This is the second diary having to do with the writings of Ayn Rand and the positions taken by the Tea Party. One of the Tea Party's congressional leaders, Paul Ryan, is on record as favoring Rand's philosophy of Objectivism.
I think Objectivism has some redeeming value. I don't believe it could be fully implemented because of the contradictions it embraces. Still, I agree with much that Rand says about individual rights (see "RE: Rights, why the tea party will fail America" 9/5/14, 12:31 p.m.). I also like much of what she wrote about the duties and functions of government. I'm saving her views on the economy for the next diary.
Rand was anti-totalitarian. This may help to explain her emphasizing individual rights and her favoring of laissez faire economics. This diary will explore Rand's view of the function of government and taxation. All quotes below are from the Ayn Rand Lexicon.
I like some of what Ayn Rand writes about government. For example,
The source of the government’s authority is “the consent of the governed.” This means that the government is not the ruler, but the servant or agent of the citizens; it means that the government as such has no rights except the rights delegated to it by the citizens for a specific purpose.
and
.... a government holds a legal monopoly on the use of physical force. No individual or private group or private organization has the legal power to initiate the use of physical force against other individuals or groups and to compel them to act against their own voluntary choice. Only a government holds that power.
Rand believes that government should protect all individual rights of its citizens.
The political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities (and the smallest minority on earth is the individual).
Of rights protection and the use of force, she writes
The only function of the government, ..... is the task of protecting man’s rights, i.e., the task of protecting him from physical force; the government acts as the agent of man’s right of self-defense, and may use force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use; thus the government is the means of placing the retaliatory use of force under objective control.
Rand believed that government is a necessary institution in society.
If physical force is to be barred from social relationships, men need an institution charged with the task of protecting their rights under an objective code of rules. This is the task of a government—of a proper government—its basic task, its only moral justification and the reason why men do need a government.
Lest one think that Rand is advocating total control of society by government, she also wrote:
....a government holds a monopoly on the legal use of physical force. It has to hold such a monopoly, since it is the agent of restraining and combating the use of force; and for that very same reason, its actions have to be rigidly defined, delimited and circumscribed; no touch of whim or caprice should be permitted in its performance; it should be an impersonal robot, with the laws as its only motive power. If a society is to be free, its government has to be controlled.
I think all members of law enforcement departments and agencies in the United States should memorize that quote.
I like how Rand distinguishes between private citizens and government officials.
A private individual may do anything except that which is legally forbidden; a government official may do nothing except that which is legally permitted.
I think what Rand is saying is that individuals in a society contract with the government to allow their actions to be governed by laws in return for the government establishing domestic tranquility, protecting individual rights, and providing for the Common Good. The citizens give the government the power to enforce the laws and statutes that accomplish this purpose. This sounds reasonable to me. Personally, I might be happier living by myself in a jungle making and living by my own laws. But as long as I am living in society, it seems reasonable to follow the fair rules, written and unwritten, set by that society.
The Tea Party thinks the Federal Government is too big. I think Ayn Rand might agree with me that it is unacceptable to downsize government to the point where it is incapable of protecting the rights of each and every individual citizen. Each of us, myself included, tend to look at issues, problems, etc. from our own subjective viewpoint. That can result in an attitude of indifference towards the issue of rights as long as my rights are not being violated. I agree with Rand, that looking at things from an objective viewpoint would yield better results for society. Objectively speaking,no citizen's rights are any more important, more relevant, more deserving than any other citizen's rights.
Although I agree with her emphasis on human rights, I suspect she would not agree with what I think each person should, or does, have a right to. I say that because I have heard the Tea Party would like to do away with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). I remember JFK talking about the right of each of us to breathe clean air and drink pure water. That is part of the EPA's mission - to protect the quality of the air we breathe and the water we drink. It would seem the Tea Party does not care about those rights. Maybe they think people don't deserve clean air and pure drinking water unless they have earned it. In that case, those rights would be unattainable for those of us who are financially challenged. It seems contradictory for a political party that claims they believe in the principles on which this country was founded, one of which is that "all men are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights", to deny those rights to the less financially fortunate. I, however, will continue to assert that those who unnecessarily pollute the air and water (i.e., emit harmful chemicals that are technically controllable) whether out of ignorance, indifference or for financial profit, are violating the rights of other people. And the government should protect those rights. It is wrong to take away the funding necessary for that protection.
I believe a purpose of government should be to provide for the Common Good. Rand would agree with me, at least, in part. She writes:
Since the proper services of a government—the police, the armed forces, the law courts—are demonstrably needed by individual citizens and affect their interests directly, the citizens would (and should) be willing to pay for such services, as they pay for insurance.
