Photo - child stalked by vulture

Yeah, and I even gave a pass to Bill’s inconsistency on taxes.

He started by insisting they be voluntary, then turned around and said (159) the individual has no right to government functions unless he has paid for them—which is more like my position—I have a right to government, and I have to pay for it!

I got it from the Objectivist argument for government. That argument is that the only way to have one’s rights protected is to have one government. It follows that without government I wouldn’t have my rights protected, i.e., I wouldn’t have my rights. Therefore, I have the right to a government that protects my rights.

Your argument is more like the anarcho-capitalist line. They argue that “the only rights they have are the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,” just as you write.

And they argue that individuals may secure these for themselves or they may “pay these organizations [police, courts and military] to provide it.”

I know you will not go for their line, you’ll say that anarcho-capitalism doesn’t work, only a solitary government does.

If that’s true, then my assertion is sound.

If the only thing that will protect my rights is a single government, then I have a right to that single government. Negating this assertion, saying that I have no right to government, suggests that I have no right to the only thing that will bring about the existential reality of my rights—which is saying that I have no right… to my rights!

Moreover, government is not the only way to have your rights protected. You can have them protected by private organizations and services. A government is needed to provide a uniform system of laws and to define the proper scope of retaliatory force. It is not required for physical protection, and I would argue that private agencies, operating on the profit motive, would do a far better job than the government police do now. And even if some services are better left to the government, it doesn't follow that you have a right to those services. You don't have a right to other people's labor, whether private or governmental, except as they choose to provide it.

A right is a moral principle defining and sanctioning one's freedom of action in a social context. The protection of a right is the defense against a violation of a right, often involving the retaliatory use of force. Rights are inalienable; it is the respect for or the protection of rights that is not.

Or is there a point at which we're permitted to say, the price is too high; I refuse to pay it?

John, your argument is a two-edged sword. For exactly the same reasons, I could argue that the number of free riders will be few and far between -- precisely because it is in the rational self-interest for people to pay voluntarily for their own protection. So, the small number of free riders that do exist should not be a problem. What's the alternative?

And what about staffing the armed services. Don't we have a free rider problem there as well? If each potential service person can decide whether to join or not, won't there be people free riding off the services of volunteers, with some not joining, because they expect that others will, so they don't have to bear the burden of defending the country?

What's wrong with the military draft, under your theory of collective responsibility?

The alternative is freedom of choice, John. To say that the alternative is a democratic vote is to surrender your freedom to the dictates of the majority, and to embrace a version of collectivized rights!

By "justice," I take it you mean protection against a violation of their rights. The issue is not whether they should or should not receive protection -- for we are certainly free to offer them protection if we choose to

I am not against voluntary taxes per se, I would rather reserve judgment until I could see it successfully implemented in reality.

Reserve judgment?? You mean that you favor armed robbery until and unless you're convinced that respecting people's right to their own money will "work," by which I presume you mean succeed in protecting people against crime, i.e., against force and fraud?

How can you justify initiating force against people in order to protect them from the initiation of force or demand that their rights be violated in order to protect them from rights violations?

If government is responsible for establishing a fair system of due process, and if you say private entities can establish justice so long as they abide by one entity (i.e. monopoly government) rules for due process, then monopoly government must have the ability to use force against a private police force to make them comply should they overstep the boundaries of due process.

Who arrests the police and prosecutes them today, if they overstep the boundaries of due process? Other police, right? Well, under a monopoly government with competing agencies of enforcement, if the police in Agency A overstep their bounds, the police in Agency B would be authorized to arrest the violators. Ultimately, those who have the power to enforce the law must choose to abide by the laws themselves; otherwise, no system of government will work. Integrity is the court of last resort, no matter which system one endorses. Under my system, all of the police would be profit seeking agencies and simultaneously part of the government, since they'd be enforcing the government's laws (not their own) and their enforcement procedures would be governed by the laws regulating their activities.

And there is a difference between contracting out services and contracting out the implementation of the right protection service itself. Today the military contracts for the vast majority of its needs—General Dynamics makes tanks, Lockheed makes missiles, etc. That’s fine, but note that the stuff is owned by the military, not General Dynamics. Private outfits do not themselves implement protection of rights. This is as it should be. The notion of paying private outfits to implement defense themselves is not realistic.

If our armies were in the hands of Land Force Inc., our strategic nuclear forces distributed across Radiant Silo Co-op, Sunrise Nuclear Submarines, and We Get ‘Em There Atomic Air Drop—then these private entities would in fact compete with the President as to our response to the latest international outrage. The government could point to the law that makes it the final arbiter as to how to respond, but if push came to shove, the government would have no teeth and would be the final arbiter of nothing.

Having said that how do you suggest this government receives its funding?

Much of it would come from customers paying private agencies for protection of their property.

Ayn Rand presents another alternative in her article "Government Financing in a Free Society," (The Virtue of Selfishness). State lotteries are another possibility.

If that government can successfully be funded voluntarily then I have no issue with that. And what are the responsibilities of that monopoly government? Purely to enforce rules against other police protection agencies or is it also responsible to provide justice where justice has not been established, e.g. a poor victim robbed of their money and not able to afford private police protection?

Whether or not the poor person gets protection who hasn't paid for it would depend on whether or not others who can afford to pay for his protection consider it in their self-interest to do so. They might. But the fact that a poor person cannot afford police protection or the kind of protection that a richer person can afford is not an argument for government intervention, any more than the fact that a poor person cannot afford a coronary bypass operation by a top surgeon is an argument for government intervention in medical services.

And what about poor individuals who cannot pay? While we assume poor individuals who commit a crime can be subject to arrest and incarceration by the wealthy individuals in society who can afford to have their rights protected, if a poor individual is a victim of a crime from a wealthy individual, then that poor individual is expected to fend for himself. That he only has the right to immediate means of self-defense such as fending himself with a weapon, but once that attack ends, we can't say that poor individual has any right to government services for retaliatory force. On top of that we tell the poor individual he can't on his own accord use retaliatory force. As if this attacker won't stop at the one poor individual? So long as he knows he can continue without retribution on attacking the poor, what stops him? And why would the poor individual be subject to the justice system if he committed a crime but not afforded any justice if he were a victim? Why does in one instance the poor fall under the envelope of justice but in the other he is not?

I am not against voluntary taxes per se, I would rather reserve judgment until I could see it successfully implemented in reality.

Reserve judgment?? You mean that you favor armed robbery until and unless you're convinced that respecting people's right to their own money will "work,"