A question

[Leonid]

Will a future objectivist society be a multiparty democracy? if so, how philosophically parties will differ? What would happen if non-objectivist party will win election?

Edited July 14, 2013 by Leonid

[softwareNerd]

Given the various groups of Objectivists who argue with each other on the net -- sometimes while saying the other groups is not really Objectivist, at other times saying they're taking some implication of Objectivism incorrectly -- there are sure to be factions in any democratic society. The founders of the U.S. too wanted to avoid parties, but they'd misjudged history and human nature.

A good constitution would be a structural and ideological tool to keep everyone more or less in line. History shows us that constitutional provisions can be powerful in these two ways, even when they're not perfect. However, there's a limit to how far a writer of a constitution can reach beyond the grave. If enough people five generations away want to change something, they simply will.

[425]

I would say that in a free society, some things parties could differ over might be:

 

- How the defense department/military should be run, i.e., how large should it be, what type of technology should it employ, what type of espionage should it use

- How the society should deal with other, unfree societies - should we embargo them, should we try to overthrow their governments, etc.

- How judges would be appointed and how juries would be selected.

- Appropriate levels of punishment for certain crimes.

- How, specifically to fund the government, whether that be through lottery, through fees for legally enforceable contracts (an idea of Ayn Rand's), through voluntary contributions, etc.

 

As for what would happen if a non-Objectivist party won an election, this would presumably not be a problem so long as there was an establish constitution that strictly tied the power of the government down to its objectively appropriate role as an arbiter of retaliatory and only retaliatory force. I think the worst that could conceivably happen if such a constitution was in fact airtight is that foreign policy or criminal justice decisions might be made that don't totally line up with the views of Objectivists (for example, a choice could be made to purse rehabilitation instead of retaliation as a dominant policy in prisons).

[2046]

A good constitution would be a structural and ideological tool to keep everyone more or less in line. History shows us that constitutional provisions can be powerful in these two ways, even when they're not perfect. However, there's a limit to how far a writer of a constitution can reach beyond the grave. If enough people five generations away want to change something, they simply will.

Indeed, I think this quest for a supposed "airtight" constitution is a fallacious one. There is a tendency of many people to think of a written constitution as a sort of "external" limitations on society and the government, that the problem with the current one is that it just wasn't written "strictly" libertarian enough, or that the problem with the current system is one of not being specific enough, or not interpreting the true meaning of certain key parts of the US Constitution. If we just change some sentences around to be more specific about individual rights, then liberty will prevail. No non-objectivist party could ever cause problems, because even after winning an election, why it says right there in the constitution what they are allowed to do.

 

But of course such mere written guarantees and provisions are neither necessary or sufficient to count as operable constitutional restraints, (for example, looking at the cases of Britain, which has an unwritten constitution, or the Soviet Union, which had a written constitution that guaranteed all sorts of rights). What matters is, as Snerd says, the actual structure of the government, that is, the institutions, practices, and incentive structures those arrangements have. In answering the question "What would happen if non-objectivist party will win election?" one has to wonder if multiparty democracy carries with it the best incentive structure for preserving liberty.

[StrictlyLogical]

To sum up most of the answers so far:

 

 

It will be a future society,

it will be a "multi-party" system... (perhaps still a mob-ocracy)

 

it will not be an Objectivist society.

 

 

...............................

 

My answer is that IF ever enough individuals choose Objectivist philosophy, ethics, principles, politics, etc. i.e. when the people and culture itself are properly judged to be Objectivist... then government outside each individual's proper delegation of the use of retaliatory force can and would be eradicated.

 

There would no longer be a "democracy" or even anything which resembles what we call "government" today because those future individuals having a culture of Objectivism would not have anything like a culture of "the ruled" which we see everywhere in the world today (including the United States).

 

A population of the un-ruled who voluntarily agree to delegate the use of proper retaliatory force would not elect "governments" or "parties".   There would be no lobbies, no left or right wing, no sub mobs or communes or groups (recall Objectivists are more independent/individualistic than non-Objectivists), but there will be rational debate over appropriateness of certain details regarding the delegation of the use of retaliatory force in particular circumstances contexts etc.

 

Since Objectivism leans towards the most minimal of "governments" (if we can call it that), I would assume if anything, the scope of government would always be decreasing or remaining the same size in any matter.  If support for government interference maintains itself (or even increases) in a matter I would expect its scope of power to stay the same.  If support for government interference (use of retaliatory force) in any particular context dropped to a certain threshold I would deem it proper for the government to declare non-interference in the matter (non-use of retaliatory force) and free society would have to decide voluntarily any action (non-violent legal action) it would take, such as shunning, refusing to deal with persons in one aspect or another, charging them more, etc. perhaps for a period of time etc.

