How much of what you earn shouldn't belong to you?

[blueback]

Okay, I'm reading Atlas Shrugged right now, thus the question.
How much of the money you earn should be taken away from you and given to people who don't have enough money?

Ayn Rand presents a vision of a philosophy taken to the extreme both the looters and the thinkers are two extremes. The problem is that her philosphy has almost no room for children, most women, and people who are born sub-standard in some way. Basically, Atlas Shrugged doesn't explain what to do with the exceptions. I agree that, in principle, it makes sense that no one should be beholden to anyone else. But to fully implement that philosphy in practice would seem to mean no charity, no social programs, no public servants of any kind.

Granted, I only have personal experience with a system that has elements of charity in it, so maybe I just can't imagine anything else. However, do you guys think a system in which anyone who couldn't pay their way is abandoned could actually work?

[rocksteady]

However, do you guys think a system in which anyone who couldn't pay their way is abandoned could actually work?

Not only would it work, but it would probably work better. Implementation can be hard in a society dominated by sense/feeling types, efficiency is not as important as social aspects for them. Most people have a reasonable enough amount of personal charity that I don't think it's necessary for the government to intervene. The U.S is civilized enough not to let our neighbors starve or anything like that.

[Mechanical Messiah]

I got about halfway through Atlas Shrugged. Got to the first sex-scene (more like a rape-scene)... felt ill... put the book down. Never finished it.

While I agree with Rand on lots of things... her writings (her essays and that particular book) impress me as over-simplified straw-man arguements. I ain't saying she's outright wrong... but she leaves no room for nuance, and speaks in "moral" absolutes. Life just ain't that simple.

[Henry]

Okay, I'm reading Atlas Shrugged right now, thus the question.
How much of the money you earn should be taken away from you and given to people who don't have enough money?

Your wages do not exist in a vaccum. The marginal productivity of your labor without society is extremely low, and so are any "real wages" in isolation. If you're lucky, you'll find enough food to scavenge, enough fuel to keep you warm, and likey die very early of some form of malnutrition.

You participate in society, you specialize, your value added goes way up, and so do your wages. But there are these things called "common goods" like schools and roads and police and fire departments, all of which directly contribute to your individual productivity, that are an integral part of society and that have to be paid for.


If you don't like society's taxes or rules, I'd recommend you withdraw. The government will not tax you if you build a hut in the middle of nowhere and raise crops. I promise. And there you'll even get many of the benefits of society like technology and access to information and entertainment, you just won't have to contribute.


Ayn Rand presents a vision of a philosophy taken to the extreme both the looters and the thinkers are two extremes. The problem is that her philosphy has almost no room for children, most women, and people who are born sub-standard in some way. Basically, Atlas Shrugged doesn't explain what to do with the exceptions. I agree that, in principle, it makes sense that no one should be beholden to anyone else. But to fully implement that philosphy in practice would seem to mean no charity, no social programs, no public servants of any kind.

Granted, I only have personal experience with a system that has elements of charity in it, so maybe I just can't imagine anything else. However, do you guys think a system in which anyone who couldn't pay their way is abandoned could actually work?

Rand's positions reduce a very complex social-political-economic system into these very base soundbites of philosophy that, when you go to actually do something with them, have utterly ridiculous concrete applications.


While I agree with Rand on lots of things... her writings (her essays and that particular book) impress me as over-simplified straw-man arguements. I ain't saying she's outright wrong... but she leaves no room for nuance, and speaks in "moral" absolutes. Life just ain't that simple.

Thank you.

[prometheus]

But to fully implement that philosphy in practice would seem to mean no charity, no social programs, no public servants of any kind.

You forgot an important adjective GOVERNMENT

The first sex scene is "softened" by further reading, Ayn was no pussy footed author. I reread this book once a year to see how far this country has progressed.

As for henry's statement's that you need an doctorate in economics to understand what is going on. Who can spend more than they earn (produce) and stay afloat?

I look forward to sobriety tomorrow to decimate Henry's current footing in the econ section.

