Yaron, I have always liked this approach to raising government revenue since I first encountered Ayn Rand’s thoughts on the subject. Thanks for your comments. I am sending you a question regarding those who, through difficult circumstances (medical, job loss, etc.) can’t promptly pay their taxes. Just two examples of solutions below:
I would think a role of charity would be involved here. Perhaps there would be a private fund arranged for by philanthropists designated to cover taxes that these individuals that fall into such criteria are not temporarily, even permanently unable to pay, lets assume on a yearly basis.
Timely video commentary. Thank you.
Perhaps people would have “tax savings accounts”, much like “Christmas funds” accounts at banks where individuals accrue savings in case they run into a problem paying taxes one year.
Yaron, I think the idea of voluntary contributions is exactly what is appropriate in times of emergencies (like fighting a just war against an irrational enemy). In the case of war, people will volunteer to fight and will gladly pay, so the voluntary model is a good one, BUT ONLY IN TIMES OF WAR.
However, in ordinary circumstances, I think that a government list of who paid and the public sanction against people who didn’t pay, is both too complicated and unnecessary. You have underestimated the value of fair, objective government to businesses. Businesses need objective laws. They need freedom. They need free markets. Then need a just court system. They will pay for it.
The court contract registration fee idea will pay for the entire cost of an objective, free market government in times of peace. What I mean is this: consider Exxon mobile with decade-long contracts worth billions of dollars, among multiple participants in researching, drilling, refining and bringing to market hundreds of billions of dollars of product. Consider how much in overt and hidden taxes Exxon now pays. Consider the cost of regulations to Exxon. Registering a contract with the government with a fee based on its monetary value and defined in ounces of gold so that if any of the parties of the contract had a dispute, it could be adjudicated in a court would, in the popular lingo, be a “no-brainer.” Consider that the cost of these contract fees would be borne by the consumer (as taxes are now). Consider that stockholders would be very wary of investing in a company who did not opt to guarantee to the owners that their business dealings could stand up to the scrutiny of the court system. No large company, no medium company, in fact no reputable small company would have any incentive to by-pass contract registration. It would be more than enough to run a legitimate, free market government.
Over time, contracts get amended. Not to register the amendment could be a fatal error. Do you think the folks at Exxon would make that error? I don’t.
Consider how many small and medium sized businesses would opt (voluntarily) to pay a contract registration fee. How many couples would pay a marriage contract registration fee (small potatoes). This gives them access to the one positive value that the government provides: objective adjudication of agreements with the force of law.
The value of objective law is the benefit the government has to sell. The value is priceless and I’m sure that contract registration fees (payable in gold-backed money) will be more than enough to finance all the government we need, and that over time, the fees will decline (except in times of war).
Do not worry about the so-called free-riders. Do not shun the brilliant but impoverished writer, inventor, or young person just starting out whose long-term plans for his own happiness make it a true burden for her to right a check when she doesn’t have the money or her name goes on a list. Do not shun the person who is having hard times or has some burden that is overwhelming her.
DO NOT TURN THE GOVERNMENT INTO A BEGGAR THAT HAS TO SHAME PEOPLE INTO SUPPORTING IT BY LEAVING THEM OFF SOME LIST IF THEY DON’T. This is the worst idea imaginable.
There are nearly 400,000,000 people in the US. Forget the list. You would have to hire an army of computer people to set it up, maintain it, deal with errors, changes of addresses, fraud, abuse, etc. They would add to the burden of government if you paid them and would probably be worthless if you didn’t. Forget it. BAD IDEA.
Go with the contract registration fee. If you asked the top 500 businesses in the country whether they would register their contracts (this would include product guarantees to consumers), I think you would have to ask twice because they wouldn’t believe that it could actually be a question. Whatever contract registration fees would cost, they would certainly cost less than current taxes and regulations. There would be an objective value in paying them, the cost of goods and services provided by the business would be minimally impacted. And don’t you think that consumers who purchased a service contract from a business will feel that if there is a problem, there is legal recourse. Why wouldn’t a consumer want to buy products only from a business that demonstrates its support for objective law, reality and truth? Think about banks and their mortgages. What lender, what borrower would not want to register their contract?