 

 

Finally, I do not think individuals of an Objectivist culture would want, need, or even like to create "parties" "groupings" etc or become members thereof because of the necessary impediment parties and groups impose on the freedom to use ones mind to decide each and every issue on his/her own completely independently.

 

.....

 

PS: It would entirely impossible for an Objectivist society to have an "election" ala "mob-ocracy"- RULES which would threaten the truly free status of every individual in that society... such would be utterly inconsistent with Objectivism ethically and politically... and such would be the biggest indicator that whatever society decided to have those elections... it was not an Objectivist society. 

Edited July 15, 2013 by StrictlyLogical

[aleph_1]

Will a future objectivist society be a multiparty democracy? if so, how philosophically parties will differ? What would happen if non-objectivist party will win election?

Fantastic question (and slightly freightening). Democracy? How else to establish legitimacy? However, if governmental power is sufficiently constrained, then it almost doesn't matter how governments are chosen. (By lottery?) The same is true for taxes. If they are small enough, then who cares whether they are fair or not. Also, if the government is small enough, then the stakes for elections will be so small that it is hard to see well-formed parties. I think single issue groups are more likely. These groups would exist to raise awareness. It has been noted that there are disagreements on Oist forums.

If enough of the citizenry have a culture opposing government violence, then revolution is always an option in case of oppression rearing its ugly head in any form. The government should fear the people, not the other way around.

[Harrison Danneskjold]

It has been noted that there are disagreements on Oist forums.

 

 See, this is what I find the most likely.

 

So I guess, instead of voting on healthcare, immigration and gay marriage, imagine voting on the particulars of our criminal code, foreign policy and civil arbitration (or the status of intellectual property).

Who knows?  Perhaps the ad campaigns might even mention some underlying principles and reasoning.

[Leonid]

Thank you for your input. I'm mostly agree with the position of StrictlyLogical. In Objectivist society the process of nomination of government officials should also been objective, not driven by the whims of the mob, or ability to look cool on TV.Unfortunately, no one even suggested what such a process may be. No constitution per se even protected freedom, it always could be amended, changed or suspended by using for example a national emergency as an excuse. In my view the main function of the government is a legislation and therefore legislators should be judges nominated in accordance with their previous records. There is no need to change government every few years just for change sake. Since government will be a privately and voluntarily funded institution, people always will be able to remove it by cutting funds. it is clear that in such a situation the nomination of government officials would be a rare event. In any case Objectivist society would end a democracy as we know it today. And for the best.

Edited July 21, 2013 by Leonid

[Hairnet]

   I don't think Objectivism would ever be too popular. However I imagine that people may invent philosophies of their own that are similar to Objectivism.

 

   So if our culture were a fact oriented, reason concerned, virtues seeking, right protecting, romantic culture...

 

   It would be like today, but politics would be more honest and not tinged with cultural bullshit. Democrats would be a right of center party that was really concerned with good government and sound regulations. They would still believe in interventionism, but without all the leftist-egalitarian-altruist lunacy . Republicans would probably become really free market oriented, and the Christians would either drop their crazy or form their own political base. I suspect LIbertarians would either get reabsorbed back into establishment politics or drop out of it entirely. 

 

    Still we need structural change. The founder were brilliant, but their government was honestly too successful  Our society has three hundred million people and technology they couldn't imagine. I think a newer more modern form of government is possible. I am not sure what is a good idea and what isn't though. 

[2046]

   I don't think Objectivism would ever be too popular. However I imagine that people may invent philosophies of their own that are similar to Objectivism.

 

   So if our culture were a fact oriented, reason concerned, virtues seeking, right protecting, romantic culture...

 

   It would be like today, but politics would be more honest and not tinged with cultural bullshit. Democrats would be a right of center party that was really concerned with good government and sound regulations. They would still believe in interventionism, but without all the leftist-egalitarian-altruist lunacy . Republicans would probably become really free market oriented, and the Christians would either drop their crazy or form their own political base. I suspect LIbertarians would either get reabsorbed back into establishment politics or drop out of it entirely. 

 

    Still we need structural change. The founder were brilliant, but their government was honestly too successful  Our society has three hundred million people and technology they couldn't imagine. I think a newer more modern form of government is possible. I am not sure what is a good idea and what isn't though. 

