cos -- pay fire insurance before, or pay bunches of bucks if they put out your house fire without insurance Tym: That's where the phase-in theroy comes in. I'll get to it. Let us test our new formula using conservative figures. Virtually every American relies on the enforceability of his signature, to go about his daily business. Credit applications, rental and lease contracts, mortgage contracts, all require enforceability of the signature, to be fully function (It dealt with the lack of a rule of law in dealing with problems in the former East Germany in all economic matters, especially ownership of firms.) be conservative and say that only 130 million of them would sign up for a subscription (and receive an official stamp bearing their signature, indicating that contracts with this stamp are eligible to be brought into court). Keeping in mi Eric: no, I mean pledging to contribute to running the gvt. for the next five years. Tym: I have a better way. :) Finish your note, EricT All right, this is starting to cut in on Eric's discussion. I'll continue this later. Might be a good friday night topic all on it's own Eric but purchase implies a trade between individuals and a govt does not trade anything, it is an organization that consumes capital to provide service tkTad: That would not be true under the proposed system. us be conservative and say the average legal entity is willing to pay $1,000 per year, for "unlimited" use of the official stamp. This translates to a conservative estimate of $130 billion per year revenue for all government services in the nation. I have not had the time to research in depth the combined revenues for all levels of government, but $2.6 trillion per year is probably not too far off. If this were true, then the answer we have arrived at would produce an estimated 5% of the current government revenues. Is this sufficient? Consider that the $2.6 trillion figure includes vast expenditures for public schools, social programs, payment of interest on the national debt, maintaining national parks, constructing and maintaining roads, etc., whi Perhaps i need a definition of a *proper*govt and its functions (except for the payment of the national debt part, which is only a temporary problem) Eric: I'd have to pay $1000.00 per year to have my signature on my checks "approved"? Sounds rather high, cnsidering how often I sign checks and use my charge cards. How on earth do you go from $130 billion to $2.6 trillion BTW? that's 20x multiplier Tom: That's an average figure. Okay, consider secession and the company town: If a voluntary community/cooperative decided to not deal with whatever government, no calling upon its services, and handled all efforts up to courts and police in its own (universally agree phil: 2.6 trillion is the estimated current revenue Matt: donating to government via a scheme in which one gets the chance to win a prize is not immoral by any principle of Objectivism. It is not immoral to win money, and not immoral to gamble, providing one's wider context of interests and Oh, misunderstood you First of all, if you specify a private arbitrator in the contract, YOU WOULD STILL HAVE TO PAY THE SALES TAX. what you would be paying for is the government to force both parties to abide by the arbitrator's decision, even though the govt it TomM: The $1000 takes care of everything you pay taxes for today, though. Mencken: For a secession to take place, the company town would have to begin using force. Mencken: the idea of "competing governments" is no different from gang warfare. To take a big aspect of legitimate government expenditure, as an example, the current incarceration rate in the United States is 600 persons per 100,000 US residents. (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/pub/bjs/ascii/pji95.txt). This amounts to 0.6 seglbe, Gabriel: I believe that the proper function for a govt is to protect the rights of its citizens. I believe it is immoral if a govt is a part of business. Govt does not have any economic function. Govt may be short of funds. Tough so the 1 grand is *in lieu* of everything we currently shell out for taxes? I'm there. society, the incarceration rate would be much lower, for obvious reasons. If we estimate the incarceration rate at 0.2% of the population, and estimate prison maintenance at $30,000 per person per year, the total cost of maintaining prisoners would be about $15.6 billion per year. This would leave about $115 billion for administering police, military, and court functions. As you can see, $130 billion is not an unrealistically low figure for financing government. Matt: The two key differences between the bolsheviks and a lottery is voluntary consent and absence of force. They are incommensurable contexts/examples. Brad: Yes it is. Lottery/gambling is a business. It is not a proper function for govt to be involved in the economy Now that we have arrived at an estimate for what the government *ought* to be spending, we can have devise an index to measure the government's deviation from our (newly discovered) norm. EricT: I don't see that at all. A group of individuals chooses not to deal with another group. No force