In Defence of Ayn Rand #4: Rand, Anarchism, and Taxes

Back


A response to XOmniverse's video questioning whether Ayn Rand's opposition to Anarchism was inconsistent with her philosophy, objectivism.

I provide my own theory of the legitimacy of government and of taxes, and suggest that it is (a) consistent with Rand's philosophy, and (b) gives further explaination for why Rand's opposition to Anarchism is not inconsistent with her philosophy.

I also discuss Rand's characterization of government legitimacy: that government gets its power from the governed, with the consent of the governed. I propose that that idea - being an idea proposed also by Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau (whose philosophies were quite different from Rand's) - is actually a bad fit with Rand's philosophy.

NOTE: I do not propose that my theories of government and taxation were proposed by Rand. I do think that they are logically consistent with Rand's philosophy.

Channel: News & Politics
Uploaded: June 1, 2007 at 5:44 am
Author: PaulMcKeever

Length: 00:17:36
Rating: 3.86
Views: 2963

Tags: Ayn Rand Objectivism anarchist taxes government

Video Comments:
chizel (October 24, 2008 at 8:10 pm)
concerning your logistical issue upon the transfer of right and wrong of a Judaical system, i would question whether the existence of absolute right or wrong as you stated(9:48) would be more of an intrinsic stance rather than an objectivist. i understand your assertion that the mitigation or involvement of the arbitrator is synonymous between your 'neighbors' involvement and the courts involvement, but i don't see in your explanation the justification under an objectivist morality or judiciary.
dharmashapta (October 7, 2008 at 3:27 pm)
I think she was just pissed at libertarians stealing her ideas. Essentially, in decreasing the size and scope of government, and the seoaration of economy and government Raynd view's are 100% libertarian. Whether she liked very much those 'kooky' libertarians is another issue.
xtodx (September 25, 2008 at 6:29 pm)
hey, can we expect them to that for free?
just asking cuz you did repeat yourself enough.
dharmashapta (September 21, 2008 at 4:28 pm)
Rand was 100% Libertarian
PaulMcKeever (October 4, 2008 at 6:25 pm)
Rand was 0% libertarian. She spoke about it. Google: "Ayn Rand" libertarian
freefallin002 (September 16, 2008 at 11:37 pm)
There is a third option. Justice doesn't have to be done by the individual or by the state. A private court system is the solution to problem. It both solves the need for an third party who is not emotionally involved and it prevents the necessity of taxes. Taxes are immoral - there is no way around it - taking someones money against their will is never right.
rbilkie (September 12, 2008 at 6:03 am)
Honest and noble. But I disagree. It's important to keep in mind that by the time a society has progressed enough to accept Rand's philosophy, and is devoted to enforcing individual rights, men will causally have the motivation to fund an impartial institution that carries this out. Therefore, the government would not be required to tax the citizens--they would provide the funds necessary to carry out the function. In this case, it is proper to let the market determine the wage of the...
rbilkie (September 12, 2008 at 6:07 am)
...government officials, depending on how important security is to the individuals. It's unforced taxation, a truly "free" government (though not monetarily). If you want protection, you pay for it by funding the government yourself, and others do the same. This will keep the government budget at the lowest it needs to be in order to carry out it's function, rather than what you see with forced taxation and bureaucracy today, all the while providing incentive to perform competantly as a gov emp.
rbilkie (September 12, 2008 at 6:12 am)
The only objection I can see is that the more generous "tax" payer's money may possibly influence the verdict. But again, if society has progressed enough to accept Rand's philosophy, people will have a stronger grasp on justice and the selfishness of the concept. If the majority of society is non-objective, then forced taxation is to be expected. It isn't until a major revolution in thought and morality occurs that something like "voluntary taxation" can occur.
dadaphone (August 31, 2008 at 4:31 pm)
You can depend on the Randians for really tediously elaborate rationalizations of indefensible reactionary positions. It's time to debunk, demistify, deconsecrate "property rights". Read Proudhon, Bakunin, Kropotkin, Landauer, Randolph Bourne on the state and property. Read more widely, look at the bigger picture!