Please re-think your answer to the voluntary taxes question. The idea of people looking up your name on a list to see if they want to deal with you because you paid $xx to the government (in what time period) is horrible. It makes neighbors into busybodies. Forget free riders. Forget the court of public opinion. Go for the real gold: the value of objective law to the longest term thinkers in the marketplace, the American industrialists and all of their customers.
The correct answer for this question is: TAXES IN A TRULY FREE MARKET SYSTEM? NONE.
Businesses need the value of objective law. They will pay contract registration fees to get it. The fees would be voluntary, but no business could long survive without registered contracts, because there would be no investors willing to invest or lend to them, no partners willing to do business with them, no consumers willing to buy from them. If the business put the government “USCR ######” (US Contract Registration number) on the product packaging and the product was not registered, that would be fraud) The USCR would mean that business was selling and the consumer could expect to receive a certain value and that the business is prepared to stand by that value or compensate the consumer if the particular good was defective. It does not mean that every case of defective product ends up in the courts!
Remember that in a free market, with a free money supply, prices are in constant decline as wealth creation is unimpeded and the currency is not under government control. The contract registration idea will finance everything.
You could take a poll of 5,000 businesses and ask the CEOs:
We have a new model for government, the private, free market economy, with a government whose job it is to uphold objective law and protect people from foreign invaders. We wonder if you like the idea, as follows–
No taxes, no handouts, no favors, no protected markets, no government regulators, no government guarantees. Instead set your own standards, run your own businesses, take your own chances, take your own risks, take your own losses, keep your profits and enjoy them.
How does this get paid for: The US government is going back into the service of adjudicating objective law. Businesses and individuals will pay fees to register contracts with the government based on the value of the contract. Fees will be payable in gold denominated dollars*. Registration of contracts is voluntary, but if you don’t register a contract, you will have no recourse in the courts if there is a disagreement.
Gold denominated dollars accepted by the government in payment of contract registration fees will be defined by a fixed amount of physical gold content in grams and in quality (purity).
You do realize that businesses would quickly realize that they can hire private independent arbitrators or specialized agencies to adjudicate disputes, which would cost them less than relying on a government monopoly? This would in effect reduce government’s income - so the most vital part of government, the national defence, would go underfunded. And that leads to trouble.
For a historical example, I suggest to look up Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, which basically was a tax-free state. In effect, it had no standing army, relying on voluntary contributions (in the time of disaster, of course) and noblemen’s private units and mercenaries. Of course, most noblemen did not give a rat’s ass about contributing to national defence, raising proper military or what not. Despite some great victories (mostly with private armies or mercenaries, like the conquering of Moscow - or the Vienna Victory of 1683), this tax-free voluntary arrangement of free people within a commonwealth did not provide adequate military force, in comparison to other states, which were absolute monarchies in that period and eventually managed to partition Poland among themselves at the second half of the 18th century - practically with no resistance.
Of course I mostly blame counterreformatory Christianity and Jesuits at work here, who practically castrated the minds and wills of Polish nobility into a dishevelled mob of reality-evading vegetative halfwits - but that’s the main problem in a tax-free state: it relies too heavily on the will to contribute, which may be easily undercut by an evil ideology. And these are not easy to eliminate.
I think you’d see businesses send a percentage of their employee’s wages to the government, as part of the employment contract that the employee agreed to. Imagine if a bank sent the government a percentage of its customers’ money (as part of the contract that customers agree to when they create an account with the bank) whenever the customers transacted, received interest, etc. That’s just off the top of my head. I know that people would be infinitely more innovative at coming up with solutions in a free society.
Ilene, I agree that contract registration is a great idea. This was Ayn Rand’s idea - a “first thought” on the matter which for her was simply too far in the future to put a lot of effort into developing.
I would disagree with the idea that failure to register a contract ought to preclude one from litigation; rather, I think it ought to be more expensive to litigate an unregistered contract.
Additionally, registering contracts will come to be seen as also contributing to establishing credibility/validity of documents, with unregistered contracts susceptible to being viewed as fake or untrustworthy.