need be initiated (although that's not often been the case, true). Matt: A govt does participate in the economy. It competes for employees, purchases goods and serves, etc. It has to. matt20: The lottery is voluntary. Mencken: That could work, and that's an indirect competition with the government's service, but in no wys threates to make the government's revice unprofitable. Matt: Lottery is not a business; it is merely voluntary contribution with the added bonus that you might profit. If the maximum estimated amount of money the government can collect morally is our standard, then we can divide the current combined government budget, by this maximum amount, and arrive at a measurement of the government's bloat. <> Mencken sees too many castles being built in the air. Questions of consent, scope, and definition are not yet dealt with. If my estimates are correct, the United States would have the Bloat Index of about 20. matt20: But your reasoning as to why the gov't shouldn't be involved in business was based upon your assertion that it should be financed voluntarily. But, if so, then your objection against the lottery (which is voluntary) falls apart. All right, let's please hold the lottery argument until Eric is finished mencken: you could not have a system in which group A decides not to enforce the laws of group B. Brad: I am not giving my consent to the governmental use of lottery. Try to solve that now. Yet in one sense, Rand was sadly mistaken: If the means (the matter of taxation) isn't dealt with along the way, rather than "the last issue," we won't reach a properly free society. Phil: It is not advisable for government to get too much into things like investment funds and such. It then starts having to make value decisions outside its purview. Of course it needs banking and such, but its investments should probabl Matt: i'm not giving consent for the government to take voluntary contributions. Try to solve that. I think +m will have to be applied for EricT to continue Betsy: That is not an objectivistic viewpoint, that is a social democratic viewpoint and does not get any support at all from objectivistic material. No more lottery discussion until Eric's done, please. Betsy: you cannot call the govt. need for personnel (and goods) as govt entering into business. thats not the same thing.there is no economic service being provided by govt joe: There would be under my proposal. I'll continue. The new method of government finance can be phased in, starting right now. Please hold the lottery stuff, I ask for the last time, folks Joe: A govt is not a business, but it is a player in the economy. There is no compelling reason not to phase in the new method, even given mixed moral premises. If we can move our government towards eventually doing away with taxes, by shifting some of the revenue from <> Mencken wonders when the formal discussion will be considered "done," it now being 1:15 since this soiree convened. Matt: A lottery is desirable precisely because of its very low commercial/intellectual content. It is little more than an invitation for donations, with some prizes offered as incentive. Lotteries are straightforward to manage, and aren't taxation to fees collected to make people's signatures enforceable, why not? Very few people would have a moral objection. In fact, I have presented this argument to at least ten "average" people without any background in philosophy, and they all seemed to be open to the idea. Gabriel: No it does not fall apart. Read my comments again. govt in the field of business violates our rights. Unless you don't understand that concept, I can't discuss this topic any further Sigh Matt: Hold that thought until Eric is done. Once the subscription service is implemented, it would provide final and conclusive proof that it works -- and exactly how much revenue can be generated. Eric: The service of certifying signatures is pretty much what notaries public do now. No more lottery.. understood. When this is in place, we have a very powerful argument, which can be used with people who have mixed moral premises. It is one thing to have to refute: "Taxes are a necessary evil, to finance police, military, etc., and while we are at it, there are all these needy people..." It is quite a bit easier to persuade people to reject: "We do not need taxes to finance military, police, etc. But we should levy taxes for the sole purpose Betsy: It's different, in that once the signature is registered, the person can sign contracs like before, and there is no added burden or guarantee. of subsidizing the needy people." This is because socialist programs have a parasitical relationship to the government's general fund. To my knowledge, no tax is levied specifically to implement a socialistic program -- presumably because no socialistic program would gain enough support, on its own merits, to pass a whole new tax. Even the Social Security Tax is based on the idea of each person contributing money Phil is right. Given my perusal of budget charts in the past, I would say a proper US govt (on all levels) might be 15-20% of today's maybe even lower. towards *his own* retirement. The