makemore

Ludwig von Mises is, from what I have read, most known as in favour of a minimal government. Rothbard coined the term anarcho-capitalism but I don't think he managed to persuade von Mises to change his opinion on politics. On economics though they are much the same, and to dismiss Rothbard on economics just because you don't agree with him on politics is a bit silly in my opinion.

Thanks for that one Bearster! First of all I can assure you that I dont prescribe to "Hegelian dialectics" and thus I also dissagreas with the idea that there is "no absolute standard for truth". What I wanted to say with the above words is that I belive that it is good practise to test ones conclusions, to make sure that they really are compatible with the other ideas one holds. If they shouldnt be compatible this could indicate a slip in ones reasoning or even that some of ones underlying premises are wrong. It could happen that ones reasoning is perfect but the premises one bases it on is wrong, and this might not always be obvious to oneself. To prevent situations like this its good to have dialogs with other people who can explain how they view your reasoning and perhaps help you in furthering it. Since peoples lifes can be very different it can be of value to oneself to trade experiences with others. Now I can admit that the wording "its the road to wisdom" might be read as "the ONLY road ..". To be more precise I should probably have said: "its ONE of the roads to wisdom" or "its A road to wisdom". And I choose to use the word wisdom instead of knowledge since knowledge is more easily interpreted as understandings of provable facts, then understandings of peoples opinions. Part of my interest in debating with other people is to learn how they view things. This is knowledge that can be of use to me. So I belive you have been a bit to hasty in forming your conclusions about the text.

I think you must change your meaning of what is "doing anything", you seem to have a strict belief that one must do physical labour to receive money, but that is not the case. Simply letting someone take a photo or paint a picture of you qualifies as labour too, and these trades are similar to the organ selling that you described as a passive act. And in all these scenarious you are doing things, you are making a decision to stand still infront of the painter or getting your organ removed, and in this act reason is involved.

Some people give their organs away to help someone they value so why shouldnt it be possible to do it for money? Money is often not an end in itself but a means to other ends.

I didnt know about the plagiarizing issue so I decided to do a google search on "rand rothbard" and I found this essay http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/stromberg4.html that is an answer to yours. The author claims that the ideas that Rothbard was accused of having plagiarized, originated from Thomistic philosophy. Further down it mentions that Branden threated Rothbard with a lawsuit over the dispute, but it turned out to be an idle threat. Which perhaps was unfortunate because a test of this in a court would probably had been the best way of resolving the issue.

I belive that Rand and Rothbard was pretty good friends earlier, and shared many common views. However the dispute that later started between them I think was about that Rothbards wife was a christian and Rand demanded that he should seperate from his wife because of that. Rothbard disagred with Rand on this, and they went seperate ways after this. I belive that it was pretty much an ultimatum from Rand. If Im wrong on anything of this please correct me. I havent read through the whole article "The Sociology of the Ayn Rand Cult" by Rothbard and Im not really interested in doing it either. I did some briefly reading and it appears that the text is written with a bitter emotion behind it, as is often the case in these personal feuds among people in the Objectivism movement, unfortunatly. However I do belive that Rothbard is more bitter with the movement of Objectivism then the philosophy, even if you can probably spot some attempt at attacks on the philosophy itself. I have the felling that there are quite a lot of people that are dissapointed of some of the actions the movement has taken. I mainly think of the excommunications that I belive has done more harm then good, and given the unfortunate appearence of Objectivism as a "cult" rather then a philosophical movement. These personal feuds is probably the biggest reason why I havent subscribed to any organisation that promotes Objectivism (such as ARI, TOC). My main interest is the philosophy and I feel that I dont have to be a part of an organisation to learn and practise it, on the contrary I belive it to be good to learn it on your own feets, it builds up your individualism and indepence.