Because people would be free to conduct their dealings without registering their contracts and because many transactions conclude without mishap, not every individual would choose to register their contracts. But that’s fine. That’s part of the free market and the abolition of coercion.
Mostly, I agree with you that businesses will embrace the far cheaper way of securing their property rights and ensuring the validity of contracts in a court of law, along with a reduction on insurance premiums/lower cost in the event of litigation. Contract registration will prove valuable even in private mediations.
Another idea of mine is litigation insurance, which would include an array of products from the simplest protection (i.e., in case of being sued), through various levels of monetary and/or litigation stages. For example, the cost to insure in the event of launching a lawsuit and going all the way to a pre-trial settlement stage would necessarily be cheaper than the premiums for full trial of a short duration. The most expensive kind of trial is the one that takes months and months. Having litigation insurance will ensure that there is money to pay for the expense of judges, staff, court space, even juries and expert evidence.
Most of us would not see the need to buy the full-blown kind of trial insurance, but would want a policy that provides coverage in case of being sued. There would be policies for “the whole family,” designed to cover an array of situations, and policies for individual big-ticket purchases. Working out how to do this insurance so that it benefits the court system and the insurance company may prove a lot easier than we think, standing where we are on the outside trying to see in.
I think that looking for ways to honestly generate revenue to cover the costs of proper government will quickly produce products and services that not only defray the costs but also provide a real value to purchasers, the more that people of reason with unclouded visions turn their minds to the problem.
Value for value is the proper standard by which to judge products & services in the proper government sector just as it is in all sectors of human interaction and trade.
Other ways to pay for armed forces: obviously lotteries are a proven system of raising large sums. Buying a ticket means both getting a chance to win a windfall sum AND the knowledge that one has contributed to the cost of maintaining an army, navy, etc.
Every single method of raising funds, where it is able to offer a tangible value in addition to the knowledge of helping to pay for government services, is in my view far more likely to attract individuals to use them.
“Mostly, I agree with you that businesses will embrace the far cheaper way of securing their property rights and ensuring the validity of contracts in a court of law, along with a reduction on insurance premiums/lower cost in the event of litigation. Contract registration will prove valuable even in private mediations.”
Businesses will simply insure their property rights with private insurers and government will be crowded out completely. There is no economic logic behind maintaining government the instance it becomes a voluntary association, despite it holding supposedly monopoly power over justice, police and military. As long as government really is prohibited from initating force, the market will find cheaper alternatives to everything government is supposed to provide - up to the point when government raises its ugly statist head and beats down on peaceful competition, as it always did in history.
PLAYBOY: 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?
RAND: 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.
*** todays lottery revenues alone could finance all of the essential infrastructure. The rest is all layers and layers of misappropriated funds ***
The only moral functions of government are the military, the police and the courts, although the courts would also include property right registration systems such as a land office, patent office, copyright office, trademark office, mineral prospecting rights registration office, electromagnetic spectrum registration, etc. Contract enforcement rights registration would function very similarly to other property right registration systems. The difference is the right to register a contract (to then later enforce its terms through the courts) rests with the contract parties instead of the first-in-time producer, inventor, author, prospector, entrepreneur, or creator who claims the property based on his productive achievements. Funding of the courts could be provided through a “loser pays” system in which the losing party covers the winning party’s and the court system’s costs. Furthermore, removing the restrictions on alienability of legal claims (currently limited to essentially only 30% financing by attorneys handling the case on a contingency agreement) would allow entrepreneurs to finance civil suits.
From Mr.Bob’s very astute and complete comment above:
*. . .The difference is the right to register a contract (to then later enforce its terms through the courts) rests with the contract parties instead of the first-in-time producer, inventor, author, prospector, entrepreneur, or creator who claims the property based on his productive achievements.*
You can see how a single abiguity has taken non-Objective law into its tailspin and with it any motivation for JohnGalt to condemn his mind and his motor to slow torturous death and why he and other strikers must live outside your system to work in an Objective one (*Atlantis*)ie) one that respects a man’s right to his idea as the Primary - NOT the strength of a legal team and/or charisma/popularity.