I would agree with you there. I think it's way too specific to expect anything like an "Objectivist society" or "when most people agree with Objectivism." I think there is this certain interpretation of Rand that's popular among Objectivists that in order for a free society to come about and sustain itself, the populace has to either "be majority Objectivists" or at least hold a very strict Objectivist-like value set. Certainly one of Rand's main criticisms of the libertarian movement was precisely that libertarians focus on certain political results without incorporating them into a broader philosophical context. Some libertarians do accept something like that view, but I also think the Objectivist interpretation is overly narrow. I think some sort of middle-ground, certainly a general set of values would have to widely be accepted, but within that set a reasonable pluralism could obtain and still make for a viable free society.

 

Edited July 21, 2013 by 2046

[Eiuol]

Fantastic question (and slightly freightening). Democracy? How else to establish legitimacy? However, if governmental power is sufficiently constrained, then it almost doesn't matter how governments are chosen. (By lottery?) The same is true for taxes. If they are small enough, then who cares whether they are fair or not.

What does "small" even mean in this context? You seem to be suggesting that the government should be made impotent. The government power should essentially be infinite with regard to acting against initiation of force. "Constrained" only applies to the idea that the government can't do anything it wants, which isn't unique to even a Progressive's frame of mind. I think I'd agree that there would be single issue groups, but not for any of the reasons you gave. "Small" or not is nonessential.

"If enough of the citizenry have a culture opposing government violence, then revolution is always an option in case of oppression rearing its ugly head in any form. The government should fear the people, not the other way around. "

Ah, Leninist-style political action! I'm not being facetious, it really does remind me of what Communist/Marxist approach to maintaining the ideal.

First off, you are considering government as a separate thing from you made up of bad people that need to be prevented from acting, as though it is not made up of citizens and a separate "tribe" so to speak. To be more clear, I'm saying that to really establish a "good" government, you need a government of and by the people. If a government must fear its people, then you are already saying that the government's modus operandi is going further than it should. So, what *about* people are you saying the government would fear? If you mean "losing power", that would contradict your whole point about "small enough" where there is hardly power over people in the first place. There is nothing else I can come up with as an explanation to make both your paragraphs consistent.

Secondly, the Leninist-style political action. Revolution is not an option and doesn't work. Rather, I should say an overt and forceful imitation of revolution does not work. The American Revolution wasn't forceful initiation, and you could even argue that the British tried to kill their own people and considered colonists to be the "other" and not worth basic respect. You seem to be referring to the sense of revolution popularized by Lenin and in general more common (even the French Revolution). It's not that Lenin did revolution wrong, but forceful revolution is by nature unstable except for some particular circumstances like in the American revolution and some others I can't think of right now. For the most part, scientific and economic revolutions create change for the better by providing economic well-being as well as rational progress so the whole concern of government violating rights slowly goes away because intellectual progress includes what a good political philosophy is in the first place.

The thing with Lenin is that he was opposing an already terrible government, and wanted to use revolution to stop the tsar and government from being able to do anything. His idea for revolution though revolves around a lot of Marxism, which ultimately aims for the smallest government of all - none. But that's not what makes it bad. The bad part is that revolution is *the* way to achieve a better government first - by socialism to destroy the power of capitalists, then by overthrowing the socialist government once that is done (presumably when oppression rules its ugly head at worst). Lenin skipped the socialist stage almost right away, went straight to revolution - he was itching to just get rid of the Russian government once and for all. And of course, revolution worked. At least, initially. I don't need to go into the reasons the new government failed to accomplish any of Lenin's ideals in terms of economics. But in terms of revolution, the Leninists went for all out political and forceful change, without any scientific or economic revolution. That is, economics turned political in Russia. Even *Marx* understood that revolution would need a economically robust capitalist economy first (under his meaning). My point is that political dissatisfaction, even if severe and justified, does not warrant political, forceful revolution. It ends up bad, unstable, and opening up to even worse rights violations.

Bottom line, most proposals of revolution, even when just abstract, is closer to a child throwing a temper tantrum to get an ice cream instead of being reasonable and realistic with politeness. Working with reason to establish a solid foundation to get the changes you want works better than any revolution ever would. The industrial "revolution" worked well, without any true politically overt revolution.

This doesn't directly answer the OP, but I think it follows well after 2046's post.

[2046]

Bottom line, most proposals of revolution, even when just abstract, is closer to a child throwing a temper tantrum to get an ice cream instead of being reasonable and realistic with politeness. Working with reason to establish a solid foundation to get the changes you want works better than any revolution ever would. The industrial "revolution" worked well, without any true politically overt revolution.

This doesn't directly answer the OP, but I think it follows well after 2046's post.

