RoR: Forum

Does "hit-man" fall under the first choice, or second ? : [

Post 1

Wednesday, June 2, 2004 - 1:57pm

Jeremy:

Unless you provide your own assassination equipment and decide the time and place of the kill, I'm afraid that the IRS will rule that you are an employee, not an independent contractor, and subject your wages of sin to withholding. However, you may still be able to deduct travel expenses on Schedule A, unless your target is at your employer's place of business. In that case, the IRS may classify your travel as a non-deductable commute.

Regards,
Bill

Post 2

Wednesday, June 2, 2004 - 2:37pm

Yeah....exactly what I was thinking.... : [

Post 3

Thursday, June 3, 2004 - 9:31am

Dear SOLOists,

I want to ask you about your opinions on the following issue: Is it morally O.K. to
work in the state sector? Until now, I have found the following pro's and contra's:

Contra:
-If you work for the state, for example as a teacher, you are sanctioning the state owned educational system.
-If you work for the state, you have less stimulus to develop skills, which would be demanded on the free market. You have less stimulus to perform well in your job, too, since people in the state sector can't be fired as easy as people in the private sector. Both is bad for your personal development and it is difficult to support
laissez-faire-capitalism emotionally, if you know that you would be worse off, if the markets were really free.

Pro:
-For some people a career as a teacher would be the best, because they have good teaching skills and teaching gives them personal fulfillment. In many countries the most schools are state owned. So it may be impossible for you to get a job at a private school, while it is possible to get a job at a state owned school. Making a career is a too important value to sacrifice it for the above reasons.
-If you want to make an academic career to spread the Objectivist philosophy, you should get a job at an state-owned university as long as this is the only possibility for your career.
-The premise, that you shouldn't accept any handout from the state, is wrong. If your house is burning, it is O.K. to call the state-owned fire police.

What do you think about this points?

Frank R.

Post 4

Thursday, June 3, 2004 - 12:00pm

I am one of those who voted that I was an employee of the state sector. I enlisted in the military and I intend to make it a 30 year career. I regard national defense to be a proper function of government so my choice of career is not a pox on my conscience. Having said that, I do have a problem with the source of my pay and benefits. The money comes from the taxes that the IRS extorts from the individuals who earned it. Unfortunately, we all live in a mixed economy, so it is difficult if not impossible to avoid benefitting from the socialist policies we may or may not agree with. As much respect as I have for the Atlases who shrugged, it is not reasonable for me to not drive on public roads or to not call 9-1-1 in case of an emergency, even if they are financed by taxation. It is for this reason that I continue to collect my paycheck on payday and spend the money on whatever suits my fancy.

Post 5

Thursday, June 3, 2004 - 1:35pm

Hi, Frank.

You ask an interesting question. My two cents.

You live in a world not of your choosing. Things are as they are. The modern welfare state is pervasive, and you are not going to change that. At least, it probably isn't in your self-interest to be a martyr for a cause that isn't likely to succeed at this point in history. So you live your life as honorably as can under the circumstances (which, if objectively assessed, are pretty good despite the taxman's persistant picking of our pockets).

If you oppose the government's intrusion into too many spheres of life, then your integrity demands that you do not profit from it. However, when that intrusion obligates you to do certain things -- i.e., pay taxes or go to jail -- then do not deny yourself whatever meager benefits that coerced exchange offers you -- e.g., call the city fire department when your house is on fire.

The principle of self-interest does not require you to cut off your nose to spite your face. Byron illustrates an example of how to honorably navigate the pitfalls of modern life in the welfare state. So don't profit from the welfare state, but do take what you were forced to pay for.

Regards,
Bill

Post 6

Thursday, June 3, 2004 - 8:24pm

The state educational system? *L* Oh, I'm all over this one.

Teaching in the state educational system is a hell-hole, is usually to be avoided by all persons of actual integrity. The public school systems are all too often only for those completely devoid of independent thought and love of objectivity. I am sad to say that, over and over again, the teaching industry has too little to do with actual teaching.

It does however, have lots to do with not performing too well. After all, in the public sector, your goal is downward conformity... getting lower all the time. This is why "limbo" is one of the more important games in life: you might as well learn to enjoy sinking to new lows, as the bar is set lower and lower.

