Facta, Non Verba

[Zip]

I can not think of a single piece of activism done in the name of Objectivism that could possibly match in power, scope or effect the establishment of a state founded on Objectivist principals.

However, every time I’ve seen such a proposal offered up here (in whatever form) it has been widely panned, not necessarily for the viability of it but more often than not because people are not philosophically educated or ready for it or words to that effect.

This strikes me as a straw man. If an O’ist nation is going to be established it would necessarily be established by Objectivists and therefore, by definition by those who do understand and are educated in or at least familiar with the philosophy. (I would count my self in the latter category)

So what is it that is missing? Will? A reason? Is it necessary to reach the same level of social bankruptcy as was reached in AS before anything is done? If that is true what about the fact that certain people (the men of the mind) “shrugged” long before the final catastrophic end of the dystopian US.

I’d like to know your thoughts on this issue.

I too would like to see freedom in my lifetime… facta, non verba.

[DavidOdden]

I can not think of a single piece of activism done in the name of Objectivism that could possibly match in power, scope or effect the establishment of a state founded on Objectivist principals.

Okay, but where is the magic wand? How do you establish and maintain a nation founded on Objectivist principles?

So what is it that is missing?

A magic wand. Or, (1) AS-style meltdown where civilization collapses and mankind is shocked back into reality, or (2) aslow but steady spread in Objectivist ideas so that a sufficient number of voters would support a candidate willing to derail the gravy train. A starting point would be dismantling the ethic that evey man should live "for the benefit of society as a whole". If you could even get 25% of the population to flatly reject that ethic, that would be a good start down the road to actual freedom.

[ruveyn ben yosef]

This strikes me as a straw man. If an O’ist nation is going to be established it would necessarily be established by Objectivists and therefore, by definition by those who do understand and are educated in or at least familiar with the philosophy. (I would count my self in the latter category)

This brings to mind a joke told back in the days when Socialists, Communists and IWW folk (the Wobblies) demonstrated in Union Square in New York City.

Demonstrator 1: Comes the Revolution we will have whipped cream with our strawberries.

Demonstrator 2: But comrade, suppose I don't like whipped cream with my strawberries.

Demonstrator 1: Comes the Revolution, you -will- like whipped cream with your strawberries.

The point is, no new viable government or order is going to be established contrary to the will of a substantial majority of the population, regardless of how rational and beautiful the new order is. Enough people have to buy into it to get it kick started and operating. Even Judge Nareganssett in Galt's Gulch did not start from scratch. He made some modifications to the already existing Constitution which had at one point been established and operating. The New Objectivist Order will not be woven from whole New Cloth. It will have to be a variation on that which as worked.

So what is it that is missing? Will? A reason? Is it necessary to reach the same level of social bankruptcy as was reached in AS before anything is done? If that is true what about the fact that certain people (the men of the mind) “shrugged” long before the final catastrophic end of the dystopian US.

Not enough have "shrugged". Enough competent people who buy into the current system remain and man the machines and computers. There is enough freedom left in the system that capable folk do not have a mind and a will to abandon it. Maybe those who stay in think they can improve it incrementally and sufficiently. Maybe others think they will find a way to exist "between the cracks".

I do not expect to see Objectopia in my lifetime. But then I am 76 and all good things take time, time which, most likely, I do not have. Perhaps my children and grandchildren will have better luck than I do. If I am lucky, avoid illness and stay fit, I might last another ten or fifteen years. Not enough time.

ruveyn

[Zip]

How do you establish and maintain a nation founded on Objectivist principles?

By asking that kind of question, planning and thinking outside of the box.

I don't want a magic wand. rational thought should suffice.

I don't expect it right now In my lifetime is as good a time line as any.

My point is that without a start, even a theoretical one on the nuts and bolts of transition or secession or whatever mechanism is required all the rest will never fall into place.

Civilization is the progress toward a society of privacy. The savage’s whole existence is public, ruled by the laws of his tribe. Civilization is the process of setting man free from men.

AR

[DavidOdden]

thinking outside of the box.

What do you mean by that?

[Zip]

There seems to be certain foregone conclusions amongst the people here. Like this is going to happen if at all like it did in AS (or a reasonable facsimile thereof). That America is the only place this could happen, that you have to have a significant population to start with. that it has to be democratic.

I'm saying not necessarily to all of that and letting the idea (through us) find the easiest, most practical way to its own achievement so to speak.

[Grames]

I can not think of a single piece of activism done in the name of Objectivism that could possibly match in power, scope or effect the establishment of a state founded on Objectivist principals.