M3 not important?? ;D;D;D;D;D;D;D;D;D;D

[logan235711]

How much of the money you earn should be taken away from you and given to people who don't have enough money?
Perhaps it might be one of those impossible to answer questions. The problem in the end isn't so much of money, it's getting the essential living products to the masses that need them. You could have money, but have nothing around you to use it on--it would still have influence but would be diminished greatly. Mmm, so perhaps as much money from people as is needed to get basic living supplies too people who need them. I won't get into the reality of this happening, but that is the idealist gist to the question : )


If you don't like society's taxes or rules, I'd recommend you withdraw. The government will not tax you if you build a hut in the middle of nowhere and raise crops. I promise.
Pinky swear!?

[prometheus]

Pinky swear!?

If he does I'm sending him my property taxes next year.

[Lights]

All this bitching about government and taxes. Jeez. If it's such a violation of your God given rights then revolt already. Isn't that are what you are supposed to do? Rise up and put down the government you don't agree with? But nope, you all continue with your day to day lives, making money, paying taxes, and enjoying all the conveniences of government with all the shit that comes with it. If this is the kind of individual motivation and success to bring about change that is promised by Rand's philosophy, then it seems to be coming a little short.

[prometheus]

All this bitching about government and taxes. Jeez. If it's such a violation of your God given rights then revolt already. Isn't that are what you are supposed to do? Rise up and put down the government you don't agree with? But nope, you all continue with your day to day lives, making money, paying taxes, and enjoying all the conveniences of government with all the shit that comes with it. If this is the kind of individual motivation and success to bring about change that is promised by Rand's philosophy, then it seems to be coming a little short.

As I just posted on the other thread, I have shrugged. I no longer pay any income taxes. I no longer produce. I am John Galt.

I also have refused all socialist handouts, I'm "entitled" :yuck::yuck::yuck::yuck::yuck::yuck: to.

[blueback]

Got to the first sex-scene (more like a rape-scene)... felt ill... put the book down. Never finished it.

While I agree with Rand on lots of things... her writings (her essays and that particular book) impress me as over-simplified straw-man arguements. I ain't saying she's outright wrong... but she leaves no room for nuance, and speaks in "moral" absolutes. Life just ain't that simple.

So, you only read half of Atlas Shrugged. That's too bad. The first half of the book sets up the questions and the second half answers them. For example, sex between the main characters makes a lot more sense at the end of the book than the beginning. I think she intentionally left out most of the character's thoughts the first time through so that she could include them later where they would make more sense. Like in a movie where they just don't show you something, like a plan the characters are concocting, because it is more fun to watch it happen when you don't know how it is going to work (the Ocean movies are good examples).

Nothing I've ever read of Rand's has been what I would call "simple."

I read The Fountainhead first, and couldn't figure out why Dominique fell in love with Howard after he raped her. However, Atlas Shrugged explained it. If I understand it correctly (and I might not):
* Howard is the embodiment of everything Dominique thinks is "right" in the world. Because her subconcious recognizes that, her body responds to him. However, her rational mind is slower and it takes her a while to realize why she loves him.
* Dominique is the embodiment of everything Howard thinks is "right" in the world. He recognizes it conciously and unconciously and so is unable to resist her. He can't help but be insatiably attracted to her.
* Ultimately, Dominique is flattered (if that's the right word) that Howard (the perfect man) is unable to control his desire for her because it is a compliment to both of them. The same goes for Howard, which is why they love each other.


The marginal productivity of your labor without society is extremely low, and so are any "real wages" in isolation.

You participate in society, you specialize, your value added goes way up, and so do your wages. But there are these things called "common goods" like schools and roads and police and fire departments, all of which directly contribute to your individual productivity, that are an integral part of society and that have to be paid for.

Rand's positions reduce a very complex social-political-economic system into these very base soundbites of philosophy that, when you go to actually do something with them, have utterly ridiculous concrete applications.


I've never read anything by Rand that even implies we should become hermits. In fact, all her examples seem to support the idea that each person should do one thing very well.

I think her philosophy "says" that each of those "common goods" you mentioned should be for-profit ventures. However, I'm not going to continue along this line because I don't fully understand it myself. I have only read The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, none of her essays, so I haven't seen what she has to say about things like the tragedy of the commons, government, and public property.

Have you actually read her books? The last thing I would call them is a "soundbite". Sure, she summarizes, or her characters do, but only after 100 pages of explanation. I mean, she really does take a long time to get to the point. Perhaps, if you've only read the one-sentence-summaries of the ideas, you would apply them to the real world badly.



