Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Are there contradictions in an Objectivist Government?

Rate this topic


Xaviered

Recommended Posts

Okay, from the first few minutes, I gather the guys arguments is as follows. First, he agrees with the following summary of Objectivism, and there's no problem with it:

The Objectivist viewpoint is that human beings have rights to life, liberty and property, and government is supposed to protect these rights. The initiation of force is immoral. Government has monopoly on retaliatory force.
Then, he say this:
Since the government has to ensure its monopoly on retaliatory force. It must use force to exclude competitors. Therefore it is immoral
Is that an accurate summary, Xavier?

I'm not sure specifically what right the government is supposed to be violating by keeping a monopoly on force. Does the guy explain it later in the video? Alternatively, do you have some thoughts that could make this more concrete? I don't mean something vague like "the right to form a government", but something more specific: what types of actions are we talking about here? Are we talking about some right to enter one's neighbors house, "arrest" him, bring him to a room where some friends hold a court and convict him, and then throw him into one's basement dungeon? Maybe that's a misrepresentation; but, then, what types of rightful actions are being prevented by the government?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, from the first few minutes, I gather the guys arguments is as follows. First, he agrees with the following summary of Objectivism, and there's no problem with it:Then, he say this:Is that an accurate summary, Xavier?

I'm not sure specifically what right the government is supposed to be violating by keeping a monopoly on force. Does the guy explain it later in the video? Alternatively, do you have some thoughts that could make this more concrete? I don't mean something vague like "the right to form a government", but something more specific: what types of actions are we talking about here? Are we talking about some right to enter one's neighbors house, "arrest" him, bring him to a room where some friends hold a court and convict him, and then throw him into one's basement dungeon? Maybe that's a misrepresentation; but, then, what types of rightful actions are being prevented by the government?

Thank you for responding. He has some links on his description section. I have not read them comprehensively yet, but one of the links state that instead of a government, which in order to assert it's monopoly on the use of force, would be using force to prevent other agencies from performing the same function. This is what, he argues, the government must do to maintain a monopoly on the use of force, which he claims, would be contradicting the Objectivist principle of not initiating force.

Instead, he advocates a certain political groundwork which allows for different agencies to function the way a government would. I am not too versed in the specifics, but he managed to make it sound plausible, so I wanted more perspectives on this.

Thank you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Suppose a group of people get together and say ''Hey, I want to start a company which handles matters of the law, dealing with the dispensing of justice. It seems to have good potential.'' In order words, these people wish to start a competing system of law. To maintain a monopoly, the government would need to initiate force to maintain it's monopoly, which is why he claims it is a contradiction, since force would be initiated on part of the government.

Check this out : http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Libertarian/...Chapter_29.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think he confuses force with the initiation of force. People can agree in a contract to settle any legal issues in the court of that company. Or I can make a contract that says that I can beat you with a stick if you don't pay - no initiation of force.

Only within a framework of a contract can one party use force against the other, so a private police force would not be 'forced' out of their business by the government.

If the burglar and the victim did a contract prior to the crime then the private police force could become active, if two strangers meet the only institution that can settle this dispute is the government.

Edited by Clawg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Suppose a group of people get together and say ''Hey, I want to start a company which handles matters of the law, dealing with the dispensing of justice. It seems to have good potential.''
Do you mean a group that will go enforce their justice against some stranger, imprison him, etc.?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you mean a group that will go enforce their justice against some stranger, imprison him, etc.?

Yes, it is explained in the link in my previous post better than I can possibly explain it myself.

Substitute ''government'' for ''agency'' each with their own variations for justice. Every individual should belong under the jurisdiction of one agency or another, something like different governments in different countries, except more than one agency can coexist within a certain geographical location. An example of a variation in the law would be, lets say, the death penalty. I believe it is explained in the link how if two individuals belong to different agencies, they will require their respective agencies to reach an agreement which will benefit both sides.

I would like to stress that this is not my argument, I am merely trying to find out if theirs have merits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And these agencies, all the agents within them would have these awesome helmets and visors... and... and...the helmets would glow. And they'd have jetpacks and lasers pistols, which shoot out of their eyes. And they'd all be well-versed in English literature, and make pithy quotes or hilarious puns when catching those big bad guys.

You know, we can all make ridiculous suggestions for how to govern a country, but one does need to ground it in some sort of fundamentals first. Such as an Objectivst-approved, which would only have the monopoly on force, because it is agreed by the citizenship, that if they wish to live in this country, they would like to put that power in the hands of a group of officials (with a series of checks and balances), so as to protect their rights.

What this guy is describing sounds more prone to mob-warfare. "Hey, yeah, I know my boy might have been in your neighbourhood. Sure, he stole a few purses, but, y'know, he's my boy here, and I don't really think our... agencey... would be too happy if you came around here asking for comensation. Y'know? Why don't you just try it, punk".