resistance to socialism is reduced, with the help of altruism, when there is a "general fund" with unlimited funds, available to be raided. Eric: Well, that is precisely why emplimenting such a scaled payment will have to wait until the idea of government is there to enforce individual rights only is understood on a wide scale. Also, we gain an objective exact measurement of how much the government is overspending. This gives us a very strong benchmark and a moral lever, to gradually reduce government to its proper size. Eric: What would the govt liability be for falsely certified signatures, mistaken identity, etc.? <> Mencken has a slight shudder (call it a frisson) at the notion of tying rights protection to signature-recognition efforts at the credit bureaus. Eric: that's not true. Look at the Medicare tax. Mencken: are you in South America? or on a boat in the Atlantic? or is my clock wrong ;-) Especially after recently tangling with TRW and Equifax :) And will I be able to market my comparatively infallible DNA/retinal scan device that is millions of times more secure than a signature? ;) We're done with the scheduled part of the discussion, folks. Feel free to continue. Betsy: The person falsifying a signature would be criminally liable, and the person receiving teh signature would be expected to verify that the signer is indeed signed up for the service, it if it is that important. Betsy: I disagree with tv in courts. It has a very negative influence. Also, I don't think it is such a good idea for the govt to start getting into commercial ventures, esp. ones involving rather substantial intellectual content. joe: I noted 1 hour and 15 minutes into discussion, no time zone Phil: Sure, but you wouldn't be able to market *enforcement* Eric: What if the govt made a mistake? Betsy: What kind of mistake? Mencken: ok, I thought you meant 1:15 AM. <> BradA is still massively behind. Okay. NOW the lottery stuff may proceed to you hearts' content :) Betsy: in that case, I think the governement funds would be needed to compensate. Eric: The govt guarantees that it is someone's signature -- and it wasn't. Later all Good, Wright, now I can give everyone my lucky Lotto wheeling system's details :) BradA: just jump in when you think you've got the general thread. <> TomM notes that Mencken is not a lottery millionare ;) I have to go. Happy Valentine's Day everyone. Betsy: What I'm describing isn't a signature certification system; it's a system for making somebody's commitment enforceable in court. No situation ever arises where the government has to look at the physical signature to see if it's leg Eric: What!? that makes no sense at all. How is the gov to back up the signature if it doesn't first validate it? Okay... on the lottery.. consider this scenario Eric: You assert possibility of corruption. You haven't defined what you mean by this, nor explained the mechanism. If anything, a single mechanism has far greater potential to create vested interests. With diff. methods, all of the admini Tom: Unless there is fraud, facts can be readily established: 1) did the person consent to this agreement? 2) is this person a subscriber? That's all the infromation needed. All who debated lottery: Lotteries organized by govt is a violation of our rights. Men should be free to enterprise, with no restrictions what so ever. That is the correct interpretation of that men should be free. That is my main point. Later, taters. Eric: what's to stop someone from making a false contract with you claiming that he has your signatue of you owing him millions of dollars? This kind of internal competition is very good. Also, across jurisdictions, you can do relative comparisons, and thus make corrections on underperforming units. Brad: I assert the increased possibiilty of corruption (and other ills) inherently as a part of any solution that is more complex than it needs to be. Eric: How will the gov know fraud or not if they don't know the signature??? Tom: That person would be criminally liable, just liek they are today. Erik: Criminally liable for what? On what basis? Tom: That issue is not any more or less a problem now compared to the proposed system. That belongs in the criminal justice aspect of the government. Faking a signature? How would you know it is a fake? A group of individuals, who want to see the government well funded, decide to hold a lottery. They form a non-profit corporation, which is dedicated to donating it's proceeds, after expenses, to the gov't. They advertise the lottery as Tom: Criminally liable for falsifying a signature (or other indication of consent). <> BradA informs Mencken that the point with contract insurance is not it being a business, but that it is an important service which businesses should be willing to pay for and that some shouldn't have to subsidize at the expense of others ticket Eric: You said the gov would never look at the signatures... How does that violate anyone's rights? Brad: Not "should be willing to pay for" but "is willing to pay for." Tom: Not in the context of the service I'm talking about. Wright: it doesnt. Wright: it does not violate anybody's rights Wright: That