I could make a try to define minarchism in a way that people will understand what is meant with minimal: Why one belives in minarchism is because one belives that voluntary actions between people is a good thing and should be encouraged. However the minarchist belives that there are some areas where voluntary relationship just cant work (market failures), laws is the most common one but others might belive that roads and pollution-controls are impossible aswell. Thus its because one see some voluntary relations between people as (unfortunatly) impossible that one calls himself an minarchist.

Since I used the term minarchy in another thread I felt that MinorityOfOne's post was indirectly adressed to me. I see that you use the term big-L-libertarian. One usually uses small or big L depending on the meaning of libertarian one is adressing. libertarian = the movement Libertarian = the party See libertarian on wiki for more info. Yes, many libertarians views the government as a neccesary evil. Why do you think they do it? This is important to know if we should judge if they are wrong or not. I belive they think that the enforced-monopoly issue contradicts individual rights. Thats why one might want to emphasize on the synonym "night-watchman" if one belives that "minimal" is to fussy. Night-watchman: (courts, police, prisons, defence forces), this is what Rand advocated is a governments proper function. See minarchy on wiki. I've seen disputes about this in the Objectivist movement too. The libertarian position is that a government doesn't have any other rights then those of its citizens. So the relationship between governments works the same as between individuals. A government acts as an agent for an individual who has delegated his right to it, thus it can retaliate for this person. So if a person in another country delegates his rights to this government then it could also take action for him, even if this would mean a conflict with another government. It is the same relation as between individuals if one cryes for help because hes being attacked. Morality is however a thing that could differ a libertarian government from an Objectivist one. This is because libertarianism doesn't subscribe to a specific moral system, but an Objective moral system and libertarianism is compatible so this difference doesn't have to exist. Although it is questionable whatever a government would declare war on another one on a moral basis. If a person does something that is moraly wrong we dont usually punish him, it is when he brakes a law that actions will be taken. Moral is something that cant be enforced because it has to be a choice. Finally any government that starts to talk in collectivist terms such as "in the nation's best interest" should be treated very suspectibly. A Government must never step on any of its (or others) individuals rights and must therefor take every individual into account instead of society as a whole.

R said "interested in reading and evaluating", not "required".

Im impressed with your history in the movement, and you out performe me on that part. But our views on what the word libertarian means differs, and there lies our dissagrement Its not hard to understand that this can happen, since the term libertarian is a pretty broad term. However the impression I've got from my studies is that libertarianism is not used to mainly refer to anarchists, but more to people who advocates a limited state (minarchism). Thus the term anarcho-capitalist, market-anarchist and such was created to differ the two appart. But anarcho-capitalists and libertarians are very closely related, and it wouldnt surprice me that anarcho-capitalists is involved in libertarianism since they are practicly the same with different views on the state. I think the schism between them is the same as the one in the Objectivism movement. I did some searches on libertarianism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian this site states that libertarianism has an history of being a synonym for anarchism but in the '"Libertarian" as "classical liberal"' section this can be found: However, in the US since the 1950s, the word libertarian has been massively used by classical liberals, only a few of them being anarcho-capitalists. on the same site is also a reference to the Cato institute which is refered to as libertarian. Although Cato says that they see problems with all kinds of labeling there mission states: The Cato Institute seeks to broaden the parameters of public policy debate to allow consideration of the traditional American principles of limited government, individual liberty, free markets and peace. And on the site: http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Libertarian can also this be found: Synonyms: Free-marketer, objectivist, classical liberal, strict constructionist, laissez-faire, Lockean. which implies a relationship with classical liberalism which is not considered anarchism as far as I know. I wouldnt be surpriced if you can find sites that says the opposite, but I have tried to pick some famous ones as to get my point across. Enough writing for today!