I think the most relevant objection (among several that could be made) is that Objectivists don't have agreement on the practical matters of organizing a government. Specifically, how will law enforcement and courts be financed? Are all taxes necessarily theft? What is the purpose of objective law? Can people self-described as Objectivists discuss such important matters without opposing factions denouncing and excommunicating each other as hopelessly irrational?

[K-Mac]

So what is it that is missing?

For me, it's quite simple. Money. How can I afford to do such a thing?

[Clawg]

Yes, money would be the critical factor.

It is true that there is "no single piece of activism ... that could possibly match in power, scope or effect the establishment of a state founded on Objectivist principals" but the question is if it is cost-effective compared to, let's say handing out books.

In addition there still is much intellectual work to be done. First and foremost formalization of Objectivism so that it can be translated into a constitution.

A thousand well connected, dedicated Objectivists at the core with enough funding plus a million people in the peripherie plus a geographical location plus 10-20 years of work might pull it off, though.

No, I believe that the first Objectivist state will be founded in space or under-water.

[JMeganSnow]

And then it will turn into a horrible zombie video game! Sorry, bad Bioshock/System Shock reference.

The reason that notions of founding an Objectivist state are panned is that there are basically two methods of doing this: violence (which won't work and will, in fact, be counterproductive) and persuasion, which takes time. How are you going to acquire land to make an Objectivist state? It all belongs to some extant country. Are you going to kick out all the current residents? What if they don't want to leave? Other countries would rightfully view you as a bunch of terrorists, so you'd be instantly at war with the rest of the world. Have you got enough guns to win that kind of fight?

The "out of the box" idea *is* persuasion and it *is* being done. All other methods are futile and stupid.

[khaight]

I am one of those who thinks trying to establish an Objectivist state at this time is a bad idea. Consider the ramifications if, as is most likely, it fails. (Failure can happen to a complicated enterprise even if all the principals are rational -- look into the fate of Founders College if you don't believe me, and then consider how much more complicated the process of establishing a new nation is. I'd be far more likely to buy into Objectivists founding a country if they had a stronger track record of founding new social organizations on a smaller scale.)

That said, if you insist on looking into this sort of thing, I'd suggest doing a detailed study of the founding and development of the nation of Israel. It's the closest thing there is in the modern world to a small country founded on an ideological basis which has survived in the face of a largely hostile world.

I'd also note that establishing a new nation state is inherently connected to the use of force, because a government by definition holds a monopoly on the use of force inside the geographical area over which it claims jurisdiction. A government which cannot enforce that monopoly against external powers wishing to violate it is not a government.

[Seeker]

Other than the prospect of electing Objectivist governments in friendly environments at the local level, there is also the possibility of running for political office against the tide - especially for executive offices - and using the focus of election campaigns as a vehicle to spread Objectivist principles. You'd need time and money to do that so if you have the time and know a few rich folks you could convince to support you, that would be a place to start. The goal is to persuade people and win elections.

This is not premature. ARI's Objectivist Academic Center seeks to "help develop the university professors, writers, journalists and politicians who will uphold reason in the culture." (emphasis mine) So it's officially on the table: we're looking for politicians. Now the question is, can we find and elect any? If you want something concrete and political, a real plan to embrace right now, set electing an Objectivist politician to public office as your goal.

Edited June 23, 2008 by Seeker

[Zip]

I think the most relevant objection (among several that could be made) is that Objectivists don't have agreement on the practical matters of organizing a government. Specifically, how will law enforcement and courts be financed? Are all taxes necessarily theft? What is the purpose of objective law? Can people self-described as Objectivists discuss such important matters without opposing factions denouncing and excommunicating each other as hopelessly irrational?

Excellent points. So lets give it a try and find out. Would it be helpful to have these and other issues like them (dealing with the transition to an Objectivist state) all in one sub-forum of the Political Philosophy Forum?

Yes, money would be the critical factor.

It is true that there is "no single piece of activism ... that could possibly match in power, scope or effect the establishment of a state founded on Objectivist principals" but the question is if it is cost-effective compared to, let's say handing out books.

In addition there still is much intellectual work to be done. First and foremost formalization of Objectivism so that it can be translated into a constitution.

I agree that money is a critical factor and that there is a lot of work to be done, but I think you have also made a good argument for the case of sooner rather than later here...

A thousand well connected, dedicated Objectivists at the core with enough funding plus a million people in the peripherie plus a geographical location plus 10-20 years of work might pull it off, though.

Though I'm not sure that the numbers need to be so high. There are 33 nations in the world today that have populations under 100,000.