sounds like a good idea. Tom: The moment there is disagreement about whether or not a given person signed something, it becomes a criminal matter. That was easy Wright: The lottery you're describing is not run by the govt. Mencken: by classifying gov't functions as "business", you are asserting the legitimacy of anarchy and its variants (competing govts, etc). Eric: Well, then *someone* in the gov must be able to varify the signature. <> Mencken informs BradA, returning his tone of voice , that the basic castles-in-air assumption that this whole field *isn't* a business is the source of the rationalism this evening Tom: The government can issue seals for use by specific people, complete with security, authentication, etc., but these are not important points. Matt: It's essentially the same thing. People voluntarily fund their gov't through a lottery Eric: Bottom line is simple that the gov would have to have *some* means of validating who signed for what. Subetai: I disagree with your claim about banking money. The government should be operated prudently, but must not start amassing wealth beyond need. It creates problems and distortions itself. Revenue measures should be adjusted downward. The effect on the "lottery industry" would be no different Tom: Only in exceptional cases, just like today. Tom: The FBI does not scrutinize every check anybody writes. Only when there is allegation of fraud (which occurs very rarely). Your argument is with the proper role of gov't officials Services can be a matter of competition, certainly. Competing arbiters, for example. If a general legal philosophy isn't widely accepted (as is a set of standards for, say, modems), none of the efforts would connect. But that doesn't mea Eric: the whole point of gov is to enforce voluntary contracts and to keep force out of transactions. Matt: The problem with your objection, is defining exactly when something is business. First, the lottery is not an economic undertaking in the classic sense, it is more like a charitable fundraiser. Tom: The whole point of government is to protect individuals from those who would use force against them in a non-objective manner. Broken promises do not automatically constitute a pretext to use force. Wright: If you think that is the same thing, then you advocate that the govt can be involved in every field of business. If I am customer, buying a car or whatever from a company run by the govt, that is a voluntary contribution. The purc Besides, to ahve an enforcible contract would mean that the gov would have to have a copy somewhere. <> Mencken likes to put it that human beings need *governance* in the use of force, but how and in what forms that ends up being expressed is quite another matter. Eric: that comes under fraud, an indirect use of force. Second, you would not object to outright donations. Would you object to a business being able to make a claim it supports the govt? what if that became a value on the market (consumers might choose products of companies that sponsor)? Tom: The whole point of the service is to make a contract *eligible* for consideration by a court. That's all. Isn't that then almost a business, since by paying the govt money, the business earns a marketable value? Tom: Fraud is criminal, but disagreement about a promise made, is not always fraud. I'm going to be /away for a short while. In case you leave earlier, I'd like to thank you for a very interesting discussion, Eric. Eric: i think we are talking past one another. Police do many things which overlap with private security. We don't make private security illegal. So does this make policing a moral conundrum? See -- I think you may need to think this through a little. Brad: It is a business, and does not violate any rights, since it is run privately, not by govt. Eric: True, but the gov would still have to have a copy of the contract on file or how would it validate that the contract was ever made? <> Mencken departs to do more reading. Tom: Okay, considering the contents of a contract, with all the steps and clauses, is resource-consuming. A person has no more right to demand the government examine it, than he has to welfare payments. Matt: You missed my point. I was saying that your argument was not with the effects on industry, but with the proper role of government officials Tom: That issue would almost never come up. If it does, then it can become a criminal matter, handled just like fraud cases are handled today. Eric: I didn't say examine it, I said keep a copy on file and have it registered for future referencing. Phil: I think Eric's plan is meant to be taken in the abstract -- if other means of authentication arise, I assume he would endorse including them. Wright: I understood that. I don't think I misunderstood anything. If you think so, please explain. Tom: That can be done by a non-government business Brad: Yes Tom: Let me give you a concrete example. Subetai is exactly right, re 'best'. It is *impossible* to apriori judge which method or methods are best, until some experience is had of them!! Eric: I simply don't see how your system will work. I get an official seal, that I pay the gov for, but