glynelewis

To make it simple I am using GDP per capita as the sole criterion of value. I am ignoring the effect a law may have on a single individual. If a law increases GDP per capita it should be enacted, within limits. If legalizing slavery somehow happend to increase GDP that would be wrong for obvious reasons. However, asking people to make "small sacrifices", filling out disclosures for an IPO, not having a second child, recycling, etc., if these sacrifices increase economic efficiency, should not be ruled out just solely because they infringe on an individual's rights and make their life a little more inconvenient. My goal is not too trash objectivism. I am just pointing out a weakness that I see in it compared to socialism which would conceivably allow such violations of individual rights.

I am using a utilitarian standard to judge the effectiveness of Rand’s ideal laissez faire capitalist government, not a moral one. Of course Rand’s ideal government is moral by its own terms. Rand’s standard of value at the individual level, do that which promotes your own life, can also be characterized as “utilitarian”. I am applying the same standard of value at the level of an entire society; a government should do that which promotes the lives of all the citizens, which is necessarily the “greater good”. If you want to compare different systems of government, socialism vs. laissez faire capitalism, and determine which provides a better standard of living (GDP per capita), I think one has to apply a utilitarian standard, not a subjective moral standard. The average citizen of any state would probably ask the same question. Will my life be better under a laissez faire capitalist government or a socialist government?. He would not ask: is my government ideologically consistent or “moral”? China’s communist government is certainly not ideologically consistent, but manages to stay in power by providing a constantly improving standard of living. Instead of completely forbidding the violation of individual rights, one could analyze the costs and benefits of a particular law or regulation on a case by case basis. In the case of population control one could weigh the benefits (low price for a limited natural resource like oil) against the costs (discouraging innovation and substitutes for oil, like nuclear power). To take the position that any government intervention always has a negative effect on the economy I think ignores the evidence. For example, government securities laws make it easier for people to trade on the stock exchange using accurate information, resulting in a more efficient allocation of capital. To reiterate my initial point, individual rights should not be held as sacrosanct for the sake of ideological purity when the government could enact laws that would benefit everyone and provide a better standard of living.

Maybe I can restate my criticism of Objectivism more succinctly without getting into semantic arguments. My understanding of Objectivism is that the ideal government Rand proposed in her writings does not have the power to violate individual rights even if it can be proven that such a violation would benefit the individuals in the state. In my post the Impractical Objectivist I gave the example of government imposed population control, a measure that should be prohibited by Objectivism because it violates individual rights. Assuming that a state has limited natural resources and that more people will result in higher prices for these resources (higher demand + limited supply = higher prices), it would benefit everyone if the population were limited by the government. The marginal utility of having one extra worker would be outweighed by the costs of inflation. I will phrase the above as a question so I don’t offend anyone. Can the ideal government proposed by Rand ever violate individual rights if that violation benefits the individuals in the state? I really want to know how an objectivist political platform would be distinguishable from the Libertarian Party political platform - limited government and the enshrinement of individual rights, leaving aside the philosophical underpinnings.

An Administrator on this site locked my post in the Poltical Philosophy board called "The Impractical Objectivist" apparently because he thought I was making a drive by shooting. In the post I criticized Objectivism on the grounds that Rand's axiom that Individual rights can never be violated unless there is a metaphysical emergency, is too rigid and inflexible. I proposed expanding the definition of "emergency" to allow the government to violate individual rights in order to prevent over population and revolution. My post was locked within hours of being posted. This is the type of dogmatism and intolerance I would expect in North Korea. Is Objectivism beyond any criticism here?

My biggest beef with Objectivism is that it does not allow for government intervention to solve real world problems if one follows the tenets of Objectivism dogmatically. In Ayn Rand’s ideal state the government’s only function is to provide a police protection and enforce contracts and property rights. Such a utopian state doesn’t account for the concentration of wealth and a vast underclass of illiterate and impoverished people. Presuming that private action or philanthropy will solve illiteracy or poverty is a fantasy. Concentration of wealth is a natural process of capitalism. However such an imbalance of wealth is fertile ground for demagogues like Obama and is inherently unstable. If the government intervenes and provides some minimum standard of health and education, such as system would be stable and less vulnerable to revolution. Such a solution is prohibited by Objectivism because it necessitates the redistribution of wealth and the violation of individual rights. Objectivism’s inherent antipathy towards environmentalism, based on the fact that its adherents value ‘nature’ above man, also prevents Objectivism from offering practical solutions to pressing problems, such as over exploitation of non-renewable resources, and over population. My marginal utility of having one extra person on earth is outweighed by the costs the extra person imposes on me in the form of higher prices for limited resources, such as land and oil, through more competition. As a selfish environmentalist, I also value my ability to enjoy the outdoors above another individual’s life or property. Sharing the forest with more people decreases my, and everyone else’s’, enjoyment. Forced sterilization or Chinese type fines would solve these environmental problems but are, again, prohibited by Objectivism, because they violate individual rights. The root of the problem that prevents Objectivism from offering practical solutions is Rand’s axiom that an individual’s rights cannot be violated absent some “metaphysical emergency” . If this axiom were tweeked to expand the definition of an “emergency” to include things like the prevention of future revolutions and the costs imposed by overpopulation, Objectivism would be more flexible. I realize that this is a slippery slope but it would allow Objectivism to offer practical solutions without being relegated to an irrelevant utopian political philosophy. A concerned Objectivist wannabe