Justce can only be sought, administered and found through Objective law anything else results in a verdict that is psycologically damaging to a Man and his civilization.
Those of you that wish to avoid this for yourselves - and those that you care about - can assure yourselves that it is no longer hopeless, no longer a case of confronting irrationality. Oddly enough its through indifference - the answer being to *let it go* (as opposed to what is promoted by the ‘other’ Peikoff - title: *Don’t Let It Go. . .Unheard*)
The invention of the JohnGalt Motor changes the context of the battle completely. What you’ll find on these pages are those with a “martyr syndrome” ie) what Dagny and Hank express in Atlas Shrugged - whose efforts to sustain the system only “serve as the cannibal’s meal while doing the cooking besides”.
Miss Rand projected an Atlantis in her novel that is now a reality, its here, its yours. We meet annually during the month of June - just like in the novel - “It makes the eleven easier to bear.”
The invention of the motor has made possible the projection of Ayn Rand’s Romanticism into a reality. What Mr. Watkins and Dr.Brook are developing here leads down the path of Naturalism.
The world ‘as it is’ is not the ‘way it ought to be’ and those that know Man’s proper place should not have to suffer the slings and arrows of those that don’t. When you withdraw your sanction of them(those of the looter/moocher persuasion) then and only then can you take your own place in Mulligan’s Valley.
I wrote a lot above, but the essentials seem to have gotten lost.
<>
If we want a truly free, stable and successful country, we need to figure out how to make that fact work for us in a completely voluntary, trader to trader, value for value basis.
In times of war, voluntary contributions are appropriate and people willingly give their money and lives to support a just country.
In times of peace, the government should be a trader: government adjudicates objective law and all parties know that truth and the facts of reality are the standard, that the laws are just and have the force of government behind them. Arbitration is a phenomenon which arises from non-objective law. If the real thing is available and reasonably priced, you don’t go for the counterfeit. It’s just good business. Sure, some businesses will opt for arbitration. That could happen. If there are too many of those, then the government has not done a good job of convincing them of the value of truth and objective law.
If government can only raise money as a beggar, a warrior or a hold-up man, then maybe that government doesn’t yet have objective law or it needs to do a better job of systematizing its value.
Since Objectivists want to abolish the initiation of force from all human relationships, it seems to me that government people should think of the value of objective law and commoditize it in a way that gives direct benefit. It would be like buying contract insurance, but I wouldn’t call it insurance because insurance is a private business term. That’s why I called it registration.
Why not find out what the business leaders think before projecting what they will do? Most will probably believe it is impossible, too good to be true. That’s a good sign!
PS: I am not a lawyer or a legal scholar, but I am a damn good systems analyst and spent over 30 years integrating business plans with reality: people, resources, computers, customers, workflows, time constraints, etc. Ayn Rand’s “Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology” has been my guide throughout my working life. So the object is to figure out how to get the country from here to there in a way that makes the whole world say “Why didn’t we just think of this sooner? It’s a no-brainer.”
We have the morality, we need to understand how to apply the morality to the methods.
Brilliant presentation. This entire issue of coercion being necessary for government to raise revenue is a red herring to disguise the vested interests of the statists who desperately want to perpetuate the entitlement nanny state. There are intellectually honest people out there who would see the merits of taking coercion out of government (except against criminals). However this entire approach has been totally blanked out by the mainstream media, for whom unbridled government is like a fact of nature. In this context, the challenge is how to reach out to those numerous people who are willing to listen and understand, but have not come across these ideas and approaches. This book would go a long way in taking us toward this goal, but then again, most mainstream media seem to be ignoring or downplaying it.
You would have to consider that the largest contributors may have some influence over the enforcement of the law or the exercise of the military power. Certainly if I were a CEO of a major oil company I would make a large conribution to the “protection” of my interests.
15 Comments to “Yaron Answers: How Would A Government Gain Revenue Without Taxes?”
Yaron, I have always liked this approach to raising government revenue since I first encountered Ayn Rand’s thoughts on the subject. Thanks for your comments. I am sending you a question regarding those who, through difficult circumstances (medical, job loss, etc.) can’t promptly pay their taxes. Just two examples of solutions below:
I would think a role of charity would be involved here. Perhaps there would be a private fund arranged for by philanthropists designated to cover taxes that these individuals that fall into such criteria are not temporarily, even permanently unable to pay, lets assume on a yearly basis.