You must not know your subject that well... because then you embarrass your coworkers and your superiors have to make up an excuse to "discipline" you.

You must not perform too well... because then the same thing also happens.

You must not have real enthusiasm in the classroom and a "contagious drive for excellence", because then you are making all the students uncomfortable... You are, after all, causing them "mental stress", and that lessens the effects of the mind-altering drugs they are constantly on, and that is bad for the underground drug business in any school. After all, schools are for the buying and selling of illegal drugs and other illicit activities which are, of course, much more "exciting" than learning... BORRRR-RING!

Unhappy students mean more complaints to your superiors, which eventually add up to excuses to "discipline" you into resigning, because under the tenure system, you cannot be fired so long as you do not actually wield a scimitar in class and decapitate an utterly rotten student in front of his or her utterly rotten peers, while shouting non politically-correct denunciations of the utterly rotten bastards you are constantly surrounded and tormented endlessly by, as you attempt to do the work you are being paid to do, and which the school system falsely tells you that they want done, in the job you naively accepted based on your love of objectivity and integrity.

So, in conclusion, from all angles, public school teaching is hell, it sucks, and so on. The average person does not wish to achieve psychological bliss through any kind of objective understanding -- and thereby connection -- with the universe, but rather the ever-fleeting, psychological pseudo-bliss of escapism, amusement, and general subjectivism.

If you ever get the urge to teach in the public school system, pick up a hammer and a nail, and drive that nail into one of your eyeballs. That should teach you.

Well... maybe.

(Edited by Orion Reasoner on 6/03, 8:28pm)

Post 7

Thursday, June 3, 2004 - 8:48pm

Byron,

I read your post, and I'd like to add the following:

In a society that is small or close-knit enough for individuals to all know each other and make truly consensus decisions, they could likely choose to pool and allocate a certain amount of their earned monies to a group that wished to defend them... in other words, a police force, an army, and so on. That only makes sense.

The problem arises when a society gets as large as ours, and whose members become as alienated from each other as ours are. We wouldn't mind pooling our money with people that we actually have been able to get to know and trust, to hand over to people that we have actually been able to get to know and trust... but when we are forced to do it, on a scale of hundreds of millions, alongside people that we do not know or trust, by a government of people that we cannot easily get to know or trust, then we start building resentments, and the bad stuff snowballs from there.

So, I don't think that it's really the issue of taxes or such that we really have such a problem with; rather, it's the alienation, lack of logic-based dialogue, and the lack of choice in the matter, that we resent.

That's the problem with enormously large societies such as ours, as I see it... they become unwieldy, and eventually you start getting these pseudo-familiar talking heads on television who have mysteriously become "our government", and they are seemingly telling us: You will receive no explanation or real chance to put in your two cents' worth on what we choose to do with your money. You will, instead, enclose a fat check to us, keep your goddamn whining mouth shut, and enjoy all the state-ordered "entertainment" that we have provided for you, you sub-human sheep. Having said that, I do realize that we live in a republic, which is based on our chosen representatives making decisions instead of us. But nonetheless, what I just described is how it too often feels.

I basically see it as a matter of scale and energy. The larger the scale of your society, the more time it takes to communicate the underlying rationales (if any) to the citizenry, and thereby receive back criticisms and alternative suggestions. Those things, after all, are the glue which really hold societies together in a truly happy way.

(Edited by Orion Reasoner on 6/03, 8:57pm)

Post 8

Friday, June 4, 2004 - 7:28am

Interesting post, Orion. I think you are trying to describe some of the possible psychological and social effects of a socialist or mixed economy. I am not sure what your objection to my use of the word "taxes" is (or if you are even objecting to my use of the word), but it is the proper term for the concept of forcing individuals to hand over money to the government or else. In a laissez-faire capitalist economy, taxation would not exist (or some libertarians may argue at least kept to a minimum) and so the psychological and social problems you mentioned that are intrinsic to any form of collectivism would not exist to the same degree, if at all.