The same can be said of the other services that promote and maintain the Common Good. I define the Common Good as that which citizens need to freely live as healthfully as possible but which the majority of individuals could not personally afford. Most of us could not afford to erect street lights in our neighborhood, traffic lights and roads and bridges to allow us to get to work or to the grocery store. We could not afford to hire teachers for each of our children. We could not afford our own fully-functioning library. We could not afford to build and maintain our own water supply and sewage systems. Not everyone can afford their own private quality playground and park.
The question that naturally arises is, how is the Common Good to be financed? .
I don't believe the Common Good should be something owned and controlled by private enterprise for the sake of creating profit. I believe the cost of the Common Good should be shared. Those who earn the most should contribute the most to its upkeep.
While admitting a voluntary income tax system would be impractical until the economy was totally laissez-faire, Ayn Rand believed that a voluntary tax system would be ideal as opposed to a compulsory system. She also believed there should be no barriers to trade between nations-no tariffs, export/import taxes, etc. This separation of the economy and government is consistent with the philosophical thinking of politicians who are so opposed to raising any tax rates and those who support free trade agreements like NAFTA, even though such agreements have had such negative consequences for American workers and for the Common Good. I, personally believe that the government should not be in the business of supporting private enterprise by arranging trade deals with other countries, subsidizing private businesses, giving businesses tax excemptions, nor giving businesses entitlements. I imagine that there might possibly be some circumstances that would justify a close collaboration between government and private interests for the sake of preserving the Common Good. But giving financial advantages to businesses that already make billions in profits annually? No justification.
Ayn Rand probably had more faith in the goodness of human beings than I. I cannot believe that in a laissez-faire economy people would voluntarily give to the government the money necessary for the government to fulfill its duties to all of its citizens. Why would laissez-faire cancel human greed? It makes no sense. Since a voluntary income tax system, in my opinion, is completely impractical, a compulsory system is necessary. Questions then arise. What can the government fairly collect from each citizen? Should the government collect taxes from businesses? If so, how much?
The right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is intrinsic to being human. It is also asserted in the Declaration of Independence. A healthful lifestyle is conducive to the actualization of these rights. Satisfying income tax obligations should not cause any taxpayer to be unable to afford a healthful lifestyle. That would include the self-employed.
In order for most of us to stay as healthy as possible we need to consume a good balanced quality diet (minimally processed, preferably organic), to exercise regularly, to have access to hot running water, to live in a warm safe healthful living space, to receive quality health and dental care. For some of us there are specific needs such as allergen-free food and living space, special diets, prescribed medications, food supplements, help to overcome health-threatening habits, etc. All of us will probably be healthier if not exposed to excessive toxins and/or pathogens.
We have created a socio-economic system in the United States in which every citizen does not, in reality, experience the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Not everyone, including the working poor, make enough money to live a healthful lifestyle. In considering how much tax a person should pay, the cost of living a healthful lifestyle should be taken into account. That cost will vary from place to place since the cost of living is not the same in all parts of this country. That cost for each individual would be the amount of their personal minimum healthful living wage.
Anyone who earns more than a minimum healthful living wage should pay taxes on the excess. This may, unfortunately, lead to the perpetuation of itemized personal income tax deductions or exemptions.
The government always needs x amount of money to fulfill the necessary functions of protecting every one's individual rights and to maintain a quality Common Good for all citizens. Some of that comes from businesses, some from individual citizens. But xamount should be collected by the government on a regular basis in order to prevent the government from having to borrow money at interest. A national debt is not profitable for private citizens unless they own the banks from which the government is borrowing. Nor is unnecessary, i.e., wasteful, government spending profitable to the general citizenry except for those who are the recipients of the unnecessary spending, including the bankers who will collect more interest on the debt increased by the unnecessary spending.
I suggest that millionaires and billionaires should continue to bear the lion's share of the necessary tax amount, as they do now (http://pgpf.org/...). They would not have all that money except for the work performed and purchases made by countless millions of people. I believe the individual personal tax rates for those earning one million dollars should be 50% and the tax rates should be gradually increased according to increased income to 90% for the highest earning billionaires. This rate of taxation would ideally be continued until the national debt is paid off. It could be adjusted thereafter according to the cost of the necessary functions of government.