The reason that notions of founding an Objectivist state are panned is that there are basically two methods of doing this: violence (which won't work and will, in fact, be counterproductive) and persuasion, which takes time.

You missed sucession.

How are you going to acquire land to make an Objectivist state? It all belongs to some extant country. Are you going to kick out all the current residents? What if they don't want to leave? Other countries would rightfully view you as a bunch of terrorists, so you'd be instantly at war with the rest of the world. Have you got enough guns to win that kind of fight?

Land can be bought, in some places very cheaply. Then it is possible to use existing examples of sucession such as Kosovo, Macedonia and Croatia to legally argue for your own state.

Several of the arguments listed here apply.

The "out of the box" idea *is* persuasion and it *is* being done.

Sure persuasion is occurring but I disagree that there is anything outside of the box about it. It is what people have been doing since the formation of the first city state, complaining and commiserating. Is it helpful, sometimes, sure it is, but to then dismiss other methods which have not been tried as

futile and stupid.

is, well to be nice it is a non-argument meant to stifle debate and I would have hoped for/expected better.

I am one of those who thinks trying to establish an Objectivist state at this time is a bad idea. Consider the ramifications if, as is most likely, it fails. (Failure can happen to a complicated enterprise even if all the principals are rational -- look into the fate of Founders College if you don't believe me, and then consider how much more complicated the process of establishing a new nation is. I'd be far more likely to buy into Objectivists founding a country if they had a stronger track record of founding new social organizations on a smaller scale.)

That said, if you insist on looking into this sort of thing, I'd suggest doing a detailed study of the founding and development of the nation of Israel. It's the closest thing there is in the modern world to a small country founded on an ideological basis which has survived in the face of a largely hostile world.

I'd also note that establishing a new nation state is inherently connected to the use of force, because a government by definition holds a monopoly on the use of force inside the geographical area over which it claims jurisdiction. A government which cannot enforce that monopoly against external powers wishing to violate it is not a government.

Thanks for your input Khaight, I will definitely look into "Founders College". The example of Israel is a good one as well. In a cursory glance it has convinced me of the necessity to appeal to the wider world through an institution such as the UN. Though as we all know too well the UN can be very ineffective, the public opinion it sways can be a powerful thing.

As for force, the use of force is a legitimate purview of a nation but it does not necessarily mean the initiation of force.

Other than the prospect of electing Objectivist governments in friendly environments at the local level, there is also the possibility of running for political office against the tide - especially for executive offices - and using the focus of election campaigns as a vehicle to spread Objectivist principles. You'd need time and money to do that so if you have the time and know a few rich folks you could convince to support you, that would be a place to start. The goal is to persuade people and win elections.

This is not premature. ARI's Objectivist Academic Center seeks to "help develop the university professors, writers, journalists and politicians who will uphold reason in the culture." (emphasis mine) So it's officially on the table: we're looking for politicians. Now the question is, can we find and elect any? If you want something concrete and political, a real plan to embrace right now, set electing an Objectivist politician to public office as your goal.

I like this idea too, but I do not hold out much hope for it, especially in my country.

Nearly all real power in the Canadian Parliamentary system is concentrated in the Prime Ministers Office. Individual Members of the parties are little more than parrots and are completely 'whipped' in the House of Commons. Independents are very, very rarely elected and then only in response to a single issue and when they are they are a single lone vote in a parliament of 308 MP's and a Senate of 105.

In the US the rules are different and there is not as much of the slavish devotion to the Party as there is in Canada but then the numbers game kicks in again and the individual is lost.

I can not think of a single radical political change (and that is what we are talking about) that has not happened cataclysmicly, nor can I imagine the people addicted to the money, power and influence of the current political system ever giving that up. Our system draws those who aspire to power and influence, not those who aspire to rigid constitutional prohibitions and precise management.

Objectivists are diametrically opposed to the very ideals the current politicos stand for. We are dedicated to eliminating much of the government they and their kind have spent hundreds of years creating, in spite of the document that they started with.

I'd like to re-post this, I know I panned it, but I think it is a wonderful example of the spirit that is required. Thank you ruveyn ben yosef.

Oh gracious! Shit has been happening since God invented dirt. One of the crowning glories of humans is that they can cope with, overcome and even grow better when dealing with emergencies. Our race, homo sapien is a champion survivor and even a winner. From chipping flints to building tall buildings and riding ships to the moon, the best of our kind overcomes difficulties. That is the story of our race; encountering natural difficulties, overcoming them, and turning them into victories. We struggle, we labor, we overcome and some of us triumph. We are the sons and daughters of survivor kings and some of us are kings in our own right.