the gov never looks at it in the mean time... In essence, since there would be no special rights for these charitable organizations, and no funding of them by the government, it is really just a matter of what you call the organizers of the business] BradA principles can apply to unlimited concretes , no ? Tom: It's a contractual commitment on the part of the government, to look at any contract with this seal affixed, in the future. This makes the contract credible. Eric: in principle, there is no difference between a seal and a signature...either way, there must be an official copy on file at the gov for future reference...kinda like current trade marks. Wright: I don't agree. If govt is not involved in business, then it can receive any kind of contributions it wants to. It is not wrong to receive gifts, it is wrong to steal them. Why? It violates our rights. If govt runs a business, then And a trade mark must be recognized by the gov before it will be protected in a court of law. Tom: No. The government can merely look at the contract after the fact of the conflict, and if the copy from both sides don't match, it can be forwarded for criminal investigation. Eric: I will say that the notion of having those who vote for an expense or security-risking measure, also finance it, has great merit!!! Matt: You still don't quite see my position, I think. Let me try out an example on you (this may take a few minutes) Brad: thanks. :) Eric but isn't the essence of free society , that the individuals invovled relinquish the right to use of force to the govt monopoly and that to register your signature to be redundent Wright: Go ahead Eric: OK, how is the gov to determine which of the two (or more) mis-matched contracts are the right one(s). ? tkTad: No, because with contracts, if you know ahead of time if it's going to be enforceable, you can't cry that you rights were violated if something happens exactly as a person knew might. Unless you ahve them previously registered, you can't...it would come down to X persons word against Y. Tom: If they mismatch (which will rarely occur), the FBI or whatever agency responsible for tracing down fraud, can use whatever means appropritate to figure it out. To avoid this All right, Charity A is called the "Benevolent Association for the Support of Unemployed Kantian Philosphers" Eric: however, I think the idea of a trade-mark type of contractual agreements is good. Wright: I like that name. :) Tom: problem, either party can register a copy of the contract with any notary public, or anybody at all, who will hold a copy. Eric: That would be too late. the trade mark equivalence is much better. Eric: your signature registration is effectively a national "identity card" Charity B is called "The Society for the support of our Beneficial Police Department" Society for putting things on top of other things. joe: I suppose, in some sense, but without the onimous implications. Both decide to buy cookies, and sell them to raise money Matt: It is not possible, by definition, for any private agency to offer a govt lottery. Therefore, by definition, they aren't competing with anyone. Note that the govt has to get money *somehow*, and this measure is solely devoted to that Neither of them is violating the rights of retail cookie sales outlets Tom: There's really no basis to suppose that the incidence of fraud would go up under my system, compared to today. I think fraud is handled relatively well today, so there's nothing to fix. Gilles: How did that Harvard event(s) go from someone who was there? Do you agree? Tom: It was very successful. Eric: I'm not assuming fraud would go up. Wright: I agree Tom: Then there's no problem. Gilles: Great. I've been meaning to cogratulate you guys for a job well done. +n Thanks Tom. Tom: The only thing that changes, is that people would pay a fee, to qualify to walk into a courtroom to make an argument, and to have a judgment made, based on the intricacies of the contract. Brad: huh? paraphrasing your statement, it is not possible, by definition, for any dpprivate agency to offer a govt bowling alley.Therefore, by efinition, they aren't competing with anyone (in the bowling alley industry.) Eric: nonetheless a preregistration of signatures (or trade marks or whatever) would cut the cost of future disagreements). Okay then. What changes if the *name* of B is changed to "The Podunkville Police Department Lottery" (remember that nothing else changes) joe: my system sidesteps the whole mess. :) Mencken: In reality, the only secessionist movements from a free society would be for the purpose of erecting an unfree society. Tom: It might, and that's a technical detail that would be refined over time, but has no direct bearing for or against the system. Eric: bottom line is the signatures would ahve to be on files *somewhere* and the gov would have to have access to these. Tom: Not any more than today. Wright: Nothing wrong with that. I believe in freedom of speech. It is ok to call your organisation whatever you want to call it. The point is that under this vision of gov't, a gov't lottery would *have no advantage* over other charities Tom: The only thing