Timely video commentary. Thank you.
Perhaps people would have “tax savings accounts”, much like “Christmas funds” accounts at banks where individuals accrue savings in case they run into a problem paying taxes one year.
Yaron, I think the idea of voluntary contributions is exactly what is appropriate in times of emergencies (like fighting a just war against an irrational enemy). In the case of war, people will volunteer to fight and will gladly pay, so the voluntary model is a good one, BUT ONLY IN TIMES OF WAR.
However, in ordinary circumstances, I think that a government list of who paid and the public sanction against people who didn’t pay, is both too complicated and unnecessary. You have underestimated the value of fair, objective government to businesses. Businesses need objective laws. They need freedom. They need free markets. Then need a just court system. They will pay for it.
The court contract registration fee idea will pay for the entire cost of an objective, free market government in times of peace. What I mean is this: consider Exxon mobile with decade-long contracts worth billions of dollars, among multiple participants in researching, drilling, refining and bringing to market hundreds of billions of dollars of product. Consider how much in overt and hidden taxes Exxon now pays. Consider the cost of regulations to Exxon. Registering a contract with the government with a fee based on its monetary value and defined in ounces of gold so that if any of the parties of the contract had a dispute, it could be adjudicated in a court would, in the popular lingo, be a “no-brainer.” Consider that the cost of these contract fees would be borne by the consumer (as taxes are now). Consider that stockholders would be very wary of investing in a company who did not opt to guarantee to the owners that their business dealings could stand up to the scrutiny of the court system. No large company, no medium company, in fact no reputable small company would have any incentive to by-pass contract registration. It would be more than enough to run a legitimate, free market government.
Over time, contracts get amended. Not to register the amendment could be a fatal error. Do you think the folks at Exxon would make that error? I don’t.
Consider how many small and medium sized businesses would opt (voluntarily) to pay a contract registration fee. How many couples would pay a marriage contract registration fee (small potatoes). This gives them access to the one positive value that the government provides: objective adjudication of agreements with the force of law.
The value of objective law is the benefit the government has to sell. The value is priceless and I’m sure that contract registration fees (payable in gold-backed money) will be more than enough to finance all the government we need, and that over time, the fees will decline (except in times of war).
Do not worry about the so-called free-riders. Do not shun the brilliant but impoverished writer, inventor, or young person just starting out whose long-term plans for his own happiness make it a true burden for her to right a check when she doesn’t have the money or her name goes on a list. Do not shun the person who is having hard times or has some burden that is overwhelming her.
DO NOT TURN THE GOVERNMENT INTO A BEGGAR THAT HAS TO SHAME PEOPLE INTO SUPPORTING IT BY LEAVING THEM OFF SOME LIST IF THEY DON’T. This is the worst idea imaginable.
There are nearly 400,000,000 people in the US. Forget the list. You would have to hire an army of computer people to set it up, maintain it, deal with errors, changes of addresses, fraud, abuse, etc. They would add to the burden of government if you paid them and would probably be worthless if you didn’t. Forget it. BAD IDEA.
Go with the contract registration fee. If you asked the top 500 businesses in the country whether they would register their contracts (this would include product guarantees to consumers), I think you would have to ask twice because they wouldn’t believe that it could actually be a question. Whatever contract registration fees would cost, they would certainly cost less than current taxes and regulations. There would be an objective value in paying them, the cost of goods and services provided by the business would be minimally impacted. And don’t you think that consumers who purchased a service contract from a business will feel that if there is a problem, there is legal recourse. Why wouldn’t a consumer want to buy products only from a business that demonstrates its support for objective law, reality and truth? Think about banks and their mortgages. What lender, what borrower would not want to register their contract?
Please re-think your answer to the voluntary taxes question. The idea of people looking up your name on a list to see if they want to deal with you because you paid $xx to the government (in what time period) is horrible. It makes neighbors into busybodies. Forget free riders. Forget the court of public opinion. Go for the real gold: the value of objective law to the longest term thinkers in the marketplace, the American industrialists and all of their customers.
