Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Seeker

Regulars
  • Posts

    555
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by Seeker

  1. I chose McCain because I would rather have an ineffective leader of the left as opposed to an effective leader of the left. As to the other candidates, none are Objectivists and all will lose, so there is absolutely no advantage to be gained in voting for any of them. I did question at first whether to vote at all; as a resident of California, the outcome is all but certain, except that that begs the question: on principle, not voting because you're certain you'll lose guarantees that very outcome, while were you and others similarly situated to vote on principle, it might actually go your way. So I'll vote for McCain for the reasons described above.
  2. This is rather like saying that failure is inevitable because success is not guaranteed. As I pointed out, philosophical education must occur in tandem.
  3. I think the effects would become concrete with growth when the town would restrain the usual impulse towards increased taxes, services, and regulations. This of course would require gradually converting non-Objectivists who would join the town, to continue its policies, and assumes a strong potential for growth. Clearly it is not a given that Van Tassel is the best starting point. Other than just low population (chosen for the presumed speed of converting the town and surrounding areas), the location should be selected based on factors such as those already mentioned, such as the degree to which existing residents might be amenable to Objectivism, the proximity to other cities and economic centers, and the degree of power granted to town government by state law. The trade-off is the greater difficulty, at the outset, of assembling an Objectivist government in a larger town. All of these are factors to consider in forming the best strategy. Since Objectivism is not merely a political platform but a fully integrated philosophy that must be spread whole lest the political implementation collapse, any version of plan will have to deal with how to convert people to Objectivism. Forming political alliances with non-Objectivists to gain power runs the risk if not outright certainty of compromise which is wholly inadmissible. The plan therefore relies upon Objectivist electoral majorities; the question is how to create those majorities. One way is to start with a sufficient number of Objectivists at the outset, as envisaged here; another would be to create that number by converting existing residents through philosophically-oriented election campaigns. Objectivism, because it incorporates politics, will not be fully realized until Objectivists actually run for and hold political office at all levels of government, which in turn depends upon converting a majority of the residents. The premise of this plan is that federal and state majorities can be hastened by the establishment of Objectivist governments at the local level to serve as positive examples.
  4. I agree and disagree - I agree that it is essential to educate people philosophically, but I disagree that this cannot occur in tandem with concrete change politically. The Objectivist pioneers must be philosophical educators. They must explain to their neighbors the hows and whys of Objectivist politics; the connection between the advantages in real concrete terms and Objectivist concepts of reality, reason, and rights must be taught explicitly. A basic tenet of the plan is that Objectivism is not to be compromised for political expediency; this will require the spread of Objectivism in its entirety. I also agree that the types of policy changes that can be implemented at the local level are relatively limited in scope, but this does not mean that they are not significant. For example, property taxes are typically imposed by localities. For another example, land use planning ordinances are typically made at the local level. The real value however is that for the first time a town would exist that would be implementing Objectivism expressly in real, concrete terms. Not only would this be a chance to begin working out the myriad details of implementing law based on Objectivism, but it would serve as an inspiration and model to others. So I agree about the need to educate and see this as a way to do so. Population need not be the only factor to consider in selecting a locality. However, in order to preserve Objectivism whole from the outset, given the limited number of Objectivists it must be a predominant factor. That said, an array of other criteria might be appropriate to consider provided that it does not hinder the basic approach.
  5. In a recent debate on federalism I proposed that Objectivists congregate in a single state for the purpose of establishing a model Objectivist government, to serve as an example to the rest of the country. Because the number of Objectivists is relatively small (in a recent thread it was estimated at 25,000), it is clear that this is presently infeasible. However, the same idea is feasible when applied to smaller political subdivisions. So here is my plan. The smallest state in the United States is Wyoming with an estimated population of 522,830. Its smallest county is Niobrara, with a population of 2,407. The smallest town therein is Van Tassel, with a population of 18. Phase one of the plan involves the commitment of 20 or more Objectivists to form an elective majority in the town of Van Tassel for the purpose of establishing the first Objectivist town government. To the extent that Wyoming law invests the town government with power, this will be a first chance to apply Objectivist principles to town policy. This will set an example for neighboring towns and Niobrara county with the expectation that the positive results will encourage further political expansion of Objectivist principles. Phase two of the plan involves the political transition to Objectivist principles of Niobrara county. The close physical proximity of Van Tassel will mean that the successes of the showcase Objectivist town can be seen firsthand and its lessons applied readily. Phase three of the plan involves the political transition to Objectivist principles of additional counties following the example set by Niobrara and ultimately a majority of the state of Wyoming, which will facilitate the establishment of an Objectivist state government. This is the key step because much power resides at the state level, including the ability to privatize many state functions such as education and abolish state taxation. Phase four of the plan involves the political transition of other states based on the example set by Wyoming, and ultimately, the federal government, enabling the repeal of unjust federal laws such as federal income taxes, regulations of private industry, and so forth. The concentric expansion of Objectivist political principles by concrete example will occur at a natural pace and involve no compromises. Can I get 20 takers? Who's on board?