It would make great TV, but rubbish government.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And these agencies, all the agents within them would have these awesome helmets and visors... and... and...the helmets would glow. And they'd have jetpacks and lasers pistols, which shoot out of their eyes. And they'd all be well-versed in English literature, and make pithy quotes or hilarious puns when catching those big bad guys.

You know, we can all make ridiculous suggestions for how to govern a country, but one does need to ground it in some sort of fundamentals first. Such as an Objectivst-approved, which would only have the monopoly on force, because it is agreed by the citizenship, that if they wish to live in this country, they would like to put that power in the hands of a group of officials (with a series of checks and balances), so as to protect their rights.

What this guy is describing sounds more prone to mob-warfare. "Hey, yeah, I know my boy might have been in your neighbourhood. Sure, he stole a few purses, but, y'know, he's my boy here, and I don't really think our... agencey... would be too happy if you came around here asking for comensation. Y'know? Why don't you just try it, punk".

It would make great TV, but rubbish government.

Haha, thank you, Tenure. I must admit, I never saw it that way. Put into that perspective, it does seem rather ridiculous, and very mafia-ish.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see the contradiction. I see it like this...

You have a country, lets call it Guuguu and it has a Democratic Republic. The people elect leaders to make laws and enforce them, they have a monoply on retalitory force against those who intiate force. It's a legitamite government, it's only there to protect the rights of the people who live within it's borders.

Now, in Guuguu is divided into have three States/Provinces who elect representatives to go to the capital and make the laws, State A, State B, and State C. Each has a capital that handles the court issues for it's own State/Provincial area, it makes the laws that are needed for more specific purposes to that protect people in that giving area.

Now, lately there has been a religious revival in State C called Uguutism. Uguutism holds that the culture is becoming corrupt and because of this, there have been numerous natural diasters in the past month. The Great Uguu in the Shining Sky is very displeased with It's people, the Uguutists claim. No big deal, there rallies and sermons are not violating anyones rights, they have a right to free speech and they are excersing it to the fullest. However, as time goes on and Uguutism becomes more and more popular, it's congregation becomes more and more radical. They claim since Uguu smites them if It is not satisified, more people lose their lives then they should and that the only solution to this mess is to force people to follow Uguutist Law.

So they purchase arms and train soilders and one day, storm the halls of the the capital of State C and hold the elected officials ransom until they agree to hand over the government to the Uguutists. And they do, so now the Uguutists rule the people of State C and they give themselves unlimited power to do whatever they want so long as it serves The Great Uguu in the Shining Sky.

Going back to XOmniverse's arguement, this means that the Uguutists are a competing agency with competing laws. If the Guuguu National Army moves against the Uguutists it would, the arguement claims, be intiating the force against them.

But is it really? The people of State C didn't agree to the rule of the Uguutists, they were forced into it. Everything was fine and peacful until the revolution. This is where we kickback to the principle. Rights are inalieable, they cannot be taken away, only forfeited when a person violates another persons rights. So, although some people may want to live under Uguutist rule, that doesn't mean everyone in State C does, so by using the government to force their ways upon the population they have violated those peoples rights. The Guuguu National Army has every moral authority to crush the Uguutists because the GNA is protecting the rights of the people and using retalitory force.

They aren't using force to force out competition and gain customers. Your rights should be guaranteed, they aren't something the government can pick and choose to give to everyone because they may or may not have signed on to it.

Now, XOmniverse claimed that wars are costly and the competing governments would rather settle thier disputes non-violently. That's a sound and rational way to look at things. But, look at this -- for starters, religious fanatics like the Uguutists don't care about money and costs because they answer to a Higher Authority. If you have a problem with the way they run things, your probably a heathen, and in their eyes that means better off dead. How, are your rights going to be protected if the people protecting them are irrational mystics? How are you going to deal with such irrational people? If the Uguutists claim that men have a right to rape women, and someone from State C rapes someone from State A, how are they going to settle this dispute? State A says rape is illegal and a violation of woman's right to her body and life; State C, under the Uguutist Regime says that it's a violation of the man's right to deny him the sex he wants and the woman should submit. So, what if the Police of State A come and arrest the guy? Do you think State C is going to take kindly to that? The way they see it, there man is in the right here. They have to protect their own because he was following Uguu's Laws, not that ungrateful woman. But, we have a problem on our hands because the womans rights were still violated and if we let the violator go, it's a great injustice to the woman.