The correct answer for this question is: TAXES IN A TRULY FREE MARKET SYSTEM? NONE.
Businesses need the value of objective law. They will pay contract registration fees to get it. The fees would be voluntary, but no business could long survive without registered contracts, because there would be no investors willing to invest or lend to them, no partners willing to do business with them, no consumers willing to buy from them. If the business put the government “USCR ######” (US Contract Registration number) on the product packaging and the product was not registered, that would be fraud) The USCR would mean that business was selling and the consumer could expect to receive a certain value and that the business is prepared to stand by that value or compensate the consumer if the particular good was defective. It does not mean that every case of defective product ends up in the courts!
Remember that in a free market, with a free money supply, prices are in constant decline as wealth creation is unimpeded and the currency is not under government control. The contract registration idea will finance everything.
You could take a poll of 5,000 businesses and ask the CEOs:
We have a new model for government, the private, free market economy, with a government whose job it is to uphold objective law and protect people from foreign invaders. We wonder if you like the idea, as follows–
No taxes, no handouts, no favors, no protected markets, no government regulators, no government guarantees. Instead set your own standards, run your own businesses, take your own chances, take your own risks, take your own losses, keep your profits and enjoy them.
How does this get paid for: The US government is going back into the service of adjudicating objective law. Businesses and individuals will pay fees to register contracts with the government based on the value of the contract. Fees will be payable in gold denominated dollars*. Registration of contracts is voluntary, but if you don’t register a contract, you will have no recourse in the courts if there is a disagreement.
Gold denominated dollars accepted by the government in payment of contract registration fees will be defined by a fixed amount of physical gold content in grams and in quality (purity).
You do realize that businesses would quickly realize that they can hire private independent arbitrators or specialized agencies to adjudicate disputes, which would cost them less than relying on a government monopoly? This would in effect reduce government’s income - so the most vital part of government, the national defence, would go underfunded. And that leads to trouble.
For a historical example, I suggest to look up Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, which basically was a tax-free state. In effect, it had no standing army, relying on voluntary contributions (in the time of disaster, of course) and noblemen’s private units and mercenaries. Of course, most noblemen did not give a rat’s ass about contributing to national defence, raising proper military or what not. Despite some great victories (mostly with private armies or mercenaries, like the conquering of Moscow - or the Vienna Victory of 1683), this tax-free voluntary arrangement of free people within a commonwealth did not provide adequate military force, in comparison to other states, which were absolute monarchies in that period and eventually managed to partition Poland among themselves at the second half of the 18th century - practically with no resistance.
Of course I mostly blame counterreformatory Christianity and Jesuits at work here, who practically castrated the minds and wills of Polish nobility into a dishevelled mob of reality-evading vegetative halfwits - but that’s the main problem in a tax-free state: it relies too heavily on the will to contribute, which may be easily undercut by an evil ideology. And these are not easy to eliminate.
I think you’d see businesses send a percentage of their employee’s wages to the government, as part of the employment contract that the employee agreed to. Imagine if a bank sent the government a percentage of its customers’ money (as part of the contract that customers agree to when they create an account with the bank) whenever the customers transacted, received interest, etc. That’s just off the top of my head. I know that people would be infinitely more innovative at coming up with solutions in a free society.
Ilene, I agree that contract registration is a great idea. This was Ayn Rand’s idea - a “first thought” on the matter which for her was simply too far in the future to put a lot of effort into developing.
I would disagree with the idea that failure to register a contract ought to preclude one from litigation; rather, I think it ought to be more expensive to litigate an unregistered contract.
Additionally, registering contracts will come to be seen as also contributing to establishing credibility/validity of documents, with unregistered contracts susceptible to being viewed as fake or untrustworthy.
Because people would be free to conduct their dealings without registering their contracts and because many transactions conclude without mishap, not every individual would choose to register their contracts. But that’s fine. That’s part of the free market and the abolition of coercion.