Hmm well, okay. I'm not sure what I got out of that is what you meant by it, but I do want to comment on revolution. I know I've said something along these lines before, but I can't find it at the moment. But anyway, the popular way of drawing the distinction here is something like the difference between electoral politics (rational, conversational, persuasion) and revolution (violence), which I think gets things actually backwards.

 

In electoral politics, as we all know, there might indeed be some sort of conversation, but that conversation culminates in a vote which will be imposed by force on the losers. Under ordinary circumstances, if we’re planning an evening out and discussing what movie to see, it’s understood that if we cannot reach agreement on a particular film there is always the possibility of cancelling our plans and heading off to separate movies. The possibility that, if we disagree on what movie to see, one of us might simply compel the other, by force or the threat thereof, to go to a particular movie is simply not contemplated because that is not a peaceful, conversational way of settling disputes. In the electoral area, by contrast, losers are coerced by the winners' "all or nothing" monopoly decision. So electoral politics is a mode of violence, not an alternative to it. (Nor is this an accidental feature of some states, obviously, if one could go their separate ways, the election would cease to be a monopolistic one, and be a voluntary one.)

 

Revolution on the other hand is not inherently violent. Of course, there have been a lot of violent ones, and most people tend to think of them as that way, but this is because revolutions have tended to have the same goal as electoral politics. You state that you see revolutions as childlike temper-tantrums, that is because of this fact, these revolutions have the goal of taking over the state and using its monopoly power to impose a new order on the dissenting losers. But there is a different model of revolution, the libertarian one, that seeks to bypass or undercut governmental power instead of capturing it. The governmental way of doing things is just one pattern of activity in society, and once people change their activity, then those patterns are no more. And I think the libertarian revolution is the only non-violent one because it proceeds along the lines of building alternative institutions and gradually winning people's allegiance to those institutions until the people participating in the coercive institutions are just too few to be of concern. And I think that's how sustainable liberty has to come about, not by trying to get Objectivists in charge of the government instead of the statists, or writing a new, more specific, constitution and getting it approved one day when people are more Objectivist, or something like that.

[Harrison Danneskjold]

   I don't think Objectivism would ever be too popular. However I imagine that people may invent philosophies of their own that are similar to Objectivism.

 

   So if our culture were a fact oriented, reason concerned, virtues seeking, right protecting, romantic culture...

What is Objectivism?

 

If Objectivism includes each and every preference and opinion ever expressed by Ayn Rand then nobody alive today is an Objectivist.  But there must be some limit to it; Barack Obama, for instance, is clearly not an Objectivist.

The question is where the distinction lies.

It's somewhat tangential but I think your post got right at the heart of it; facts, reason, virtue, rights and romanticism.  The essentials.

 

So, applied to the question at hand: what is an Objectivist society?

 

Just a thought.

[Leonid]

Eiuol, you don't read Russian history very well. What Lenin did wasn't revolution at all. It was a coup d'etat followed by bloody civil war in which 2 million people perished. In Lenin own wards revolutionary situation exists when     “the lower classes not to want” to live in the old   way; it is also necessary that “the upper classes should be unable” to live in the old way; "

Nothing like that that happened in Russia. 

[Eiuol]

Please give a date and source for that quote. In a general sense, whatever Lenin said, there was a revolution in Russia, which was politicized by Lenin, then turned violent due to that politicization. Still feeds into my reply about the "us vs them" tribalistic sense of the government as some nefarious entity that must fear it's people. If "the people" are that scary, then bad things happen. For the most part, the "people" were basically a small portion from industrial labor, and those people were scary enough as Communists! From that, I say it follows that any capitalistic society would tend away from a party system, if the government operates in such away that people are incorporated in a realistic way, not some kind of government that exists "above" or separate from its people.

 

I have to think about your post more, 2046, but I agree that revolution isn't inherently violent. There are economic revolutions, scientific revolutions, etc, and each impact society in different ways, including political change. Overthrowing the government is political revolution, and almost all the time it ends badly. I wouldn't characterize most revolutions as trying to control others through state power, they just really use the state to act against rights violations. Except of course, if owning property is a rights violation, then it would look like just a power grab to those of us who see property as a right.

[Leonid]

This is a full quote : "To the Marxist it is indisputable that a revolution is impossible without a revolutionary situation; furthermore, it is not every revolutionary situation that leads to revolution. What, generally speaking, are the symptoms of a revolutionary situation? We shall certainly not be mistaken if we indicate the following three major symptoms: (1) when it is impossible for the ruling classes to maintain their rule without any change; when there is a crisis, in one form or another, among the “upper classes”, a crisis in the policy of the ruling class, leading to a fissure through which the discontent and indignation of the oppressed classes burst forth. For a revolution to take place, it is usually insufficient for “the lower classes not to want” to live in the old   way; it is also necessary that “the upper classes should be unable” to live in the old way; (2) when the suffering and want of the oppressed classes have grown more acute than usual; (3) when, as a consequence of the above causes, there is a considerable increase in the activity of the masses, who uncomplainingly allow themselves to be robbed in “peace time”, but, in turbulent times, are drawn both by all the circumstances of the crisis and by the “upper classes” themselves into independent historical action."