I am also not sure I share your pessimistic view of a large society. It is true we may not get to know everyone around us, but that does not mean I see everyone around me as a potential enemy. I see them as potential traders. I myself enjoy the hustle and bustle of a large city! I find the potential of choosing to interact with a wide variety of individuals exciting and stimulating. From the perspective of a capitalist, larger societies mean a greater pool of potential human resources (i.e. human capital, laborers, and customers). Of course, I do not fault those who prefer the quiet life of a rural or suburban area if that lifestyle is what meets their desires, and that will always be available, but large-scale urbanization is indicative of human progress, development, and innovation.

Post 9

Friday, June 4, 2004 - 9:20am

Byron,

Let me try explaining myself differently... or better.

In a laissez-faire economy, I really think that people would likely choose to pool their money but call it something beside "taxes". They might call it "pooling"; who knows. But my point is, I think they would likely still do something very much like taxing. The only difference is that it wouldn't involve the use of force or coercion.

Can you get around not creating an emergency pool of funds in any society, which protects the group, not just in times of peril, but also in general?

The point I'm trying to make is that I see it as a problem of semantics. Taxing in our society is where people seem not to have any choice in having to give up their money, but in reality, they made an indirect choice by electing their representatives to make choices, such as setting taxes, for them. They may not like the choices that their representatives make for them, but that's what a republic is... it's what we've got... a government made up of more seemingly qualified representatives than the average member of the public, a "representative public".

As I see it, the basic rules of republic government are not violated through taxes... However, the creation and implementation of the IRS seems fishy to me... There's a mammoth book out there on the secret creation of the IRS, called The Creature From Jekyll Island, that I haven't been able to summon the will to read yet, if ever.

Post 10

Friday, June 4, 2004 - 9:43am

We're agreed then. It was a problem of semantics (as it always appears to be around here). I am sure the majority of Objectivists and libertarians here will agree that, in a free society, there will be a need for individuals to voluntary contribute resources to finance legitimate government functions. There was another discussion thread on SOLO you may be interested in called "volunteer armies" where there was a debate regarding the issue of volunteer financing of the military. A non-Objectivist (Mr. Daniel Barnes) raises the issue of whether it is possible to finance the military without taxation.

Post 11

Friday, June 4, 2004 - 9:48am

I want to add that in an ideal constitutional republic (assuming the constitution secures individual rights and is applied by the courts consistently, thus preventing the majority from voting away the rights of the minority) taxation would not exist. Historically, in the constitutional republic that is the US, federal income tax was a relatively recent phenomenon and was made possible by an irrational foreign policy that called for fighting other nation's wars.

Post 12

Friday, June 4, 2004 - 11:34am

Dear Bill,
you wrote

So don't profit from the welfare state, but do take what you were forced to pay for.

I think this principle is the best solution. This principle includes, that you should do your best to get a new job, if you are unemployed, instead of being a welfare recipient. You should not do a job in the state sector, which is immoral or creates no real value, too. And if you work in the state sector, you should avoid behaviour, for which you could get fired, if you had a job in the private sector.

On the other hand, you can take a job in the state sector, if your work creates real values,
because it's not your fault that the state outlaws some private productive behaviour or drives private enterprises out of the market.

To Orion: Teaching at a school is not my career choice for similar reasons you mentioned. I experienced that school teachers have more often mental illnesses than other people. I think the reason is, that today the teachers have not enough possibilities to exclude pupils from the school, who behaved wrong. Therefore the pupils can do what they want, without fearing serious consequences. But this doesn't change the fact, that teaching children, who are willing to learn, is a valuable activity. If you have good teaching skills and experience satisfaction while you are teaching, it is appropriate to start a career as a teacher even at a public school. Of course you need some luck to get a job at a school in a better district. Otherwise you need a very, very stable psyche. Personally, teaching at a school has more disadvantages than advantages for me.

Frank R.

Post 13

Friday, June 4, 2004 - 1:49pm

Hi, Frank.

>>On the other hand, you can take a job in the state sector, if your work creates real values, because it's not your fault that the state outlaws some private productive behaviour or drives private enterprises out of the market.<<

I agree that if the state takes over a part of the market, a dilemma is created. How it should be resolved honorably (from a free-marketer's perspective) would depend upon the particular circumstances.

Regards,
Bill

Post 14

Monday, June 7, 2004 - 12:13pm