Two basic questions about Objectivism

[Proud_to_be_SELFISH!]

Excuse my ignorance for not having been completely read on the topic of government. I've read The Virtue of Selfishness essays, heard Dr. Peikoff's introductory lecture, but still working on Atlas Shrugged so I don't know how $ Valley (is it?) is set up. I'm not to that part yet.

Anyways, I understand the role of the government would be to protect citizens from force: physical explicitly and fraud implicitly. However, if you did have an entirely Objectivist universe and everyone understood it was not in their best interest to use force, would government still be necessary? If so, why?

A few more:

Art is supposed to depict what ought to be in the sense of reality. What role does comedy play? What sort of comedy is considered "good art"?

People usually shriek at the thought of laissez-faire capitalism for various reasons but one overwhelming reason is "the poor helpless". People will tell you, "some people just can't be productive". If you press them, they usually give you examples of people stuck in wheel chairs or bedridden. Has an Objectivist ever argued against these claims with Stephen Hawking as evidence? Many people are potentially more capable than him and use their weakness as an excuse to be unproductive.

[TetrisGod]

A major reason for still having a gov't in society is because there can still be honest disputes between two completely rational people. People are not infallible and can make mistakes, honest though they may be, that would have to be taken care of by the government.

[jfortun]

A couple thoughts:

1) Given your scenario, government would still be necessary to arbitrate between honest parties in a dispute.

2) More importantly, Objectivism is not some utopian world view that requires all humans to act in accordance with it's principles for the principles to be of value. The purpose of rights and government is to protect the rights of the individual, full stop. The concern is not in "conversion" (though that would be nice), but in setting up the proper environment for heroic man to flourish. If a man fully accepts and practices Objectivism then happiness and success is within his grasp, if he does not, well, just take a look around you.

3) A system of ethics and politics should not be built upon abberations from normal human capabilites. Using Stephen Hawking as an example is beside the point- the point is: what ethics are proper for man living qua man, not man living qua parapalegic.

[Proud_to_be_SELFISH!]

1) Given your scenario, government would still be necessary to arbitrate between honest parties in a dispute.

In this case, you are referring to a judicial system as the only necessity, correct?

2) More importantly, Objectivism is not some utopian world view

Understood, it was a hypothetical inquiry.

3) A system of ethics and politics should not be built upon abberations from normal human capabilites.

Well put, thanks.

[jfortun]

In this case, you are referring to a judicial system as the only necessity, correct?

Not correct.

Let's assume the absurd situation that all men are Objectivist is true. A government exists to protect not just against current violations of individual rights, but possible future violations of rights. To safely abolish the the executive and legislative branches of government , one would also have to throw omniscience onto the absudity pile. The whole discussion of what kind of government would be required if we all believed the same thing and we all omniscient is a bit of a waste of time.

If I can ask a meta-question: what is the goal of this line of inquiry?

[Proud_to_be_SELFISH!]

Not correct.

Let's assume the absurd situation that all men are Objectivist is true.  A government exists to protect not just against current violations of individual rights, but possible future violations of rights.  To safely abolish the the executive and legislative branches of government , one would also have to throw omniscience onto the absudity pile.  The whole discussion of what kind of government would be required if we all believed the same thing and we all omniscient is a bit of a waste of time.

Can you give me an example of a future violation of rights, assuming everyone would be an Objectivist in the future as well? What does omniscience have to do with it?

Feel free to ignore the questions, like I said, I'm not completely read on the Objectivist concept of government.

If I can ask a meta-question:  what is the goal of this line of inquiry?

The same as every other line of inquiry: to learn.

Any comments on the comedy issue? I mean, comedy has to have some truth to it or else it's not funny, but if it were all truth, it wouldn't be funny.

[jfortun]

Can you give me an example of a future violation of rights, assuming everyone would be an Objectivist in the future as well?  What does omniscience have to do with it?

Unless one knows with absolute certainty that all men in the future will be law abiding and not initiate the use of force one cannot remove the insitutions which protect individual rights.. We call such knowledge omniscience. A government cannot be built on the assumption that everyone will play by the rules.

The same as every other line of inquiry: to learn.

But to learn what? What does speculating on the requirements of a government in a non-existing world where only Objectivists exist teach you?

I mean, comedy has to have some truth to it or else it's not funny, but if it were all truth, it wouldn't be funny.

How does that follow?

[DavidOdden]

Can you give me an example of a future violation of rights, assuming everyone would be an Objectivist in the future as well?