  6. The question I have with an unlimited right of secession for any group of individuals is whether it could give rise to a continually changing patchwork of governmental jurisdictions that would ultimately challenge the monopoly-on-force principle. It is not a given, for instance, that the territory over which their government would operate would be contiguous with stable boundaries. It is also possible that the secessionist group would itself splinter into subgroups, each declaring its independence from the others, further challenging the requisite order. Once a group purports to create its own government, it must thereby end its claim on the protection of the other. Should disagreements arise about the application of objective law, there is no way to settle it but by a call to arms. To say that the groups could settle it by taking one another to court presupposes the existence of courts within a stable governmental framework which is precisely what does not exist. Though freedom would ostensibly exist, in practice this would seem to devolve into anarchism.
  7. First, your solution fails to provide a foreseeable means by which either would go laissez faire in the first place. Second, the relative difficulties attendant in a reliance on countries to provide the same safeguards as states within a federal system should be obvious. We need only consider the difference between citizens of a single state having to flee versus those of an entire country. As a practical matter, federalism's solution works relatively easily, whereas your solution does not. And why allow the whole of America to revert, when federalism's cure could have prevented the disease from reaching that far in the first place? Fortunately, it is your difficult solution that federalism renders unnecessary; it is hard to see how one could justify the burdens that your solution imposes, when the alternative of federalism exists.
  8. I have to disagree. Other countries exist predominately with people whose language and culture vary much more significantly, and the freedom of mobility cannot be presupposed. As a means of preserving liberty within the nation, therefore, I am not persuaded that a resort to different countries would serve that purpose.
  9. The question is, how do we implement the basic principle? At the outset, the federal government and state governments today all reflect the outrageous philosophical premises that predominate in our time. A first step would be to avail ourselves of federalism by congregating in a distinct geographic territory, say, Delaware, and form a majority of the population in support of Objectivist principles (I can see you shaking your head, but bear with me). Even carrying the weight of the federal government's burdens there is no question that the results of objective state law, in prosperity and human happiness, would be an example to the rest of the country. To actually see an Objectivist state in action would be a positive lesson that would spread, state-by-state, and ultimately to the federal government. That type of change would be impossible were the federal government to have the sole legislative power. The value of federalism here is as a means of achieving positive change. Then the question would be, how do we preserve the basic principle? Here we seek a way to remedy and prevent negative change. In the same way that our model Objectivist state served as a positive lesson to the rest of the country, if another state, for whatever reason, were to begin to fall into error and implement contrary principles, the resulting disaster would serve as a useful reminder, and with the freedom of mobility its citizens could flee from danger until corrective action was taken. In fact the mere possibility of flight to other states would serve to check abuse. That form of curing undesirable change would not exist, were the federal government to have the sole legislative power. My solution is to create proper boundaries between federal and state power such that essentially the same offense would not be counted as two distinct offenses, i.e. to repeal a lot of federal laws. In cases where a single act was an offense against state and nation requiring separate prosecutions, this is a cost and consequence of the federal system; the flip side of the risk of double prosecution to the defendant is the possibility of double security to the victim in such cases, so I think the disaster is a bit overblown, though I certainly acknowledge that the argument against allowing any double prosecutions for the same act is significant; even so, the problem could be solved by a law designating the preferred plaintiff in various circumstances and by other procedural means, so I conclude that this fails as an argument against federalism as such.
  10. Then we agree on that point. Alright, then I'll use the phrase "government official", i.e. person running government, instead: Now you merely need to ask whether the possibility of corruption is best mitigated by limiting the power of each individual government official which renders cases of corruption manageable by way of checks and balances, versus vesting one government official with the whole power of government, which should he be corrupt would be catastrophic. By "safeguard" I mean a constitutional provision that serves to protect individual rights. I never said that you did. Then you must argue that the possibility of a single corrupt official invested with the whole power of government is admissible as a rational option. I wholeheartedly reject that concusion, so indeed, we disagree. To the contrary, in some circumstances, particularly in smaller countries, federalism might be impractical, and I certainly do not urge it in such circumstances.