[K-Mac]

I was thinking about this thread last night and had another idea. Before making any serious attempt at starting an O'ist state/town, I think the founders should really do their homework. For example, reading books the Founding Fathers read and wrote, studying up on the US Constitution and the Constitutional Convention, etc. The US government is the closest anyone has ever come to forming the perfect, moral government, yet it has gone awry. Why not study the founding of it inside and out to find the loopholes that led to the current state of the US? Some of the same things we have been discussing here and in chat with regards to forming a new state/town were probably debated amongst the delegates at the Constitutional Convention as well. Understanding their arguments for and against certain issues would surely assist us in setting up a new government and determining how it would run exactly, and perhaps prevent us from making some of the same mistakes they apparently made. I don't know, perhaps some of you have already done this? Personally, I haven't studied the Constitutional Convention since junior high.

[JMeganSnow]

You missed sucession.

Inheriting a throne? Do you know any Objectivists in line for a throne somewhere? Or did you mean *secession*? The extant country you're seceding from is just going to let you walk?! Yeah, right. You'll be at war with the mother country *instantly* and you WILL have to fight.

[khaight]

Before making any serious attempt at starting an O'ist state/town, I think the founders should really do their homework. For example, reading books the Founding Fathers read and wrote, studying up on the US Constitution and the Constitutional Convention, etc.

This syncs up well with a thought I had while driving in to work today, which is that from a political science standpoint I think "Objectivist government" may be a floating abstraction. I think if you asked most Objectivists to describe an Objectivist government, you'd get some variation of "a government that acts only to protect the individual rights of its citizens", or "a government that only uses force in retaliation against those who initiate it", or something on that order. But to actually found an Objectivist government a host of additional questions need to be answered. How exactly does the government determine what specific acts are violations of rights, and what the appropriate punishments are? How should the court system be structured? How do appeals work? How are new laws written? What is the source of the government's legitimacy? How do you prevent the government from straying from its purpose? It's all very well to say that a proper government places the use of retaliatory force under the control of objective laws, but what exactly should those laws be? I'm sure there are hundreds if not thousands of such questions which must be chewed and answered in detail from inside the Objectivist philosophical framework, and as far as I know this has simply not been done.

That being the case, when somebody says "we should establish an Objectivist government" I literally do not know what they are talking about, and I don't think they do either.

One other thought on Israel -- I think they benefitted greatly from a sense of international guilt following from the Holocaust. The founders of Israel were able to leverage the clear-cut victimization of their ethnic group, and thus use altruism to extract support from other nations. This isn't a tactic that would be available to a new Objectivist nation, for obvious reasons.

[Zip]

Inheriting a throne? Do you know any Objectivists in line for a throne somewhere? Or did you mean *secession*?

My mistake. Secession is the right word.

Now why can't I edit that post? Never mind it's not important.

Edited June 23, 2008 by Zip

[Clawg]

Inheriting a throne? Do you know any Objectivists in line for a throne somewhere?

Though I'm not sure that the numbers need to be so high. There are 33 nations in the world today that have populations under 100,000.

Well, I pulled the numbers out of the air, but I think one critical factor would be defense. What will other countries think of "Objectist Country" that doesn't ratify climate protocols, has very low taxes, no barriers for business, allows free speech etc.?

And those 33 countries you speak of are probably not independent nations and certainly pose no "threat" to the lack of freedom in other countries.

Although I'd say that currently, with the US as still the superpower, I doubt that this would be a major problem if the Objectivist country isn't for example directly bordering a socialist state.

[EC]

Anyone here have the money to buy a small tropical island? That would be a perfect place to start, even though not many O'ist's would be interested in moving there initially, I don't think. To far from "home" to begin with.

[Zip]

This syncs up well with a thought I had while driving in to work today, which is that from a political science standpoint I think "Objectivist government" may be a floating abstraction. I think if you asked most Objectivists to describe an Objectivist government, you'd get some variation of "a government that acts only to protect the individual rights of its citizens", or "a government that only uses force in retaliation against those who initiate it", or something on that order. But to actually found an Objectivist government a host of additional questions need to be answered. How exactly does the government determine what specific acts are violations of rights, and what the appropriate punishments are? How should the court system be structured? How do appeals work? How are new laws written? What is the source of the government's legitimacy? How do you prevent the government from straying from its purpose? It's all very well to say that a proper government places the use of retaliatory force under the control of objective laws, but what exactly should those laws be? I'm sure there are hundreds if not thousands of such questions which must be chewed and answered in detail from inside the Objectivist philosophical framework, and as far as I know this has simply not been done.