the government needs is a person's name, and records indicating that he's a subscriber. Eric: and his signature and seal on file. Tom: That's an optional security measure that can enhance the value of the service, but not my any means necessary to make the system work. Now, you could make objections if disputes arose that would go before a gov't court Wright" You said that nothing else changes, which means that it is not run by the govt, but by the people who formed the non-profit corporation. Gilles: I say congratulations, even though i shudder to think that Objectivism may one day become one-of-many philosophies taught in universities. Gilles: Does that make any sense? Hello? Hello! Oops. Oh, that's just great... Okay, try this one. Charity B has a charter that legally binds it's board to pay all profits to the gov't Just wanted to make sure I was still connected ;) Tom: Do you understand why having the signature on file is not necessary? <> BradA is still massively behind -- msg me for any important immediate matters. Eric: Frankly, no. If the gov will have a file of the persons name and such, then it needs his signature as well (or his seal/trademark). that should be its re Gilles: You get my last message? Wright: That is toally ok if it is signed given the consent of the owners of the charity. TomM: No, my computer crashed. What was it? Wright" Govt is still not involved in business, that is Tom: If the person's identity can be confirmed, and he agrees and the other person agrees he signed a contract, and records show he's a subscriber, the hearing can proceed without any further adieu. You don't see that it has become a semantic distinction? Gilles: I said I give you congratulations even though, in a sense, I shudder to think that Objectivism will become one-of-many philosophies taught at universities. Sweetstuff: Do you study at Central Michigan? Wright: It has not become a semantic distinction. Tom: I don't think it will in the near future. Eric: We are talking past one another. What if they don't agree? How is the disagreement solved without a sig/seal on file? I really disagree with the 'we need to show them by example' business. there is already copious evidence of people giving billions to charities etc. That is incontrovertible proof enough. Tom: Just like it is handled today. Tom.. if O'ists are teaching it...I think it would be a good thing. Gilles: i doubt it as well...but I'd hate to see it swallowed up in academia. Wright: There is a clear distinction between a govt run by the govt and a govt not run by the govt. It could just as easily be the "Support Uncle Sam Steel Mill" or the "Help our Judges Semiconductor Co." a lootery run by the govt.. :) Brad: How do you phase that in? I see that as the biggest chicken-and-egg obstacle to that proposal. Government won't phase out taxes until there is other funing, and people won't pay the government until there is no taxes. lottery Also, the intellectual order of priority here is 1) repudiation of collectivism and assertion of govt as agency to protect individual rights; 2) addressing issue of means of financing. In both places :) TomM: Do you think it would have a negative effect? It is not particularly useful to introduce voluntary measures while (1) is still not even a blip on the intellectual radar screen. It is a hierarchy inversion. Brad: I don't agree with that dichotomy. Planning a system of proper financing is a means and expression of repudiating collectivism, etc. Wright: Are you saying these names are wrong? I don't say that Clay: what I am addressing is the idea of subjectivist that Objectivismt is only one-of-many possibilities, with no objective improvement over any of the others. Tom.. oh.. that's different. Gilles: It might if current multi-philosophy-ism continues. Eric but who is to impliment the phase in , the govt that does not operate on the proper principles and what are the guarntees that they would use the funds , properly ? Brad: There is no need to wait for all the laggards to catch up before moving forward with specific plans. Having specific plans is more likely to make the whole proposed system more credible. Gilles: you follow me? tkTad: The government always uses some of its funds properly. The important thing to establish first is that sustained voluntary financing is *possible*. <> ClayH smiles. I must have lost weight... my ski suit fits this year. :) Oh, those Equifax people are almost worse than a govt bureaucrat. TomM: No - why do you think it would be harmful to the cause? Wright: I can see where you're coming from. I have followed businesses of all kinds run by the govt. I have had an excellent chance to do this, since I am from Sweden, where half of the work force work in businesses (not only services) ru The point is, they exist solely to provide the gov't with revenue, and they "compete" with other enterprises... with no special favors. How would it be different if they were "run by the gov't", in exactly the same manner? tkTad: The mixed-moral-premise types can support "incidentally" supporting the "needy," but very few would advocate a tax for nothing but supporting a socialistic scheme. Gilles: I may have to write an essay on it, but basically, if it becomes a one-of-many proposition, then, depending on who teaches it, it may come across as one more intellectual puff job. I'm saying that we're not talking about the same sort of thing The difference is that it would be run byt the govt. Everything the govt does in the private market is not bad, but i violates our rights. Swedish govt run businesses are very good companies, but it is immoral. TomM: Certainly, but why would that *harm* the cause? But, I'd be very happy to have the private scheme I outlined Gilles: in other words, so long as philosophy per se is not taken seriously, then it may be best for Objectivism to stay out of the professional academitian's hands ;) Matt: Explain to me why Because men should be free. That is a right. Agree? Gilles: Overall, it wouldn't...but it could be confusing. Matt: You are saying that people who don't agree with your conclusion are anti-freedom, but that is imflammatory and rather insulting. Instead, you might like to consider sticking with what you can demonstrate. Most (all?) participants her Brad: No, that is not what I am saying. Gilles: of course, if it ever is taught as a philosophy, then the student can always decide for himself. Matt: Brad has been really lagged Eric: The flaw in your One System argument, is the premise that a single unitary system is necessarily less complex than many others. Tom: It would really mean more students reading the literature. The one's who only listen to what the teacher says aren't going to make a difference. The more independant-minded ones, though, will be able to see the rationality of some Gilles: i guess I'm concerned that it may become watered down. You are not pro freedom if you agree with me. You are pro freedom if you agree that govt's proper function is to stay out of business. Nothing to do with me. Wright: Ok Strike that stupid apostrophe. In fact, the opposite can easily be the case -- consider small distributed systems, vs. single centralized ones. On your logic, the unified centralized Soviet food distribution behemoth should have worked like a charm... Gilles: Right now, the mere rejection by academitians gives Objectivism a sort of legitimacy all its own. whereas our chaotic and disparate system of grocery stores and corner stores should be a nightmare of inefficiency and corruption. In summary: you are intellectualizing, not integrating. TomM: I don't think so. Most people can't swallow the idea that the whole intellectual establishment is completely corrupt. You can't blame them. Matt20: I think "staying out of business" is vague. TomM: Well, you can blame them to a certain extent. Gilles: The rub is that so long as the system is philosophically corrupt, Objectivism won't be accepted. They would have to accept reason as a good guide before teachign Objectivism. so, Objectivism must save the university to be accepted ; Gilles: but that is the way all philosophies got into the system in the first place. All new philosophies were outsiders to begin with. Right now the philosophers completely dismiss Objectivism. But Objectivism is becoming more popular, and at some point the intellectuals will *have* to deal with it. Gilles: Exactly my point...from the outside in. Because otherwise it will become too apparent that they are evading something. Matt: I can now see how you reach the preposterous conclusion that only coerced taxation is moral to a free government! ANY kind of voluntary contribution, of any kind, can be construed as 'economic'! This is a CLASSIC case of 'Check your When your premises lead you to conclude that taxation, and likely only taxation, is moral to a government designed specifically to prevent such coercion, THAT is a contradiction. CYP Gilles: Sure. Of course, if they even present one aspect of Objectivism to their students, then they will have no reasonable means of rejecting student questions regarding it. Gilles: At some point, they won't be able to merely brush it off. Tom: The problem is that they would present a distorted picture Matt: My point about police is you are competing with private security. What if the cops do such a good job in an area, that the demand for private security drops? Isn't that unfair. extremists who would have us go back to sweatshops." Eric: Yes, that is my concern. Of course, there is nothing preventing the students from reading further, as i did with Aristotle. Hi Subetai hey Andrew Tom: Nothing, except maybe a crippled mind Gilles: for one thing, I think it will take a "next generation" Objectivist to present it well. Someone who is able to be inductive about presenting it. Objectivism: The Next Generation. :) Tom: What do you mean "next generation" OBjectivist? Gilles: Worf, Data, and Riker. Tad: You can't apriori predict things about which you have insufficient evidence, because people have free will. That is why no one can predict with certainty, sometimes even close probability, how various business ventures would suceed. Gilles: I mean something like the current Lyceum list of speakers -- extending beyond Peikoff and binswanger to keep it going. Pet Rocks Gambling. Well, there