Anywho, the point of the discussion was supposed to focus on whether or not a percentage of what you earn should be made available to those who don't have enough, and if so how much.

I'm beginning to think that the theory is sound, but that it won't work in the real world because there aren't enough people who commit to it. The philosophy seems to deny that anyone has an intrinsic worth and especially that there is no inherent worth to human life. Just because someone is alive, doesn't mean they deserve to be. I guess it could work if everyone agreed that it was okay to support those who couldn't support themselves as long as you only used your own money. So, you could be charitable, but you couldn't expect anyone else to be.

One big problem with it seems to be that it requires that everyone be more committed to earning their living than to taking it. If your neighbor's land is less fertile than yours he has to either respect your property rights voluntarily or be forced to by someone more powerful than himself. In the past people have been forced either by individuals with private security forces or the government. However, government can't be a for-profit enterprise. In Galt's Gulch the land was owned by one man who sold it to new settlers, but no mention is made of how he enforces his property ownership.

[prometheus]

In Galt's Gulch the land was owned by one man who sold it to new settlers, but no mention is made of how he enforces his property ownership.

I also don't think it was explained, but from what I know about Rand's beliefs and the characters in the book, I would guess that problem would never arise because of the heavy respect for property rights.....However, if it did actually come up I would guess the first defense would be the owner forcefully (Lights loves this) if necessary defending his property, secondly a private court system similar to the one described in The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, any default in the settlement, would result in shunning............Who in a small community would do business with a crook?

But, back to the core of the topic, my earnings are mine and shouldn't be taken to feed/clothe/entertain Lights because he made poor decisions in life. Let natural selection run it's course. Yes, this is a harsh stance......but have you all not looked around yourselves and seen the idiots are becoming more common. I'm not in any way suggesting anything Nazisque. But, if they aren't smart enough to supply their own necessities, and are such assholes that private charities won't help them out............well maybe the gene pool is due for some bleach.............to borrow from some personal text seen here.

[blueback]

maybe the gene pool is due for some bleach

I can't help but agree with this idea, but it just doesn't feel right. I've been told my whole life that human life is intrinsicly valuable. I've never agreed with it, but I (we) seem to be an exception.

If human life should be presereved above all other things, then Rand's philosophy is invalid. I can see why so many people dislike her. She starts from the premise that no person is moraly obligated to any other person. That is contrary to most of what I've been hearing my entire life.

Do you guys think that people could be taught that the greatest moral viture a human being can achive is to deal with other human beings fairly, or is that a feeling that will always be an exception in the human population?

[banzai]

I think the biggest overall benefit can only be acheived if credence is given to each other.

I think of it like a intersection-ok, so I could say to hell with everyone and blast through it, allowing me to get to where I'm going faster, but if everyone did this then the overall effect would be a car accident and everyone would take much longer to get to their destination. So we all give a little and take turns going through the intersection.

Perhaps we're not morally obligated to anyone else, we've been smart enough to figure out that we can all benefit overall more if we're not at odds.

I'm not sure how I feel about how those who choose to take exception to this should be handled. On one hand, why should one be able to decide anything for another regardless of how many subscribe to that viewpoint? On the other hand, someone shouldn't have their cake and eat it too--benefiting from the cooperation of society and going it alone without putting back in. I think it's the job of society to ensure any single person doesn't take advantage of it, but as of yet I don't see any option to opt out of the practice altogether.

To the current discussion-where do we draw the line? Right now, we don't really have one (or perhaps one at a reasonable level) and I think we should, but I don't know if that will ever happen.

[Doppelbock]

Okay, I'm reading Atlas Shrugged right now, thus the question.
How much of the money you earn should be taken away from you and given to people who don't have enough money?

How much of the money you earn should be taken away from you and given to others? NONE. To do so is a violation of your basic rights. That the federal government does this "legally" today does not make it any less a violation.

