Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

If the USA was "the first moral society" on Earth...?

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

17 minutes ago, Dustin86 said:

So Louie, do you think that governments have the right to collect taxes and punish tax evaders, or do you think violent overthrow is justified whenever governments collect taxes or punish tax evaders?

No, governments don't have a right to tax (so collecting that tax is unjustified), so revolt is justified to that degree. But that's not the -only- moral question to ask. Expectation of success is also needed to finish the "moral calculus".

Edited by Eiuol
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Dustin86 said:

“The social conditions that generally are supposed to lie behind all revolutions—poverty and economic deprivation—were not present in colonial America. There should no longer be any doubt about it: the white American colonists were not an oppressed people; they had no crushing imperial chains to throw off” (Wood, Gordon. The Radicalism of the American Revolution.)

Dustin86,

As a matter of record, the terms imposed upon the British-American colonists were unnecessarily harsh. I am glad that you have picked up some information on the subject, and we could discuss the merits of resisting tyranny, if you wish. 

2 hours ago, Dustin86 said:

 I agree with the both of you that certain extreme circumstances such as genocide may justify the overthrow of the government. But nothing remotely like that was happening in British North America in 1776. As the eminent Revolution scholar, Professor Gordon Wood, states: (above quote)

Historical facts aside, there is ample opportunity for the reformation of American attitudes toward government at present. The genocide or violent revolution of which you speak are in my opinion not necessary, and more to the point, would be harmful to Objectivist ideals. To be certain, the US government is using force against some American citizens, if not all through taxation. So far as I can tell, it's only the irrational few who resort to violent reaction. Any rational person, Objectivist or not, would take his/her conflict to court, or seek change through lawful reform.

3 hours ago, Dustin86 said:

Well, Louie, who is a Moderator at the largest Objectivist forum just said one post before yours that there exists an Objectivist moral justification for the violent overthrow of every government in the entire world, the only limitation being the physical/military practicality thereof. So yes, I would think that would constitute such a reason, should Objectivism continue to gain followers.

The opinion of one self-identifying Objectivist is by no means the basis for a reasoned argument. So, I'll ask again, by your own understanding, and I hope through some self-study, what part of Objectivism advocates armed rebellion against one's government?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Repairman said:

The opinion of one self-identifying Objectivist is by no means the basis for a reasoned argument. So, I'll ask again, by your own understanding, and I hope through some self-study, what part of Objectivism advocates armed rebellion against one's government?

I don't think you're interpreting the question properly. By supporting any revolution, one implicitly supports armed rebellion, at least when it is deemed realistic. On the other hand, there is no call for an international worker's revolution, or any specific idea on when to revolt. That's all Dustin seems to be asking. It would also be wrong to say Objectivism resists revolution strongly, or that it's an extreme outlier to support the American one. After all, later on in Atlas Shrugged, the strikers -do- revolt to some extent, namely Ragnar. There is no condemnation of revolution in principle, just opposition to specific ones, e.g. the Russian Revolution.

Edited by Eiuol
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Eiuol said:

After all, later on in Atlas Shrugged, the strikers -do- revolt to some extent, namely Ragnar.

Yet he does not attack any ship of legitimate government business. His fight was waged against the Robinhood-esqueness. The "revolution" of the strikers was the refusal to trade in a market where a covert tax of altruism was exacted in every transaction.

Dustin's loaded questions and attempts to pigeon-hole an interlocutor has been little more than sticking a toe in the waters to check the temperature.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, dream_weaver said:

I was tempted to say that the supposition was Marxist.

It's to suppose that a Society that does not respect property rights and individual rights will some how "magically" become prosperous.

Edit: Yes, there are some States (Arab Gulf States) that are fairly prosperous.  But without Capitalism, as founded in Britain and the U.S., all that oil would pretty much have remained underground.

Edited by New Buddha
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Eiuol said:

I don't think you're interpreting the question properly. By supporting any revolution, one implicitly supports armed rebellion, at least when it is deemed realistic. On the other hand, there is no call for an international worker's revolution, or any specific idea on when to revolt. That's all Dustin seems to be asking. It would also be wrong to say Objectivism resists revolution strongly, or that it's an extreme outlier to support the American one. After all, later on in Atlas Shrugged, the strikers -do- revolt to some extent, namely Ragnar. There is no condemnation of revolution in principle, just opposition to specific ones, e.g. the Russian Revolution.