  11. I apologize for confusion and edited my post to clarify my point. I do not claim to demonstrate that federalism is necessarily beneficial, only that it is one possible means to safeguard liberty. I will address your other points subsequently.
  12. Then you acknowledge the possibility of corrupt rulers, i.e. that a reliance on government always being run by rational people is unrealistic. Good. Now you merely need to ask whether the possibility of corruption is best mitigated by limiting the power of each individual ruler, which renders cases of corruption manageable by way of checks and balances, versus vesting one ruler with the whole power of government, which should he be corrupt would be catastrophic. This is the practical nature of such safeguards; a government that incorporates them is a government for men who live in reality. If federalism, on balance, is beneficial, then I have, because having multiple sets of laws follows from having multiple sets of lawmakers. You cannot have your cake and eat it too. If we acknowledge the possibility of corruption, then we must acknowledge the practical need for measures to deal with it, including divided power. We can certainly debate the implementation details. I simply argue that, as one means among many, the advantages of a federal system ought not be dismissed.
  13. No, because my argument does not actually lead to the conclusion that "in order to limit abuse of power, the only government should be a strongly circumscribed federal one". In federalism, power is circumscribed because it is divided between two levels of government and among several states, each assigned various matters to deal with in its jurisdiction. That division of power among multiple actors is a means of curtailing the potential for abuse by any one of them. When you say "a state government with vastly expanded power", this suggests a concentration of power that would defeat the safeguard. But concentrated is the very opposite of divided and diffuse. So once again I reject that this follows from my argument or from the concept of federalism as such. I certainly would agree that federalism alone is not a sufficient way to prevent abuse. Other relevant means include state constitutions and separate and distinct branches of government at the state level, as well as the federal guarantees of equal protection and due process of law given in the 14th Amendment and other amendments. However as one safeguard among many, federalism is a practical way to help ensure individual rights. I again point to the fact that the history of government is replete with abuses and conclude that a properly devised system of government must divide power by various means.
  14. For example, the legislature of New York has no jurisdiction in New Jersey; the governor of New Jersey has no executive power in Maryland; and so forth. The federal Congress has power over the entire country, but only with respect to those limited subjects of legislation expressly authorized by the U.S. Constitution, Article I (provided that the constitition is followed in this respect - but see my disclaimer about widespread philosophical agreement for the limitation of this limitation). This is what I mean by circumscribing the domain of various government actors to curtail the potential for abuse. I suppose if you had a perfectly rational man running the government then there would be no issue of abuse, but to suggest the possibility of a perfectly rational man is to suggest that which has never existed in the history of human experience. As an ideal towards which to strive, we rightly herald the idea of a perfectly rational man. As a practical basis for the design of government in the real world, checks upon the potential for abuse by men of imperfect character are crucially necessary. Perhaps not (as solely a matter of objective law), but that is not the same as not seeing any justification for state-specific governments (including separate legislatures). That justification is the necessity of limiting the potential for abuse as I have stated above. Do you accept that argument?
  15. Federalism, like separation-of-powers, serves to curtail the potential for abuse by circumscribing the domain of various government actors. It is not a primary in the political context in the sense that the concept of freedom is, but an implementation detail, one of many practical measures for dealing with the reality that men are not perfect and that various means of constraining their potential for abuse must be devised to keep the government operating within rational bounds as much as possible. As with any constitutional safeguard, its effectiveness is not absolute; no safeguard can ultimately withstand a widespread philosophical agreement to the contrary. However, as one of many complimentary constitutional safeguards, federalism is rightly regarded as important to the preservation of individual freedoms. We should not dismiss its advantages.
  16. Unless the Democrats win many more Senate seats, which (together with liberal Republicans) could render the filibuster a nullity. That's the other train wreck waiting to happen.