The question of whether a being has rights. The answer is seemingly trivial at the moment -- "man", i.e. homo sapiens. But it isn't metaphysically guaranteed that no other rights-bearing beings exist, and at some point we may bneed to have a uniform law protecting the rights of space aliens if they are rights-bearing, but not if they are meat animals.

[Betsy]

I understand the role of the government would be to protect citizens from force: physical explicitly and fraud implicitly.  However, if you did have an entirely Objectivist universe and everyone understood it was not in their best interest to use force, would government still be necessary?  If so, why?

In addition to the excellent points already made, I'd like to add the fact that Objectivism cannot repeal the Law of Identity. An important fact about the identity of human beings is that each one has a volitional consciousness and free will.

Even if he knows why it is not to his self-interest to initiate force, every individual is capable of evading that knowledge -- and some men will. You need a government to deal with that if and when it happens, even if it happens very rarely.

[Concerto of Atlantis]

Anyways, I understand the role of the government would be to protect citizens from force: physical explicitly and fraud implicitly.  However, if you did have an entirely Objectivist universe and everyone understood it was not in their best interest to use force, would government still be necessary?  If so, why?

An important thing to understand is that even rational men can come to disagree with each other - especially when it comes to contracts that relate to business transactions. In such a case, reality is the judge, and a court system is needed to apply this reality to a given case in the form of objective law.

[Proud_to_be_SELFISH!]

Sorry I've been gone and thanks to others' responses.

Unless one knows with absolute certainty that all men in the future will be law  abiding and not initiate the use of force one cannot remove the insitutions which protect individual rights..  We call such knowledge omniscience.  A government cannot be built on the assumption that everyone will play by the rules.

I was considering omniscience "knowledge of everything."

Also, my approach in this question (which I should have made clear at the beginning) is coming from a computer science major's prospective. Computers (as you know) cannot do anything they are not programmed to do. So, the idea presented would be people essentially "programmed" with reality, reason, rational self-interest and capitalism. I understand this would negate human nature.

But to learn what?  What does speculating on the requirements of a government in a non-existing world where only Objectivists exist teach you?

It teaches me about the philosophy. Again, I was trying to emulate a scenario that I am accustomed to. What is learned from this line of inquiry is that Objectivism has all the necessary tools for an individual's prosperity (like the programming of a computer). A computer programmed with specific instructions executes its tasks perfectly without the need for supervision.

How does that follow?

I figured out the comedy thing, thanks.

[MisterSwig]

Anyways, I understand the role of the government would be to protect citizens from force: physical explicitly and fraud implicitly.  However, if you did have an entirely Objectivist universe and everyone understood it was not in their best interest to use force, would government still be necessary?  If so, why?

Sometimes it is in your best interest to "use" force, especially when you are defending yourself. I think you meant that it is not in your best interest to initiate force.

Now, if everyone understood and lived by that principle, we would still need government, because accidents do happen and ignorant people (children, for example) do exist. Force can be initiated, and rights can be violated, accidentally or ignorantly.

[Proud_to_be_SELFISH!]

Sometimes it is in your best interest to "use" force, especially when you are defending yourself. I think you meant that it is not in your best interest to initiate force.

No, I meant exactly what I said, "use". The logic behind it is that no force can then be inititiated, in this hypothetical scenario. In this case, "use" and "initiate" are interchangeable.

Now, if everyone understood and lived by that principle, we would still need government, because accidents do happen and ignorant people (children, for example) do exist. Force can be initiated, and rights can be violated, accidentally or ignorantly.

Again, I'm coming at it from a programming mentality. Like I said in my post above, a computer cannot do anything it is not programmed to do. So, no "accidents" could happen.

I understand this scenario negates human nature. - That is the key to why government is needed. That was not my question but I have my answer anyways.

[y_feldblum]

Excuse my ignorance for not having been completely read on the topic of government.  I've read The Virtue of Selfishness essays, heard Dr. Peikoff's introductory lecture, but still working on Atlas Shrugged so I don't know how $ Valley (is it?) is set up.  I'm not to that part yet.

Anyways, I understand the role of the government would be to protect citizens from force: physical explicitly and fraud implicitly.  However, if you did have an entirely Objectivist universe and everyone understood it was not in their best interest to use force, would government still be necessary?  If so, why?

A few more:

Art is supposed to depict what ought to be in the sense of reality.  What role does comedy play?  What sort of comedy is considered "good art"?

People usually shriek at the thought of laissez-faire capitalism for various reasons but one overwhelming reason is "the poor helpless".  People will tell you, "some people just can't be productive".  If you press them, they usually give you examples of people stuck in wheel chairs or bedridden.  Has an Objectivist ever argued against these claims with Stephen Hawking as evidence?  Many people are potentially more capable than him and use their weakness as an excuse to be unproductive.

