Ayn Rand: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
|||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
== Minarchism == | |||
Ayn Rand advocated strict [[minarchism]], including no taxation: | |||
https://rickbulow.com/Library/Books/Non-Fiction/AynRand/PlayboyInterview-AynRand_3-1964.pdf | |||
What, in your view, is the proper function of a government? | |||
Basically, there is really only one proper function: the protection of individual rights. Since rights can be | |||
violated only by physical force, and by certain derivatives of physical force, the proper function of | |||
government is to protect men from those who initiate the use of physical force: from those who are | |||
criminals. Force, in a free society, may be used only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its | |||
use. This is the proper task of government: to serve as a policeman who protects men from the use of | |||
force. | |||
If force may be used only in retaliation against force, does the government have the right to use | |||
force to collect taxes, for example, or to draft soldiers? | |||
In principle, I believe that taxation should be voluntary, like everything else. But how one would implement | |||
this is a very complex question. I can only suggest certain methods, but I would not attempt to insist on | |||
them as a definitive answer. A government lottery, for instance, used in many countries in Europe, is one | |||
good method of voluntary taxation. There are others. Taxes should be voluntary contributions for the | |||
proper governmental services, which people do need and therefore would be and should be willing to pay | |||
for—as they pay for insurance. But, of course, this is a problem for a distant future, for the time when men | |||
will establish a fully free social system. It would be the last, not the first, reform to advocate. As to the draft, | |||
it is improper and unconstitutional. It is a violation of fundamental rights, of a man’s right to his own life. No | |||
man has the right to send another man to fight and die for his, the sender’s, cause. A country has no right | |||
to force men into involuntary servitude. Armies should be strictly voluntary; and, as military authorities will | |||
tell you, volunteer armies are the best armies. | |||
What about other public needs? Do you consider the post office, for example, a legitimate function | |||
of government? | |||
Now let’s get this straight. My position is fully consistent. Not only the post office, but streets, roads, and | |||
above all, schools, should all be privately owned and privately run. I advocate the separation of state and | |||
economics. The government should be concerned only with those issues, which involve the use of force. | |||
This means: the police, the armed services, and the law courts to settle disputes among men. Nothing | |||
else. Everything else should be privately run and would be much better run. | |||
Would you create any new government departments or agencies? | |||
No, and I truly cannot discuss things that way. I am not a government planner nor do I spend my time | |||
inventing Utopias. I’m talking about principles whose practical applications are clear. If I have said that I | |||
am opposed to the initiation of force, what else has to be discussed? | |||
== [[Ayn Rand/Criticism | Libertarian criticism]] == | == [[Ayn Rand/Criticism | Libertarian criticism]] == | ||
Latest revision as of 14:48, 22 May 2022
Minarchism
Ayn Rand advocated strict minarchism, including no taxation:
https://rickbulow.com/Library/Books/Non-Fiction/AynRand/PlayboyInterview-AynRand_3-1964.pdf
What, in your view, is the proper function of a government? Basically, there is really only one proper function: the protection of individual rights. Since rights can be violated only by physical force, and by certain derivatives of physical force, the proper function of government is to protect men from those who initiate the use of physical force: from those who are criminals. Force, in a free society, may be used only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use. This is the proper task of government: to serve as a policeman who protects men from the use of force. If force may be used only in retaliation against force, does the government have the right to use force to collect taxes, for example, or to draft soldiers? In principle, I believe that taxation should be voluntary, like everything else. But how one would implement this is a very complex question. I can only suggest certain methods, but I would not attempt to insist on them as a definitive answer. A government lottery, for instance, used in many countries in Europe, is one good method of voluntary taxation. There are others. Taxes should be voluntary contributions for the proper governmental services, which people do need and therefore would be and should be willing to pay for—as they pay for insurance. But, of course, this is a problem for a distant future, for the time when men will establish a fully free social system. It would be the last, not the first, reform to advocate. As to the draft, it is improper and unconstitutional. It is a violation of fundamental rights, of a man’s right to his own life. No man has the right to send another man to fight and die for his, the sender’s, cause. A country has no right to force men into involuntary servitude. Armies should be strictly voluntary; and, as military authorities will tell you, volunteer armies are the best armies. What about other public needs? Do you consider the post office, for example, a legitimate function of government? Now let’s get this straight. My position is fully consistent. Not only the post office, but streets, roads, and above all, schools, should all be privately owned and privately run. I advocate the separation of state and economics. The government should be concerned only with those issues, which involve the use of force. This means: the police, the armed services, and the law courts to settle disputes among men. Nothing else. Everything else should be privately run and would be much better run. Would you create any new government departments or agencies? No, and I truly cannot discuss things that way. I am not a government planner nor do I spend my time inventing Utopias. I’m talking about principles whose practical applications are clear. If I have said that I am opposed to the initiation of force, what else has to be discussed?