You are missreading me. The message in my post, including the one you quoted was not aimed at everyone on this board, but instead to the people, which I also quoted and named. That is: GreedyCapitalist and Capitalism Forever. If someone thought that I did a generalisation of everyone on this board, and got offended, Im sorry, that was not what I meant, infact part of my message was that these generalisations was dumb-downs of the subject their addressing, and therefor unfortunate on this discussion board. I also did write "And to you too.", that you left out in your quoting of me, as to imply that I was answering to the persons. It might be that these two people I adressed are well educated on the libertarian position, but I didnt get that impression from their posts: These arguments to me appeard as narrow-sighted and more as mocking then as rational arguments. Austrian economics is a moving target, as is all economic science more or less today. Still I belive that it is the school that best continues where Rand stopped on her political writings. For those who are interested in how a laissez-faire society would look and act, the writings in the libertarian movement has alot to offer. Sure Austrian economics was originaly based on Kant subjectivism (Mises), but despite this it comes to the same conclusions as Objectivism. The main things Im thinking of are the three no-no's in libertarianism, that is non-initiation of force. These are: - No physical aggression towards another (including property). - No threat of force towards another. - No fraud towards another. These are the core of libertarianism, and that core can be provided by Objectivism. I think some Objectivist has a tendency to throw out the whole concept to hastly when they see some little detail that opposes Objectivism instead of applying the wisdom they have got from Rands philosophy. I have found that Objectivism has a great ability to answer these quirks. So I dont recommend Objectivist to ignore libertarianism because that is to ignore alot of useful work by alot of people.

Can you state some facts that back up this accusation, on the Libertarian Party website also please (www.lp.org). I have never seen that the Libertarian Party is pushing an anarchist agenda. And besides your response to the prevous guy (kgvl I think) is even evading some obvious facts. Most parties elects there leaders (and I think the Libertarian Party do too), so there is nothing that says that an Objectivist can't be a leader of the Libertarian Party, quite the opposite in my opinion, an Objectivist has alot to offer the Libertarian Party. And besides its not like the leaders have unlimited power, you are talking about probably the most individualistic party on the american political scene.

I can only agree. It sounds an awful lot like the worst of bad propaganda. Why dont you actually study some of the libertarian litterature that exist out there. Anatole seems to be much more informed on the subject than you. Libertarianism is a position that is shared by many different people with different underlying philosophies on how to reach the points libertarianism advocates. Guess what, in the libertarian movement you will find people that advocates anarchism but you will also find minarchist and even aristotalian natural-rights people such as Objectivists. Why you chose to generalise that all libertarians are anarchist is beyond my grasp, as well as the fact that you try to build up huge walls against them, when in fact you probably have alot in common with them. And if there is some things that you disagree with them, why dont you discuss it with them, instead of trying to build false generalisations of them. And to you too. Why dont you read some libertarian litterature instead of just plotting scare-pictures of libertarians with your friends. You could start with Ludwig von Mises. I saw an article about this subject that was published some days ago. Perhaps it can be useful: Can the Ideas of Mises and Rand Be Reconciled? http://www.solohq.com/Articles/Younkins/Ca...econciled.shtml

Sure, and if I use my flashlight to shine on someone elses property that too could be called a property violation. It could even be debated that sounds from my mouth that reaches an unconsenting ear is a violation. Where the limit is is up to the people involved to decide. What decides the limit is if its economicly reasonable or not for the violated to press charges against the violater. By the same principle that you would deal retribution in a case where someone punshes another person, by the an eye for an eye principle (shouldnt be taken literaly). The retribution should be weighted to as closely as possible undo the violation as if the victim would never have been violated. Well its really more about objective answers then "absolute answers". In the case about retribution for an example an absolute compensation, in the meaning that absolute means: WordNet ® 2.0 adj 1: perfect or complete or pure; .. 5: without conditions or limitations; .. might not always be possible. For an example if someone mutilates another person in a fight the physical damage might not be able to be undone perfectly. But the damage can be undone as good as possible including retribution for suffering. May it be that the facts are not always self-evident, so, then we will just have to take the facts that aren't self-evident into account aswell. Or are you trying to imply someting else?

Have you accounted for that property rights also includes water in your example? An example is that if you live in a house next to a river, and someone up-streams decides to dump waste (or do any other action that affects the water) that impacts your use of the water negatively. That is an infringement of your property right to that water and you can take legal action against the polluter.