Even if we have the guy pay money or something to the woman, would that still act as a determent for the crime? What if people from State C constantly did this and constantly intiated force against the citizens of State A? Then the very existence of Uguutist Regime would be a threat to citizens of the other two States because they would be under constant threat of the iniation of the use of force and thus unable to live in freed So by destroying the Uguutist Regime, the competeting agency, it wouldn't be a initation of force, but rather a retalitory use of force.

This is kind of what Clawg said about confusing the two concepts. Force is used to contain the monopoly, but the monopoly doesn't intiate force because in order to "break" the monopoly, force would have to be intiated against it. The monopoly also ensures that rights will be protected no matter where you live and who you are.

There are 2 other scenarios I can think of, but I wanted to submit this and let everyone check it to see if we are on the same page, if you understand what I'm conveying and if there is any flaws in my reasoning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now, XOmniverse claimed that wars are costly and the competing governments would rather settle thier disputes non-violently.
Did he say that! I only heard the first 3 minutes. That is a good example of rationalism, if he did. I can almost see a cartoon of an economics professor, saying "Since wars are irrational, let's assume people will not engage in them", as a bomb falls on him from the sky.

If I were to play anarchist devil's advocate to your example, I'd say::) +-->

QUOTE (Devil's Advocate :devil: )
Do not assume that Uguutists will become corrupt. After all, if there was a single government, and that went corrupt, would it not be worse?
The kernel of truth in the anarchist position is this: the monopoly aspect of government does come with the effectiveness and efficiency problems that plague monopolies. As it is, government comes with the effectiveness and efficiency problems that plague non-profit organizations. This is a practical question, and it is important to figure out how to structure governments (at all levels) to minimize this problem. However, allowing people to choose and switch between alternative governments is obviously going to create a gang-like scenario, as Tenure illustrated (with accent and all).

I agree with the sense of this:

The monopoly also ensures that rights will be protected no matter where you live and who you are.
The anarchist objects to the monopoly of force as being a violation of rights. In doing so, he put the cart before the horse. There is no right to form and choose government in the sense that the anarchist implies. If some rule or structure is found to be required -- in practice -- to protect rights, then that cannot be claimed to violate rights.

Anarchists make the same claim when it comes to things like forced testimony.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not a contradiction to have a single entity, the government, control military forces. Government contracts, who they pay to make weapons, is not a monopoly. Just the group making use of that force.

In addition if the power belongs to the voters, people can always change who commands those forces.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see the fundamental problem with anarchism, or anarcho-capitalism, is that it's not even an idea. There is no there-there to get you head around. It's the absence of any system, but what does that mean? How is that enforced? The vacuum will be filled up with something. You're supposed to imagine that somehow magically a free market will pop up with competing agencies. The idea is incomplete.

It's like a software engineer who presents the specs for a piece of software to solve a problem, but when you look at it his work, you find he hasn't finished the job. If he says "That's it. That's my work. It's done." You can then say, "It's not a solution to the problem." and move on.

The guy in the video criticizes Ayn Rand for her claim that anarcho-capitalism won't work, claiming she's being "utilitarian", but if you're an Objectivist, you have to understand that if you're pushing something that doesn't work, then you aren't being reality oriented. Ayn Rand is being reality oriented, reality comes first, and she expects principles to be in harmony with reality, otherwise they are worthless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see the fundamental problem with anarchism, or anarcho-capitalism, is that it's not even an idea. There is no there-there to get you head around. It's the absence of any system, but what does that mean? How is that enforced? The vacuum will be filled up with something. You're supposed to imagine that somehow magically a free market will pop up with competing agencies. The idea is incomplete.

The idea is that the people living in that "system" would have to 'enforce' anarchism, i.e. punish (e.g. economically boycott) those who try to establish any kind of government.

While that penalization could be enforced individually, people will sooner or later form a group where they decide and channel their resources. Et voila, a government.

Edited by Clawg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The idea is that the people living in that "system" would have to 'enforce' anarchism, i.e. punish (e.g. economically boycott) those who try to establish any kind of government.

The best argument I've seen is that people will all be on the same page and agree with anarcho-capitalism, and the state will melt away.

While that penalization could be enforced individually, people will sooner or later form a group where they decide and channel their resources. Et voila, a government.

Sure, but I wonder how you'd even get to the first step. It's all so much wishful thinking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I were to play anarchist devil's advocate to your example, I'd say::) +--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Devil's Advocate :devil: )</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Do not assume that Uguutists will become corrupt. After all, if there was a single government, and that went corrupt, would it not be worse?The kernel of truth in the anarchist position is this: the monopoly aspect of government does come with the effectiveness and efficiency problems that plague monopolies. As it is, government comes with the effectiveness and efficiency problems that plague non-profit organizations. This is a practical question, and it is important to figure out how to structure governments (at all levels) to minimize this problem. However, allowing people to choose and switch between alternative governments is obviously going to create a gang-like scenario, as Tenure illustrated (with accent and all).