  17. Obama is the tooth fairy. He's real if you believe in him. There hasn't been a major party candidate in my lifetime that so perfectly exemplifies so many bad philosophical ideas, from epistemology (feelings trump reason) to ethics (let's all give selflessly) to politics (to hell with capitalism). McCain may be an intellectual empty sack, but at least the sack exists and has some semblance, however inconsistent, of pro-capitalist principles every once in a while. What, pray tell, is Obama? At best he is an orator in slick packaging who says nothing, and does it very well. At worst he is the epitome of evil. And yet, he stands an excellent chance of being elected the next President of the United States. A country gets what it deserves. Obama's rise is historic not because he is the first black on a major party ticket, but for what it says about the philosophical state of our country. I just shake my head in sadness and disbelief.
  18. I merely copied the opening of the article that I linked to, but I should have used quotes to make that clear.
  19. Global Warming Skeptics Plot Carbon Belch Day Conservative grassroots group Grassfire.org wants people to waste as much energy as possible on June 12 by "hosting a barbecue, going for a drive, watching television, leaving a few lights on, or even smoking a few cigars." The point: the group wants to "help Americans break free from the 'carbon footprint guilt' being imposed by Climate Alarmists."
  20. I didn't say that. Indeed, to the extent that enviros are constraining future supply, not only are speculators driving up the price, but they ought to be driving up the price. Just how else will future constraints in supply, in the context of rising global demand, be managed if so-called "speculators" didn't drive up the price? The problem is in not placing the proximate responsibility where it belongs with the emphasis on "speculators". I'm all for blaming the enviros for making things worse, but then let's pin the blame where it belongs, not on free market participants who are merely acting in their own rational self-interest.
  21. First, who says we're in a "mess"? So prices are up. Prices should be as high as the market will bear, suppliers should be maximizing their profits, and some consumers (namely, the insufficiently productive among us) should be unable to afford it; so if prices go up, hooray. There is no "fire". Second, so-called "speculators" are just traders, perfoming a service by managing scarcity through predictions about future supply and demand; they either turn a profit or lose their shirts based on their performance. Such predictions will always be made by someone in the trading chain. Now of course, government makes everything worse by banning supplies and taxing consumers, but that's not the problem raised here. While irrational speculation is certainly possible, the market will correct that problem as it always does when left alone. As it stands, the oil not burned today at today's prices will be available tomorrow at tomorrow's prices. Markets work. Three cheers for the traders who make them work.
  22. Seeker, I love reading your posts. They are always intelligent, to the point, and show thorough thinking. Yey Seeker! o/

  23. There were certain ideas that Rand needed to hit on the head and slavery-by-bloodline was one on them. Nowhere else than family is the evil of emotional guilt so pervasively used to control others. I've seen it in my own and countless other families. Particularly when times are close to the bone, or when survival-by-trade seems uncertain, people see making claims on family as a means of sustaining their lives. Farm families for example, were traditionally large for a reason - the parents felt entitled to the labors of their offspring to support them in their old age. Indeed socialism could be seen as the logical extension of this tribalistic principle when the nuclear family was no longer sufficient to make it work. A novel illustrating the role of man's mind in his survival, and the evils of such concepts as altruism and the sanction of the victim would have been incomplete without attacking the problem of family head-on, and Atlas Shrugged did so marvelously - if you don't see your own family members among the antagonists, consider yourself lucky. You are probably in the minority.
  24. A bit of a side musing here ... In U.S. Supreme Court jurisprudence there has been, since the New Deal, a "double standard" wherein certain rights (such as free speech and the right to vote) are deemed "fundamental", while economic rights are not so protected. What's interesting is the logical connection between the two sides of that double standard: the non-right of the producers to keep their property, and the corresponding right of the non-producers to take it from them at the ballot box (and with the help of a supportive leftist media). The double standard is the legal basis of socialism. So how does this connect to this topic? I agree that "liberalism is an ideology and when the ideology is followed to the letter, you end up with complete government take over of our lives." The double standard is proof. Sure liberals are ostensibly about such classically liberal things as free speech and the right to vote - because so long as we have free elections in this country, those things are part of the mechanism whereby socialism is implemented. That, and only that, is why liberals care about those things - the right of the big guy to have his property taken, and the right of the little guy to take it from him with the greatest possible ease. One of the great things I have found about a philosophy of rational egoism is its tendency to venerate great individuals over "the little guy", the guy who thinks he just can't make it in this world, who no longer wins the benefit of sympathy. In the words of Howard Roark, "I don't think of you". Amen. What we need is a new single standard for everyone: the right of all achievers to keep what they earn, the right of great people to be great, and the right of miserable people to be miserable, with no govenment spreading everyone's misery equally.
×
×
  • Create New...