Mostly, I agree with you that businesses will embrace the far cheaper way of securing their property rights and ensuring the validity of contracts in a court of law, along with a reduction on insurance premiums/lower cost in the event of litigation. Contract registration will prove valuable even in private mediations.
Another idea of mine is litigation insurance, which would include an array of products from the simplest protection (i.e., in case of being sued), through various levels of monetary and/or litigation stages. For example, the cost to insure in the event of launching a lawsuit and going all the way to a pre-trial settlement stage would necessarily be cheaper than the premiums for full trial of a short duration. The most expensive kind of trial is the one that takes months and months. Having litigation insurance will ensure that there is money to pay for the expense of judges, staff, court space, even juries and expert evidence.
Most of us would not see the need to buy the full-blown kind of trial insurance, but would want a policy that provides coverage in case of being sued. There would be policies for “the whole family,” designed to cover an array of situations, and policies for individual big-ticket purchases. Working out how to do this insurance so that it benefits the court system and the insurance company may prove a lot easier than we think, standing where we are on the outside trying to see in.
I think that looking for ways to honestly generate revenue to cover the costs of proper government will quickly produce products and services that not only defray the costs but also provide a real value to purchasers, the more that people of reason with unclouded visions turn their minds to the problem.
Value for value is the proper standard by which to judge products & services in the proper government sector just as it is in all sectors of human interaction and trade.
Other ways to pay for armed forces: obviously lotteries are a proven system of raising large sums. Buying a ticket means both getting a chance to win a windfall sum AND the knowledge that one has contributed to the cost of maintaining an army, navy, etc.
Every single method of raising funds, where it is able to offer a tangible value in addition to the knowledge of helping to pay for government services, is in my view far more likely to attract individuals to use them.
“Mostly, I agree with you that businesses will embrace the far cheaper way of securing their property rights and ensuring the validity of contracts in a court of law, along with a reduction on insurance premiums/lower cost in the event of litigation. Contract registration will prove valuable even in private mediations.”
Businesses will simply insure their property rights with private insurers and government will be crowded out completely. There is no economic logic behind maintaining government the instance it becomes a voluntary association, despite it holding supposedly monopoly power over justice, police and military. As long as government really is prohibited from initating force, the market will find cheaper alternatives to everything government is supposed to provide - up to the point when government raises its ugly statist head and beats down on peaceful competition, as it always did in history.
PLAYBOY: 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?
RAND: 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.
*** todays lottery revenues alone could finance all of the essential infrastructure. The rest is all layers and layers of misappropriated funds ***
The only moral functions of government are the military, the police and the courts, although the courts would also include property right registration systems such as a land office, patent office, copyright office, trademark office, mineral prospecting rights registration office, electromagnetic spectrum registration, etc. Contract enforcement rights registration would function very similarly to other property right registration systems. The difference is the right to register a contract (to then later enforce its terms through the courts) rests with the contract parties instead of the first-in-time producer, inventor, author, prospector, entrepreneur, or creator who claims the property based on his productive achievements. Funding of the courts could be provided through a “loser pays” system in which the losing party covers the winning party’s and the court system’s costs. Furthermore, removing the restrictions on alienability of legal claims (currently limited to essentially only 30% financing by attorneys handling the case on a contingency agreement) would allow entrepreneurs to finance civil suits.
From Mr.Bob’s very astute and complete comment above:
*. . .The difference is the right to register a contract (to then later enforce its terms through the courts) rests with the contract parties instead of the first-in-time producer, inventor, author, prospector, entrepreneur, or creator who claims the property based on his productive achievements.*
You can see how a single abiguity has taken non-Objective law into its tailspin and with it any motivation for JohnGalt to condemn his mind and his motor to slow torturous death and why he and other strikers must live outside your system to work in an Objective one (*Atlantis*)ie) one that respects a man’s right to his idea as the Primary - NOT the strength of a legal team and/or charisma/popularity.
Justce can only be sought, administered and found through Objective law anything else results in a verdict that is psycologically damaging to a Man and his civilization.