I believe Benito Mussollini understood that problem and created corporativism. The legal monopoly of the government is lurked with the industrious cpacities of for profit sorta competing guilds and corporations. America refined this system and it is what we have today.

It's not a contradiction to have a single entity, the government, control military forces. Government contracts, who they pay to make weapons, is not a monopoly. Just the group making use of that force.

In addition if the power belongs to the voters, people can always change who commands those forces.

single? in what way? Are you advocating a world government if this was more republican (or Objectivist aproved...) than the current nation states? Or in change, would regions with more rational institutions should have the right to secede from their federal governments (say New Hampshire from Wasington, or England from Brussels)?

I'm not saying you're advocating either, it was my way of asking all of you: when we speak so theoretically how does it translate to theory-practice consistency when for example giving an advice or a prescription to China or to Alaska.

Remember that the freest societies were inmigrant societies, like XIXc USA or XXc Hong Kong. Is it only upon blank pages that capitalism can prosper? In the states it ended along with the frontier.

But as I've said before, doesn't cyberspace constitute an endless, indianless, frontier?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The best argument I've seen is that people will all be on the same page and agree with anarcho-capitalism, and the state will melt away.

Sure, but I wonder how you'd even get to the first step. It's all so much wishful thinking.

Well if not by migration and pioneering, it is by "Revolution". The least disgusting scenario I've imagined came from Civilization IV: in the game when you learn too many technologies, if you didn't change it before there's always a point in which the citizens "demand Emancipation" as a labor civic or else they revolt.

This is very realistic considering that the tax system is a form of distributed, thinned, servitude. Many are rotting in jail for desobeying economic laws (drugs) or resisting theft (taxes). These are the most visible, obvious, grotesque indicators of tyranny. Well, who might be being the unnoticed Rosa Parks' of the day?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The best argument I've seen is that people will all be on the same page and agree with anarcho-capitalism, and the state will melt away.

Dont Marxists hold a similar view? That once everyone is of a like mind and like status, the state will magically melt away? I wonder which is less likely--that an all powerful state would ever 'melt away' or that you could get everyone to agree on a single form of government.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dont Marxists hold a similar view? That once everyone is of a like mind and like status, the state will magically melt away? I wonder which is less likely--that an all powerful state would ever 'melt away' or that you could get everyone to agree on a single form of government.

Exactly, that's why I said the "least disgusting scenario" of that would be the American stlyed Civil Rights Movement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah, this old saw. I've seen it before, here. There's actually a libertarian source for this claim, which keeps popping up.

My answer to it is there as well - in my very first reply, and the anarchist was not able to counter it. He basically conceded my point that a government monopoly on rights-enforcement was not necessarily coercive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A thought just occurred to me, on the cusp of 'how governments are formed'.

The American government (and I'm talking about 1776 onwards) was formed after a revolution, which declared the new state of affairs at hand. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but they didn't actually have the power to enforce their will over the entirety of North America. What constituted the somewhat-United States was still rather small and would have been difficult to hold force over.

So what made the new form of government, eventually, so popular? What allowed for it to be accepted, benevolently, as the rule of the land? As far as I can discern, it's a very capitalist notion: the American government was the most rational, that is, the most conducive to the flourishing of the citizens under it. There was no significant counter revolution, except for the Civil War, which was in itself a result (though I understand historians typically disagree over this issue) of an irrationality left over, that of slavery. In short, the Constitutional government spread because it was the best.

Just a thought, in contradiction to the anarchists' idea that government is neccessarily 'forced' on the people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A thought just occurred to me, on the cusp of 'how governments are formed'.

The American government (and I'm talking about 1776 onwards) was formed after a revolution, which declared the new state of affairs at hand. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but they didn't actually have the power to enforce their will over the entirety of North America. What constituted the somewhat-United States was still rather small and would have been difficult to hold force over.

So what made the new form of government, eventually, so popular? What allowed for it to be accepted, benevolently, as the rule of the land? As far as I can discern, it's a very capitalist notion: the American government was the most rational, that is, the most conducive to the flourishing of the citizens under it. There was no significant counter revolution, except for the Civil War, which was in itself a result (though I understand historians typically disagree over this issue) of an irrationality left over, that of slavery. In short, the Constitutional government spread because it was the best.

Just a thought, in contradiction to the anarchists' idea that government is neccessarily 'forced' on the people.

Interest to note there was one "Whisky Rebellion" after Alexander Hamilton imposed a tax on liquor not so much to repay the costs of the war but "more as a measure of social discipline than as a source of revenue." But most importantly, Hamilton "wanted the tax imposed to advance and secure the power of the new federal government." (wikifacts).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...