The first thing that I reflect over when I see this statement is the "man is to serve the planet" message. The message begs the question, why is man to "serve" the planet? Why is man bound to serve anything but himself? To me this sounds like the classic struggle between altruism and egoism. The Environmentalist claims that man is to "serve" the benefitor, the planet, thus they are altruist. An egoist would instead argue that man requires a nature that is healthy for him, and thus he should treat it with care as he uses the fruits of nature to his advantage. I would say that you could spend alot of time trying to understand why man should "serve" the planet. And Im sure that you wont find any answer to it either. Objectivisms position on this is that man should only serve himself, thus egoism. Environmentalism as I see it, really hasn't anything new to offer the intelectual debate. Environmentalism is instead more a form of a mutation of the socialism position, that is losing momentum and needs to find a new grandiose goal that all humans should serv and sacrifice themself for. altruism in some of its different forms: religion = serve the god monarchy = serve the king socialism = serve the working class national socialism = serve the nation environmentalism = serve the planet So in conclusion the statement is quite absurd for an objectivist minded person because he/she belives that man is not born into servitude.

I read on Solo also that the film rights to Anthem has been acquired. It doesnt exist a link to an outside site unfortunatly, but hopefully we will hear more of it later. This was the first book of Rand that I read and I have many good images in my head that I think would do great on the screen. Film Rights Acquired to Rand's Anthem

Since I've seen some steam occasionally show up in different threads on this site, I decided that perhaps it would be good if the discussion of "anarchism or not in Objectivism" got its own thread. Therefore I suggest that we continue discussing this in the "anarchism vs minarchism" thread in the "Politics and Political Philosophy" section.

When I browsed through the Political Philosophy section on the same site I also found this essay that might be useful to you. It probably say alot of the same things as the first one, but it seems to add to it too. What Is the Objectivist View of Libertarianism? http://www.theobjectivistcenter.org/articl...ertarianism.asp

When you think of anarchism you should see it as a wider group that includes all politics/philosophies that are against the state, and not just a particular kind of anarchism, as anarcho-socialism for example. To an objectivist that whould like to see how the different interpretations of anarchism fits in with the Objectivist philosophy I would suggest studying anarcho-capitalism (also named [free] market-anarchism, and I assume anarcho-libertarianism is the same thing). Anarcho-capitalism is closely related to libertarianism and thus quite familiar to an Objectivist-person. The critique I often see from objectivist and Rand herself in her writings I personaly find over-simplified, Roy Childs does make a good work at showing this in his document I will link to below. Anarchism offer many thought-provocing ideas and I do belive that even if you dont agree that society without an state is desirable, you will find the thoughts and ideas to perhaps better complement the state. For an Objectivist that is interested in reading about how objectivism and anarchism could fit I suggest Roy Childs "Open letter to Rand" where he describes his ideas on objectivism and the state. If anyone knows about any official response from Rand or Peikoff on this letter I would be happy to take part of them. http://no-treason.com/wild/Childs_Open_Letter_to_Rand.html I have heard from other people that the book "Market for Liberty" also makes a similar point, I havent read it myself but from the description of it it seems interesting. http://lfb.com/prodinfo.asp?number=LI5886

It do point out the connection between the Right to Life and Right to Property. That is, it says that if you dont have the exclusive right to the use of yourself, someone else has the right to the use of you. And that means that you have no right to not be killed. Most people do belive that one has a Right to Life and thus the maker to this movie didnt thought it was necesary to explain this. Secondly this movie is an introduction to libertarian philosophy so its not as complete as objectivist philosophy. So if you want to know how to deduce the Right to Life read some objectivism or perhaps start a new thread named "A question about the Right to Life" or "My case against the Right to Life", and perhaps you will get an explanation there.

