Rand on Rights

[Anenome]

@Wheylous

Anemone, I personally currently agree with you that rights descend from the nature of man (probably because I am ignorant on these matters and have not read enough). Yet see here:

Sure, sure, let’s meditate on the subject

@Wheylous

How do we define government? A monopoly on the initiation of aggression.

No, that would be a terrible government! In fact, that’s what every oligarchy possesses. I say terrible because you use the phrase “monopoly on aggression,” meaning you’d allow the government to aggress (aggression meaning initiation of coercion). But there’s two kinds of coercion, the initiation of coercion and coercion used in response to an initiation to -stop- that initiation. While the former is unethical and bad, the latter is ethical and good. We need a government strictly limited to responsive coercion used to protect rights, and legally incapable of initiating aggression.

What government has is a monopoly on the use of force in society, but how it uses that forces is all-important. It must use it only to defend rights, and to resolve disputes among members of society. All other human relations within society must have force banished from them. This creates a civil society.

@Wheylous

Furthermore, government must almost necessarily also be characterized by taxes. Hence, government is a power to establish and collect taxes and use force on people.

I disagree. The idea that a government must necessarily be financed by taxation is not set in stone. Rand herself advocated a “pay for use” model of government where, for instance, judges would be paid by those seeking government oversight of contracts. Thus, rather than everyone having access to legal courts on a free basis, you’d pay to have your contract enforced by the law courts, before the fact, almost like insurance. This has the secondary benefit of encouraging a market for justice, meaning one could easily switch loyalty to a private court should one prefer it, binding arbitration and the like. Though any remedy requiring the use of coercion would likely need to involve a government court (things like wage garnishment and the like, or compelling somone to appear).

@Wheylous

What is collection of taxes? Taking of people’s property. Since we agree that property rights exist, we see that taxes are a clear violation of property, of rights, and hence, of human nature. Furthermore, taxation involves even more aggression, this time personal, if a person refuses to let others take his property. He will be handcuffed at the point of a gun and imprisoned. In fact, for a long time (13 years).

So to protect our rights you argue that we must violate them. And not simply randomly, but in an institutionalized and systematic manner. We legislate that we are allowed to violate rights. Violation of rights becomes our morality.

We come to believe it is just to take people’s lawful property from them and to kidnap them to put them into prison. This is the government option.

But what is the alternative?

The alternative is a voluntary system where people create the institutions that protect their rights. This does not institutionalize violence. In fact, it takes advantage of the free market’s innovation and motivation (that governments do not have).

Simply because a society is free does not mean that it is stupid. Free people appreciate protection too, you know. There would still be police.

I cannot respond, because you’ve assumed a position that I do not take. I do not assume taxation at the point of a gun as a matter of course for a state I agree with everythng you’ve said about such a system, but taxation is not an essential feature of the state, eg: the articles of confederation contained no wage tax. For that matter, we didn’t get one under the Constitution until approximately the Civil War and then WWII when it went mainstream

I seek a minimal state allowing voluntary everything, until someone comes around trying to aggress, and that person will be coerced to end their aggression. That is a perfect society.