coirecfox Posted September 13, 2004 Report Share Posted September 13, 2004 What do Objectivists think about the legalization of "consentual crimes?" Ex. prostitution, drug use, sodomy, polygamy...etc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Concerto of Atlantis Posted September 13, 2004 Report Share Posted September 13, 2004 It is not right for a government to restrict consenting adults engaging with other consenting adults, in any manner that they choose. This means that drugs, prostitution, polygomy, etc should all be legal. Whether or not those things are MORAL is a completely different matter altogether. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coirecfox Posted September 13, 2004 Author Report Share Posted September 13, 2004 So, are you saying that a proper government has no right to dictate the morality of its citizens or anyone else for that matter? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Concerto of Atlantis Posted September 13, 2004 Report Share Posted September 13, 2004 The government has no right to dictate anything at all. Its sole purpose is the protection of individual rights. Working out what is moral is the responsiblity of each individual citizen of a country. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
knuckles Posted September 13, 2004 Report Share Posted September 13, 2004 So, are you saying that a proper government has no right to dictate the morality of its citizens or anyone else for that matter? It is even broader than this. A proper government has not right to dictate that people act rationally, as long as they are within their rights acting irrationally. For example, a proper government does not force a person to rent an apartment to a person from another race even if it is abundantly clear that they are being irrational Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
argive99 Posted September 13, 2004 Report Share Posted September 13, 2004 It is even broader than this. A proper government has not right to dictate that people act rationally, as long as they are within their rights acting irrationally. For example, a proper government does not force a person to rent an apartment to a person from another race even if it is abundantly clear that they are being irrational I agree. It has been referred to as 'the right to be wrong' or 'the right to be irrational' given the understanding that neither entails infringing on another person's rights which means initiating force or fraud against them or any of the derivatives. But this is a very 'radical' view of rights and one which is completely at odds with the prevailing view which isn't simply concerned with preventing people form initiating force against others but wants to protect them against hunger, impoverishment, fast food, second hand smoke, etc.. The government as 'night watchman' has been replaced with the government as 'maternalistic nanny' and genuine freedom is eroding with each headline. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coirecfox Posted September 13, 2004 Author Report Share Posted September 13, 2004 So why do Objectivists despise the Libertarian Party? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. Hall Posted September 13, 2004 Report Share Posted September 13, 2004 So why do Objectivists despise the Libertarian Party? They advocate laissez faire capitalism with no consistent (or non-contradictory) philosophical foundation. Many of them, like conservatives, think that the justification for capitalism lies inside the bible. Others follow Karl Popper's school of concept stealing, which undercuts knowledge and thus epistemology. Some even follow Immanuel Kant, who does pretty much the same thing. All of these sources are irrational in some way and even though libertarians claim to support capitalism, they have no way of justifying it or backing it up and they will eventually slide into anarchism, pragmatism and even Marxism as a result, as you see them doing today. The most prominent example of this to date is their pitiful pacifist stance with respect to the war on terror. "A plane is hijacked and flown into a building ? That's all our fault. We deserved it for being rich." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coirecfox Posted September 13, 2004 Author Report Share Posted September 13, 2004 What I'm asking though is how one would advocate laissez-faire capitalism with a philosophical foundation WITHOUT having to go through morality first, as we have discussed that the government has no right to dictate morality. All of Rand's claims concerning the function of government are based in Objectivist ethics, most centrally individual rights. So where is the line drawn between ethics and politics? How can you say that we should have a MORAL government if the government has no right to dictate morality? The way I see the Libertarians is that they just take basic Objectivist politics and say "This is the way its going to be," and as long as people agree to it the Libertarians dont care what else people do or believe. I dont care how others justify the claim to individual rights as long as they accept it. Is that wrong? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inspector Posted September 13, 2004 Report Share Posted September 13, 2004 So where is the line drawn between ethics and politics? That's pretty simple: the line is drawn at the initiation of force. The reason we despise libertarians is because we know, both from philosophic proof and from experience, that they will not hold to their principles and they WILL betray, undermine, and destroy capialism. If somehow, magically, they could be trusted to uphold capitalism, then we would be fine. But there is no magic: A is A. Knowledge is heirarchical, as are values. If they do not hold the values required for Capitalism, then sooner or later they WILL betray it. (That's the short answer) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coirecfox Posted September 13, 2004 Author Report Share Posted September 13, 2004 "The reason we despise libertarians is because we know, both from philosophic proof and from experience, that they will not hold to their principles and they WILL betray, undermine, and destroy capialism." Since I am only 18, I have never seen this happen before. btw, how do you quote? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlotte Corday Posted September 14, 2004 Report Share Posted September 14, 2004 The reason we despise libertarians is because we know, both from philosophic proof and from experience, that they will not hold to their principles and they WILL betray, undermine, and destroy capialism. I guess that's why Peikoff is voting for the Democrats' nominee for President -- an alternative to supporting a party that will "betray, undermine, and destroy capitalism." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fred Weiss Posted September 14, 2004 Report Share Posted September 14, 2004 "The reason we despise libertarians is because we know, both from philosophic proof and from experience, that they will not hold to their principles and they WILL betray, undermine, and destroy capialism." Since I am only 18, I have never seen this happen before. Then, you might find this interesting and relevant: http://www.freecolorado.com/2004/07/principlesmatter.html Fred Weiss Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.