Ayn Rand and her Tea Party followers don't believe raising taxes of the rich and powerful would solve anything. Why? The following quote may shed some light:
In view of what they hear from the experts, the people cannot be blamed for their ignorance and their helpless confusion. If an average housewife struggles with her incomprehensibly shrinking budget and sees a tycoon in a resplendent limousine, she might well think that just one of his diamond cuff links would solve all her problems. She has no way of knowing that if all the personal luxuries of all the tycoons were expropriated, it would not feed her family—and millions of other, similar families—for one week; and that the entire country would starve on the first morning of the week to follow . . .
I think Rand should have stuck to philosophy. I'm not an economist, but I know the difference between net worth and income. "Personal luxuries" are part of a person's net worth. If a tycoon making a million dollars annually were to have all his personal luxuries taken away, he would still be thousands of times better off economically than the struggling housewife; it's not his luxuries that allow him to make a million dollars every year. Rand may be correct that the value of all the tycoons' luxury items would be insufficient to feed millions of families for a single week. But what would cause "the entire country to starve on the first morning of the week to follow"? Would the luxury items be toxic to the lower classes? Would the items cause them to be unable to digest food? Would they ruin the earning ability or welfare collection ability of millions of families within that week so that they could not afford as much food as they did before the luxury item expropriation? This makes no sense. And why would the tycoon who would still be earning in excess of $19,200 per week starve? Ms. Rand's reasoning is faulty on this issue.
I think Rand's belief is that if society demands too much from its millionaires and billionaires in terms of taxes, businesses will fail, the tycoons will go broke and not be able to pay taxes, and there will be no jobs to be had. So no one would pay taxes. Since the government would be unable to collect taxes nor to borrow money, the government would not be able to feed the hungry poor. That's a doomsday scenario.
But how realistic is it? If the total annual reported income of U.S. earners for 2012 was divided evenly among all earners, each of 155.5 million American workers would benefit from and pay taxes on $86,179. If all the reported private income in the nation in 2012 were divided evenly among America's 316 million citizens, each person would receive $42,410. If each of the families of the almost 47 million Americans living below the Federal poverty level in 2012 were to add even half of that to their annual income, it would mean a vast improvement in their ability to stay as healthy as possible. The point is that Americans earn more than enough to pay at least a minimum healthful living wage to everyone who is willing and able to work. Can that be done without raising taxes on the Upper 1%? NO. According to an article posted at www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html, in 2010 35.4% of all private wealth in the country was owned by the upper 1%. That is net worth, not personal income. Higher personal income tax rates for the upper 1% will not impoverish them.
What is better?
1) Raising taxes on the wealthy in order to achieve full employment* while protecting the human rights of all Americans and preserving a quality Common Good? or
2) The Tea Party solution. Downsize the government; decrease taxes for wealthy individuals and corporations; do away with government regulations. The end results of which will be the haves getting more and the have-nots having less; the loss of more environmental quality; a decrease in worker safety and the safety/quality of consumer goods and services; and a continuing decline in the quality of the Common Good, at least for those who are more economically disadvantaged.
In Ayn Rand's view, the separation of business and government would probably preclude the taxing of businesses. Because of the way in which businesses operate, the government must regulate them in order to protect individual rights of workers as well as of consumers. Why should the economic burden of paying for the enforcement of those regulations fall entirely on individual citizens? Also, most businesses rely on the infrastructure and other aspects of the Common Good, such as police protection. Why should businesses not share the expense of these benefits? One could look at the taxing of businesses in terms of contracts. Business pays something to the government and in return receives certain services, such as access to water and sanitation services, police protection, access to courts, etc. I suggest that the income tax rates for businesses should be maintained with all tax exceptions completely eliminated.
The present condition of our country is unacceptable. On that point, I would agree with the Tea Party. I would agree that the federal government, as well as other branches of government, mismanage government funds through numerous unnecessary expenditures. I believe in the elimination of those unnecessary expenditures which would save multi-billions yearly. I do not, however, believe in downsizing government so that the rich will have to pay less in taxes.
I wish I could be comfortable with the fact that the very rich minority (number-wise) are legally hoarding more and more wealth for themselves, rather than using that increasing wealth to create good jobs for the unemployed, jobs that would not violate rights nor threaten the Common Good, and pay at least a minimum healthful living wage.
Everyone should have the right to do with the money they legally earn whatever they desire as long as it respects the rights of others, is legal, etc. I would never advocate trying to make greed illegal. I don't believe in trying to legislate morality. However, there is something intrinsically unfair about a system in which some people are able, without limits, to accumulate thousands of times more wealth than they need, while others are forced to live in extreme poverty. If you have any doubt that this is the present state of America, you are welcome to check out my research-based blog on Plutocracy.
*The possibility of "full employment " will be discussed in the next diary on Capitalism.