are speakers other than Dr.'s P and B Gary Hull, and now Dr. Wright Gilles: Anyhow, it's not a complaint. and I haven't thought it through all the way yet. I agree it must be gotten into academia *somehow*. I'm just not sure getting it begrudgingly accepted will do the job. And don't forget the OGC Wright: yes to all the above. BTW, Dr. Wright is no relation to me, although he is a Michigan grad :) YOu forgot Andy. OGC is our best point of attack. make many knowledgeable Objectivists so that when one can teah it and keep one's job, they can get in a fix the problem. How could I do that? :) I don't know right... *bap* oops and Sorry Clay TomM: What does this mean? : 'i shudder to think that Objectivism may one day become one-of-many philosophies taught in universities' Gilles: I think when it comes to academia, the best approach is exposing their intellectual fraud. Hmm, I've seen "good ole Andy" speak, but have never met him Brad: You are about fifteen minutes behind the discussion. Wright: Andy is in person exactly what he is on stage. dittos on what midas said. I think contract insurance is preferable to this signature registration. That lets you decide on an issue by issue basis. Many times, you wouldn't need it. Sometimes, you might have to, perhaps as part of the contract provision itself ('th Brad: My system is not a system of signature registration. Brad: It means that if they present Objectivism on a multi-cultural type of level, then it will be more easily brushed off than it is now. Gilles: Am I making any sense to you? Tom: You mean about exposing their fraud? Yes, I agree. But I think getting Obj. in the curriculum could only be a good thing. A big step forward. Historically, Aristotle was known as "merely" Plato's pupil. And his association with the Academy, in my opinion, prevented its spread as an indipendent philosophy. Tom: Once you have it at least accepted as worthy of study, then you'll have more thesises on it, more thought given to it, more discussion of it, etc. Gilles: It all depends on how it is taught. that's why I think the big push will come when there aer enough legitimate Objectivist professors out there who have graduated from OGC. Gilles: Well, that's very true. I think there is too much emphasis on getting other people to accept the philosophy, and not enough on applying the philsophy to arrive at practical plans of implementation (which would incidentally lend more empirical evidence in favor of Tom: You have to distinguish forward steps from final accomplishment of a goal. A step forward is positive even if it does not win the war. Gilles: I completely agree. And I also think the best thing (though it can't happen for a while) would be a perminent school that teaches everything from an Objectivist perspective. Eric: How could you implement anything if people are not ready for it? Tom: Oh yes. That would be great. Gilles: People become ready by considering evidence, and practical plans are heavy on empirical data. Does anyone here have a registered mIRC? I'd like to see the version message. Gilles: and if that school can not achieve "acredidation", so what? Gilles: Lincoln making a speech outlining the freeing of slaves did more to mobilize moral support than theoretical discussions about the evils of slavery. Eric: The very idea of the importance of considering evidence is philosophical. Eric: Only because Lincoln made explicit what many people already knew implicitly. Eric: Because the moral base was already there. Gilles: It is, but in fact, people do consider evidence to some degree or another -- they have to -- common sense demands it. Eric: Modern academia has no common sense...they've wiped it out of their minds. Tom: Many people know implicitly that bureaucratic interferece with people's lives is vaguely bad, taxes are undesirable, etc., but with no plan in existence that addresses these feelings, people aren't inclined to consider the issue any f Eric: Well then show them evidence to prove your philosophy. You can't establish any rational social system if people don't have the minds to appreciate it. Eric: the battler requires philosophic understanding, not "pragmatic solutions." oops the battle Gilles: I am saying the more evidence, the better. And concrete plans incorporating principles, provided they are grounded in reality, supply a lot of evidence. Eric: Evidence for what? Tom: Formulating plans correctly requires philosophic purity; evaluating it and accepting it does not. Gilles: Evidence in favor of having a free society (with the right moral foundations). Goodnight everyone. Gilles: I hope you don't take my comments in a negative manner. Again, i think it was a job well done. Let's see what they do with it besides smear campaignes. A person of a mixed moral premise is no more or less capable of acting in favor of capitalism than statism. <> BradA has caught up!!!!!!!!!! <> Wright salutes Brad Yes, ladies and gentlemen, it is Brad Aisa --- LIVE! and in person, here for your *interactive* conversational enjoyment. Brad: unfortunatley, now that you ahve caught up, it's time for me to go. lol And all the people I was arguing with have now left. :)