Yes, yes and again yes, all of this does have to be worked out, and should be worked out. The starting point of a nations law is the constitution and that should be the first step.

That being the case, when somebody says "we should establish an Objectivist government" I literally do not know what they are talking about, and I don't think they do either.

I just want to clarify that I'm referring to an Objectivist government as an easy reference. Just as no art can be called Objectivist art no government can be said to be Objectivist. It can/may be inspired by it, adhere to the principals of the political philosophy of it but it can not be Objectivist.

The act of constructing the answers to your questions in the previous quote will lead us to that answer.

One other thought on Israel -- I think they benefitted greatly from a sense of international guilt following from the Holocaust. The founders of Israel were able to leverage the clear-cut victimization of their ethnic group, and thus use altruism to extract support from other nations. This isn't a tactic that would be available to a new Objectivist nation, for obvious reasons.

I agree, though I'm sure there would be a good number in society that would sympathize with and support many of the economic and social freedoms of an Objectivist inspired State.

[Zip]

Well, I pulled the numbers out of the air, but I think one critical factor would be defense. What will other countries think of "Objectist Country" that doesn't ratify climate protocols, has very low taxes, no barriers for business, allows free speech etc.?

And those 33 countries you speak of are probably not independent nations and certainly pose no "threat" to the lack of freedom in other countries.

Although I'd say that currently, with the US as still the superpower, I doubt that this would be a major problem if the Objectivist country isn't for example directly bordering a socialist state.

How do countries think of the ones that create triple digit inflation, constrict or outlaw private business', have no free speech, torture their own citizens etc? I do not believe that the majority of nations would bat an eye.

All politics is local, most people would not care and therefore most politicians would not even notice.

A good number of those countries are independent, unless you would argue that Canada isn't independent due to our Sovereign, Elizabeth II, the Queen of Canada.

[Seeker]

I just want to clarify that I'm referring to an Objectivist government as an easy reference. Just as no art can be called Objectivist art no government can be said to be Objectivist. It can/may be inspired by it, adhere to the principals of the political philosophy of it but it can not be Objectivist.

Agreed. I used it as a convenient shorthand for a government that would adhere to the political philosophy of Objectivism, but "proper government" is perhaps a more appropriate term.

Edited June 23, 2008 by Seeker

[khaight]

Yes, yes and again yes, all of this does have to be worked out, and should be worked out. The starting point of a nations law is the constitution and that should be the first step.

My point is that there is a lot of abstract thinking and research that needs to be done in the political science and philosophy of law spaces before any kind of "where shall we go" discussion can be even minimally worthwhile. There were radicals back in the 1960's who said "First we make the revolution, then we figure out what for." They were wrong. You don't act until you know what you're doing.

If you want to go off and do some of the necessary thinking and research, so that we have a better concretized grasp of what a proper government and legal system would look like, knock yourself out.

[Seeker]

My point is that there is a lot of abstract thinking and research that needs to be done in the political science and philosophy of law spaces before any kind of "where shall we go" discussion can be even minimally worthwhile.

In the political realm, the order of the day is not achieving an other-worldly perfection; significant improvement is worthwhile enough. It doesn't require genius to do something as simple as eliminate government programs and get the government out of people's way. Yes, there are spaces to work on. There will always be spaces to work on. There will always be plenty of work for the intellectuals to do. Part of their responsibility will be to help the politicians do their jobs properly. It would be a mistake, however, to suggest that discussion of this type is not even minimally worthwhile. The possibility of greater freedom exists today. We should not allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good. The time for action is now.

Edited June 23, 2008 by Seeker

[khaight]

In the political realm, the order of the day is not achieving an other-worldly perfection; significant improvement is worthwhile enough. It doesn't require genius to do something as simple as eliminate government programs and get the government out of people's way. Yes, there are spaces to work on. There will always be spaces to work on. There will always be plenty of work for the intellectuals to do. Part of their responsibility will be to help the politicians do their jobs properly. It would be a mistake, however, to suggest that discussion of this type is not even minimally worthwhile. The possibility of greater freedom exists today. We should not allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good. The time for action is now.

This is a change of context. The original topic had to do with going somewhere and founding a new and specifically Objectivist nation. I think there is absolutely no point in even considering such an action unless there is a very well-developed blueprint for what such a government and nation would look like. That goes way beyond generalities like 'eliminating government programs' and 'getting the government out of people's way'. That isn't a political program, it's a pair of libertarian bromides.

I stand by my view that, as far as the original stated goal of establishing a new Objectivist nation is concerned, the "time for action" is most emphatically not now.