I don't believe Dustin86 is posing the question for which he seeks an answer.

Eioul,

I am not suggesting that armed resistance to one's government is not an option; rather, that in the present and foreseeable future, an armed rebellion would not be necessary. We took up that argument of another thread you initiated; I don't know how much farther I can go with that. In an earlier posting in this thread, I laid out a scenario wherein the conditions of government would present grounds for armed resistance. But most importantly, the course of events, whether violent or not, would necessitate a set of rational principles, under which a resistance movement would find motivation. Mere survival is all one would need to resist any initiation of violence, but if the trend of "shoot first, ask questions later" became the order of the day in policing tactics, I have every reason to believe that a full-scale revolt would ensue, as it would be the moral react of the American people. Without a set of principles framing an ideal, a violent movement would likely result in the institutionalization of violence, (e.g. the Bolshevik Revolution). It's not enough to state what one is against; one needs to state what one is for.

As for the striking men of the mind, as depicted in Atlas Shrugged, Ragnar Danneskjold was taking the battle to the oppressors. And he was fighter for a very well-defined set of principles, Objectivist principles, in a fictional setting. If I were to actually join an armed resistance movement, I would need to know what I am fighting for, among other things. At present, I'm willing to abide by the laws presenting the least risk to my valuable life.

So, back to Dustin86 and his ergo proctor hoc approach to reason: What part of Objectivism advocates violent overthrow of governments?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, dream_weaver said:

Yet he does not attack any ship of legitimate government business. His fight was waged against the Robinhood-esqueness. The "revolution" of the strikers was the refusal to trade in a market where a covert tax of altruism was exacted in every transaction.

It was still violent. Revolution doesn't need to be "total war". Not all the strikers went as far as Ragnar, true, but so what? Ragnar wasn't a bad guy, and he conducted a revolution. The strike itself wasn't a violent revolution.

The questions aren't loaded, just repetitive. That is, the questions only rephrase the OP question (even if Dustin sees them all as a bit different)..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Repairman said:

In an earlier posting in this thread, I laid out a scenario wherein the conditions of government would present grounds for armed resistance. But most importantly, the course of events, whether violent or not, would necessitate a set of rational principles, under which a resistance movement would find motivation.

This would be to me implicitly advocating violent overthrow, but it's not anything like a Communist's extremely strong advocation of violent revolution. I agree with you here.

Thanks for your clarifications!

Edited by Eiuol
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/12/2016 at 11:25 PM, Eiuol said:

This would be to me implicitly advocating violent overthrow, but it's not anything like a Communist's extremely strong advocation of violent revolution. I agree with you here.

Thanks for your clarifications!

You're welcome.

But if I may add further clarifications: Nothing I've ever read in any Objectivist literature indicates an explicit call to violent revolution. The state of the Union at present does not justify revolution, unless we're talking about a campaign of political reform aimed at creating a more rational society. One only needs to look at the carnival-style competition between the two leading (and very dubious) presidential contenders to realize that, certainly by Objectivist standards, we are on the proverbial road to perdition. And I can't blame the politicians, rather it is the electorate that brought us to this point. The scenario depicted in Atlas Shrugged, with its all-encompassing command-economic mandates and population control through weapons of mass destruction, seem nowhere in sight. This is not to say that it will never happen. And if it did, I doubt if I'll live to see it. For the sake of those who may live to see it, and those who care about those who may live to see it, I advocate a campaign of non-violent and intelligent political reform. The electorate is not longer complacent; however, they do seem a bit confused. To the few people I have had the pleasure to discuss the underlying cause of America's social and political problems, most, but not all, seem content to ignore the truth, or dismiss the importance of seeking it: "Who has the time for that?" (which sounds to me like, "Who is John Galt?") Could we agree that time is running out?

"If men grasp the source of their destruction -- if they dedicate themselves to the greatest of all crusades: a crusade for the absolutism of reason -- the twenty-first century will have a chance once more." --Ayn Rand, Philosophy: Who Needs It; p.111

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/12/2016 at 6:22 PM, dream_weaver said:

Dustin's loaded questions and attempts to pigeon-hole an interlocutor has been little more than sticking a toe in the waters to check the temperature.

Dustin86 is a libertarian Alt-Right troll. He's trying to find Objectivists who will be sympathetic to the Alt-Right's rebellion against the Established government of America. Do not saddle up with the Alt-Right.

You have been warned.

Edited by MisterSwig
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...