Does this mean that those who cannot provide for themselves would be, de-facto, screwed? NOT AT ALL. In any compassionate society those people will be taken care of. In the early days of this country, there were charitable societies that upstanding citizens were expected to "subscribe" to -- i.e., to pay a monthly or annual subscription fee. Most leading citizens were "members" of several such charities. Benjamin Franklin started several himself. Each charity tended to focus on a specific need within a specific community -- for instance, a charity to take care of widows of Revolutionary War veterans living in Philadelphia.

Taking care of charity in this manner at the local level has numerous advantages over a federal program:
(1) It's voluntary. There is no violation of anyone's rights involved.
(2) Local programs can be much better tailored to the needs of each individual community than a bloated one-size-fits-all federal program could ever be. The people who need the aid will be much better taken care of.
(3) There will be fewer opportunities for fraud, waste, and abuse. And fewer opportunities for aid programs to be used for political advantage and vote buying.
(4) Local programs will be much more efficient than a bloated federal government program. Cost will be far less, and the programs will provide far more aid to those who need it.
(5) There will be numerous types of programs. Those that work very well will tend to be copied by other communities. Those that don't work will be changed or terminated. Contrast this with a politically entrenched federal program that would be very hard to change or cancel (*cough* social security *cough* ).

In general I am against the idea of "legislating" compassion by means of egalitarian redistribution-of-wealth schemes. Aside from a violation of rights, and aside from unintended economic consequences that may actually cause more harm than the original problem you were trying to solve, it should not be the government's job to force any set of "values" upon society, be they conservative/traditional or progressive/egalitarian values.

DB

[rwyatt365]

I had a discussion like this 30 years ago with a guy that I car-pooled with at the time. He insisted that redistribution of wealth was a good thing so that the disadvantaged would have a chance to survive. I disagreed with him and said that no one should be forced to donate to those that fell on hard times – the operative word being "forced". People make mistakes and poor choices and that's not a nice place to be in, but I should be able to choose to help them (or not) as I see fit.

Now that I have been on the "downside" of life, and been in dire straights myself I feel…THE SAME. When I was down, and was scraping for two pennies to rub together to feed my family, I didn't ask the government for anything. I didn't apply for food stamps, I didn't go on welfare, I didn't look for handouts. It wasn't easy and I wasn't happy, but I took the menial job making minimum wage (and stuck with it until I could do better) so that no one had to support me and mine.

No one owes me anything except the opportunity to do better.

So, my answer to the question posed; NOTHING!

[Tsuru]

I agree that the ideal answer is "nothing." I see very little difference between the statements "Your money or your life" and "Little billy's education or your life."

I think a minimalist government (meaning, law enforcement, military FOR DEFENSE, courts, local emergency management) could be funded completely 100% voluntarily by:

1) Charging all people and companies a % fee of each contractual agreement made that is over a certain dollar amount. It would basically be like mutually paying for their contract to be covered under the court systems if something goes awry. So in other words, if Conformoglom Inc. buys 2 million worth of widgets from Soul-Harvest Inc., they would each pay 0.75% of the total sum (or whatever) as the insurance policy for court arbitration of disputes. So many large transactions go on per day that it would probably be enough. If people decided to skip it they would have no legal recourse to take.

2) The lottery.

3) Fees for foreign companies/merchants doing imports, fees for immigration, ect.

Basic disability for people that truly can't function could probably be covered under it as well. I think it's also important to remember that givings to charity would skyrocket if people weren't handing over 40% of their earnings to the government to begin with.


In general I think almost anything (except police/courts/prison/military obviously) done by government could be done far better with private groups. There is just so much waste and corruption in everything. :(

Those are my own little idea at least. D:





Tsuru added to this post, 8 minutes and 12 seconds later...

I got about halfway through Atlas Shrugged. Got to the first sex-scene (more like a rape-scene)... felt ill... put the book down. Never finished it.

While I agree with Rand on lots of things... her writings (her essays and that particular book) impress me as over-simplified straw-man arguements. I ain't saying she's outright wrong... but she leaves no room for nuance, and speaks in "moral" absolutes. Life just ain't that simple.

You're talking about Atlas Shrugged? (As opposed to the Fountainhead? Roark sure gets his rape-on in that book, ugh -_-)

I'm trying to think of the near-rape sex scene but am drawing a blank. Maybe it's because the characters in Atlas were much more mouthpiece-ish and I didn't bother to pay much attention to the details of their lives. :P