Those of you that wish to avoid this for yourselves - and those that you care about - can assure yourselves that it is no longer hopeless, no longer a case of confronting irrationality. Oddly enough its through indifference - the answer being to *let it go* (as opposed to what is promoted by the ‘other’ Peikoff - title: *Don’t Let It Go. . .Unheard*)
The invention of the JohnGalt Motor changes the context of the battle completely. What you’ll find on these pages are those with a “martyr syndrome” ie) what Dagny and Hank express in Atlas Shrugged - whose efforts to sustain the system only “serve as the cannibal’s meal while doing the cooking besides”.
Miss Rand projected an Atlantis in her novel that is now a reality, its here, its yours. We meet annually during the month of June - just like in the novel - “It makes the eleven easier to bear.”
Inform yourself here:
http://www.GaltsGulchPortal.blogspot.ca
The invention of the motor has made possible the projection of Ayn Rand’s Romanticism into a reality. What Mr. Watkins and Dr.Brook are developing here leads down the path of Naturalism.
The world ‘as it is’ is not the ‘way it ought to be’ and those that know Man’s proper place should not have to suffer the slings and arrows of those that don’t. When you withdraw your sanction of them(those of the looter/moocher persuasion) then and only then can you take your own place in Mulligan’s Valley.
And I mean it.
A $ A
I wrote a lot above, but the essentials seem to have gotten lost.
<>
If we want a truly free, stable and successful country, we need to figure out how to make that fact work for us in a completely voluntary, trader to trader, value for value basis.
In times of war, voluntary contributions are appropriate and people willingly give their money and lives to support a just country.
In times of peace, the government should be a trader: government adjudicates objective law and all parties know that truth and the facts of reality are the standard, that the laws are just and have the force of government behind them. Arbitration is a phenomenon which arises from non-objective law. If the real thing is available and reasonably priced, you don’t go for the counterfeit. It’s just good business. Sure, some businesses will opt for arbitration. That could happen. If there are too many of those, then the government has not done a good job of convincing them of the value of truth and objective law.
If government can only raise money as a beggar, a warrior or a hold-up man, then maybe that government doesn’t yet have objective law or it needs to do a better job of systematizing its value.
Since Objectivists want to abolish the initiation of force from all human relationships, it seems to me that government people should think of the value of objective law and commoditize it in a way that gives direct benefit. It would be like buying contract insurance, but I wouldn’t call it insurance because insurance is a private business term. That’s why I called it registration.
Why not find out what the business leaders think before projecting what they will do? Most will probably believe it is impossible, too good to be true. That’s a good sign!
PS: I am not a lawyer or a legal scholar, but I am a damn good systems analyst and spent over 30 years integrating business plans with reality: people, resources, computers, customers, workflows, time constraints, etc. Ayn Rand’s “Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology” has been my guide throughout my working life. So the object is to figure out how to get the country from here to there in a way that makes the whole world say “Why didn’t we just think of this sooner? It’s a no-brainer.”
We have the morality, we need to understand how to apply the morality to the methods.
Two lines got removed above because I used the tags wrong. Here they are:
The value of objective law is the benefit the government has to sell. The value is priceless. . . .
DO NOT TURN THE GOVERNMENT INTO A BEGGAR THAT HAS TO SHAME PEOPLE INTO SUPPORTING IT BY LEAVING THEM OFF SOME LIST IF THEY DON’T. . . .
Sorry about that!
Brilliant presentation. This entire issue of coercion being necessary for government to raise revenue is a red herring to disguise the vested interests of the statists who desperately want to perpetuate the entitlement nanny state. There are intellectually honest people out there who would see the merits of taking coercion out of government (except against criminals). However this entire approach has been totally blanked out by the mainstream media, for whom unbridled government is like a fact of nature. In this context, the challenge is how to reach out to those numerous people who are willing to listen and understand, but have not come across these ideas and approaches. This book would go a long way in taking us toward this goal, but then again, most mainstream media seem to be ignoring or downplaying it.
I would voluntarily write checks to the government. Living in a society without law and order would be horrible and scary.
You would have to consider that the largest contributors may have some influence over the enforcement of the law or the exercise of the military power. Certainly if I were a CEO of a major oil company I would make a large conribution to the “protection” of my interests.