 

V. I.   Lenin The Collapse of the Second International

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1915/csi/ii.htm

Edited July 24, 2013 by Leonid

[Eiuol]

Leonid, nothing in there says anything about the Russian revolution, because Lenin wrote that before the Russian revolution even happened! What Lenin did was turn the revolutionary situation into a revolution. You could construe what later happened to be a "coup d'etat followed by a bloody civil war", but I still call that a revolution because the result was a fundamental shift, a revolution in the sense of turning around considerably. The kind of revolutionary situation Lenin was speaking of eventually leads (with the "correct" leader) to the destructive revolution I was speaking about. Even one of the elements of a revolutionary situation is basically what aleph_0 stated: "that governments 'are afraid of a proletarian revolution'". Proletarian is non-essential, the main idea is that "we" (the people) should be feared by "them" (the government). I'm not sure if this looks offtopic, but at least if people in general don't compartmentalize government as separate from its people (as should be the case), then multiparty government has no reason to exist.

The whole political spectrum in terms of left-right comes from the French Revolution, which turned out horribly. And now, that's how political parties are thought of - tribalistically. So, I really doubt multiparties would be part of any laissez faire government, by nature of what multiparty systems require.

Edited July 25, 2013 by Eiuol

[Leonid]

Eioul-no, there wasn't any revolutionary situation in Russia, not in the terms described by Lenin. After Tsar abdicated, there was an interim government which called a foundation assembly in order to establish a constitutional republic. Lenin arrested the government and cancelled the assembly using a relatively small military force.It was simply a military coup. Then he established a dictatorship which lasted 70 years. If this is a revolution then any  take over of a city or part of it by Mafia gang is revolution as well. I'd agree with you that multiparty system is inadequate for Objectivist society. However what in your opinion will constitute the process of nomination of government officials? Maybe the old good monarchy will do?

Edited July 26, 2013 by Leonid

[Eiuol]

Acknowledged that we disagree about there being a revolutionary situation in Russia. You can say military coup, but I'm saying the political situation was the revolutionary situation Lenin was talking about. That doesn't mean a military coup prevents that, perhaps we can say Lenin was further building a revolutionary situation rather than saying "the revolution happened". I'm afraid this is going way off topic, so I'll leave this as a point on electoral politics versus political activism.

By electoral politics, I mean discussion within a context that action must be done while there is possibly disagreement. By political activism, I mean advocating for specific changes so that things like irrationality don't become valid. There is a place for both, but solely one or the other I believe electoral politics moves towards inefficiency, while political activism moves towards harsh moral judgment against dissenters. Striking a proper balance or eliminating the distinction would be great. Parties as they are traditionally known can make discussion for government action just a matter of getting the most "points" from split opinion through distinct affiliations. Parties can also make it so that anyone opposing raising minimum wage hates the poor and deserves no fair hearing, thus dissenters are utterly demonized. "Single party rule" is like that in a more extreme way, as in "In Cambodia in the 70's, if you're not a Communist, you'll be shot."

Single issue "parties" would make sense to me, and a good way to maintain activist effort while also trying to act in the face of disagreement. For the record, it seems that this is what the US has tried to do. The issue is that now, things have seemed to have fallen so deep into electoral politics that nothing happens, while activists completely demonize dissenters. I'm not sure how to nominate/vote for government officials to bring about 'single issue' politics, I suppose bicameral legistlature is important for that, with only one directly elected. That's my thinking for now.

[aleph_1]

Perhaps the state will "wither away". If currency is privatized, most of what counts as government now will disappear. If economic transactions are "privatized", governments will have precious little power. This should not be distressing since the unique power of government is the lawful weilding of guns against the populace.

[Leonid]

Perhaps the state will "wither away". If currency is privatized, most of what counts as government now will disappear. If economic transactions are "privatized", governments will have precious little power. This should not be distressing since the unique power of government is the lawful weilding of guns against the populace.

 The key word is " lawful" Government supposes to make laws. As long as they are objective, their execution will be a function of privately funded law enforcement agencies. Therefore the state cannot wither away as Marx was dreaming. There has to be a mechanism to put retaliatory force under control of objective law.