Government is the guarantor of individual rights, and it sets under objective law a standard by which to measure such a guarantee. Two people alone on an island implicitly form a government, because they must set themselves some such standard.

The response to "the poor helpless" ought to be, cold-hearted though it may sound, "I am not an altruist. I will not accept upon myself unearned guilt."

[jedymastyr]

..."the poor helpless".  People will tell you, "some people just can't be productive".

First, being productive just means doing something that is of value to human life. This can be as simple as working on an assembly line building some technological product--it doesn't necessarily require much mental ability. You might already know that, as you specifically mention bedridden people, but the people that make this type of argument tend to mention all poor people and those who perform manual labor for a living. The group of "problematic" people is a lot smaller than it is often represented as being.

Governments are instituted among men to allow each man the right to live a life proper to man (from ethics). This requires that we adhere to the principle that the initiation of force is evil and should be banned--since the mind is man's means of survival and force stifles the mind.

To require some men to provide the living of another is to violate the principle that makes a proper human civilization possible.

The man who is incapable of providing for his own life would not be able to live on a desert island. It is only this civilization that allows him a chance to live his life in the first place. That is already an extraordinary benefit--proper governments do not harm anyone--even the worst dependant.

To say that these helpless few are deserving of more is to fly in the face of reality. The concept "deserve" only arises in the context of a human being acting in accordance with human nature, human values and reality. By his inability to act, a helpless dependant deserves nothing.

The only possible result of any policy requiring the able to provide for the incompetent is the destruction (or impeding) of civilization. This means not only preventing functional, rational men from living moral lives, but also striking against the source of the very existence of these dependents.

That these dependents exist--and would not have been able to without civilization--is only a tribute to the benefit civilization provides.

[Betsy]

The response to "the poor helpless" ought to be, cold-hearted though it may sound, "I am not an altruist. I will not accept upon myself unearned guilt."

Ayn Rand's response was "If you want to help them, nobody will stop you."

[redfarmer]

More importantly and, suprisingly, what no one else has mentioned to you yet, is that your question on government in an ideal society is answered in part 3 of Atlas Shrugged.

For more information on humor, I would recommend the last chapter of Ayn Rand's The Art of Fiction.

[Cole]

Galt's Gulch comes to mind when I read this thread.

Galt's Gulch, being hypothetically the most Objectivist society possible, didn't have a government. There didn't seem to be any need for one. Granted, it was newly-developed and only a small number of people lived there. Still, if nobody in the world ever did or ever would violate anybody else's rights, the only government function needed would be a Supreme Court- to oversee private arbitrators.

[Neurosophist]

Galt's Gulch comes to mind when I read this thread.

Galt's Gulch, being hypothetically the most Objectivist society possible, didn't have a government. There didn't seem to be any need for one.  Granted, it was newly-developed and only a small number of people lived there. Still, if nobody in the world ever did or ever would violate anybody else's rights, the only government function needed would be a Supreme Court- to oversee private arbitrators.

Why even a supreme court?

[Cole]

To ensure that all of the private arbitrators are making judgements based on objective law.

[stephen_speicher]

Galt's Gulch, being hypothetically the most Objectivist society possible, didn't have a government. There didn't seem to be any need for one.  Granted, it was newly-developed and only a small number of people lived there. Still, if nobody in the world ever did or ever would violate anybody else's rights, the only government function needed would be a Supreme Court- to oversee private arbitrators.

Ayn Rand made clear that Galt's Gulch was not an organized society, but more like a private club.

[Betsy]

Galt's Gulch comes to mind when I read this thread.

Galt's Gulch, being hypothetically the most Objectivist society possible, didn't have a government.

Sure it did.

Midas Mulligan, as owner of the place, was the legislator and chief executive and Judge Narraganset was the judiciary. They even had an air force that went to rescue Galt.

[Free Capitalist]

if nobody in the world ever did or ever would violate anybody else's rights

What an arbitrary claim. What possible use could there be for it?

[Cole]

Sure it did.

Midas Mulligan, as owner of the place, was the legislator and chief executive and Judge Narraganset was the judiciary.  They even had an air force that went to rescue Galt.

Point taken. Thanks for clearing that up.

[Cole]

What an arbitrary claim. What possible use could there be for it?

Don't ask me, ask the person who started the thread. I merely outlined the hypothetical situation asked about in the original question so that I could answer that question.