Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Anarchy and vigilantism?

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

I have an honest question.  I've read most of Ayn Rand's nonfiction and half of her fiction (sofar) and the issue of a government is the one and only thing that I haven't been able to reconcile.  Here's why:

 

Yes, force should only be used against those who initiate it and it must be done objectively.  On practical grounds, most people couldn't bear that responsibility, so they need a government.  (and I do agree that competing governments is a stupid idea)

But a government is only a group of individuals charged with the objective use of retaliatory force.  If a group of individuals can do it, why not an individual (like the judge in Atlantis)?  I don't see why an individual cannot be trusted to dispense their own justice.  I agree that most people who exist shouldn't be but I don't see that as universal, just an unfortunate situation we happen to be in.

So my question is basically this: couldn't a society of rational people simply do without?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Possibly, but not necessarily.  If, hypothetically, there was a society where every single person was fully rational (for the sake of argument) then there wouldn't be any crime in the first place.

What I was wondering was, if there was a society where most people were mostly rational, would a government still be necessary?  The point I was trying (badly) to ask was if the requirement for a government stemmed from being stupid or being human.

But, if I understand correctly, it stems from being human (and therefor not omniscient) because:

 

1.  Aggressive force in a society is a potential threat to every member of society, and must be prevented or punished

2.  At first glance, aggressive force is indistinguishable from retaliatory force

3.  Therefor, without some mechanism to objectively prove to the rest of society which force is just and which is unjust, any sizeable group of people would necessarily devolve into endless feuding

 

Which actually makes perfect sense. 

My only objection to it was that in principle, every member of society COULD sit down like Sherlock Holmes and figure out who is guilty and who is innocent, and accordingly respond with perfect justice.  However, as soon as I stopped to analyze that I realized that such a solution would amount to no privacy for anyone, ever.  Every member of society would be rummaging through the homes of every other member, trying to decide the matter for themselves, on a daily basis.  And then as soon as one of the vigilante-detectives stole something during an investigation the whole thing would collapse into bloodshed, anyway.

Edited by Harrison Danneskjold
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Possibly, but not necessarily.  If, hypothetically, there was a society where every single person was fully rational (for the sake of argument) then there wouldn't be any crime in the first place.

What I was wondering was, if there was a society where most people were mostly rational, would a government still be necessary? 

 

First, it is an unrealistic hypothetical, which you already acknowledged.

 

Second, there is still a need for objective laws, as well as an arbiter for disagreements between people. There would still be honest disagreements between rational people that would not get resolved if there weren't any objective laws or a final arbiter to make a judgment.

Edited by thenelli01
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, it is an unrealistic hypothetical, but I'd like to point out that it is POSSIBLE.  Everyone has free will; if a hundred or a million or the total sum of the human population decided to be rational, it could be done.  It is unrealistic, but to discuss a society in which every member is fully rational is not the same as discussing the existence of the Rocky Mountains.

It's the same difference as there is between discussing someone's genetic traits or their tattoos.

And I'm actually not quite sure what the second bit would refer to.  Could you give me an example of a dispute between two rational, upfront and honest people which couldn't be resolved outside of court?

 

I've realized that, while I could think of dozens of alternatives to a government, they probably wouldn't work in reality.  (Hence that last comment; a theory which has nothing to do with reality is an irrational theory.  It was an attempt at humor)  Is there something you'd like to add?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First, it is an unrealistic hypothetical, which you already acknowledged.

 

Second, there is still a need for objective laws, as well as an arbiter for disagreements between people. There would still be honest disagreements between rational people that would not get resolved if there weren't any objective laws or a final arbiter to make a judgment.

 

I'm sorry about my earlier response; for some reason it won't let me edit it, anymore.  You're right on both counts and I'm sorry for the general tone I responded with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, it is an unrealistic hypothetical, but I'd like to point out that it is POSSIBLE.  Everyone has free will; if a hundred or a million or the total sum of the human population decided to be rational, it could be done.  It is unrealistic, but to discuss a society in which every member is fully rational is not the same as discussing the existence of the Rocky Mountains.

It's the same difference as there is between discussing someone's genetic traits or their tattoos.

And I'm actually not quite sure what the second bit would refer to.  Could you give me an example of a dispute between two rational, upfront and honest people which couldn't be resolved outside of court?

What do you mean by "fully rational"? Humans are humans. Even the best, most well intentioned people make mistakes or errors in judgment. It's inescapable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I simply meant the best, most well-intentioned people, who would hold reason as an absolute.  At the time I started this thread I had implicitly assumed that mostly-good people, people who want to live, would always have some common ground on which to cooperate, peacefully.  That was part of the original confusion.

With the desire to live, I neglected the fact that people can share the same goal but disagree on the means to achieve it.  I also forgot about errors of judgment.  (an error of judgment, on my part)

And so I really couldn't see why rational people; people the way they should be, would actually harm each other in the first place.

 

Which, IF a group of people were respecting each others' rights in that way, a government really wouldn't be necessary.  My mistake was in the assumption that the attributes I described, which are possible in reality, would lead to the perfect society I described, which isn't.

 

The irony here is that this thread, itself, is an honest disagreement between rational people.  (which refutes my original argument)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The irony here is that this thread, itself, is an honest disagreement between rational people.  (which refutes my original argument)

 

 Could you give me an example of a dispute between two rational, upfront and honest people which couldn't be resolved outside of court?

 

The irony is not only present in this thread, but throughout this entire forum.

 

Sure. One example off the top of my head would be deciding who is at fault in a car accident on a private road when it is not so clear or in a situation where the traffic rules are vague/poorly written. Then deciding what the appropriate compensatory damage would be in a civil suit.

Edited by thenelli01
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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