Everyone seems to agree on how the Right to Life and the Property Right is closely related, yet it seems as if you still belive that there is a difference between them two. In my understanding of the Property Right I have come more and more to the conclusion that the Property Right (using a property relation to yourself) serves all the need that the Right to Life is adressing and thus makes the Right to Life more or less redundant. So in my language I only talk about the Property Right now days and therefor Im very interested to hear what you belive the Right to Life includes that the Right to Property doesnt?

Im glad you liked it I love the image myself With your screen name perhaps you should be looking for something similar?

I see that you One Shot Wonder has a definition of property: 'And of course since claim only comes in two flavors, exclusive and none at all, then we might as well call claim the "exclusive ability to use and disposal"' I agree that the property right can be defined as: "exclusive ability to use and disposal" and thus property will be defined as: "something that can be exclusivly used and disposed by someone" These are good definitions since they point at the core of property right, that is exclusive use. I have studied some Objectivism but Im not claiming to represent it fully, instead I like to see my philosophy as based on Objectivism. But I think Im on the same track as Ayn Rand. To be curious I would like to know how much you, One Shot Wonder, knows about Objectivism? It would give me an hint on how detailed I should present my arguments. First of all in the ideas of Objectivism, man acquires his rights by the virtue of his nature. Thus Objectivism in this case is a Natural Rights philosophy. This position is derived from different axioms and if you are not sure on how it is reached I recommend you to study some Objectivist literature, since it is quite time-consuming for me to explain it here. I will present a short version of it anyway: Rand establishes early in her philosophy the importance of Life (which is not only to be alive but also to prosper, develop enjoy it and more). That is she sees it as the goal, for every man to strive for, and as such points out the importance of man to be able to his fullest capacity to reach it. The most important thing that man has to rely on to reach this goal is his mind and reason. The mind is crucial since it is what forms our actions. Since life is the goal and man must act to reach and preserve it, as for example he is required by his nature to produce and consume food. Man must be able to use his mind and reason. To best explain this is to use examples. A man who works to sustain his life will do so perhaps by farming our fishing to produce his food. To farm a field or fish in a lake a man will have to use his mind and labour. Lets say a person has decided to get some fish for dinner. To realize his thought he will start making a fishing rod and later go the lake and catch a fish. Once the person has got his fish he will have used his reason, labour, energy and time to get it. Now if someone comes and takes the fish away from him he will have nullified his reason, labour, energy and time. To demostrate using the equation: What was: mind + reason = property became: mind + reason = 0 Thus in this scenary the man was unable to get his food, that is he was unable to sustain his life, and if this is repeated against him he will ultimately lose his life. With other words if he can no longer consume what he produces he can no longer use his reason, since the product of his reason may be taken away from him. In such a scenary the person might become forced to steal (as in not retaliate) from other persons to sustain his life, and this is what Rand says is to abbondon Life as an goal since the person is no longer sustaining his life by his own effort but instead by others, and is thus unfit for living. This also applies if a person would be sowing a field to get food later. If someone would destroy the field for the person the persons property might not be nullified but his labour, energy and time will be and thus also his reason. This is good examples of the purpose of the Property Right, but one thing that is sometimes missed is that property: "something that can be exclusivly used and disposed by someone" not only relates to things around us but also to ourself. We often belive that we have an "right to exclusive use" of ourselfs but fail to grasp that this right is really the Property Right. With this in mind we can also make another argument for Property Rights. No other person can have more control over our body then we have. That is noone can make our arm move as we can. This could infact be viewed as an evidence for the existence of Property. Finally one has to understand that Property is not so much about the object but more about the labour, energy and time invested in it by its owner. Lets go back to the scenary of the fishing man that got his fish taken by another person. If they starts to argue about whose the fish is, they wouldnt only argue about who owns the fish but also about who owns the labour done by the fishing man.

mind + reason = property I must say that to write it as an equation is a really beautiful way of expressing the logic and the different parts connection to eachother. Earlier I have mostly seen it expressed in text and even though Ive understood it, this way triggerd a sort of aha-experience. There is a short animated movie that also demonstrates this quite well: http://www.isil.org/resources/introduction.html