Libertarians

[tito]

A good discussion so far except for some post which contain mainly assertions without arguments. Special thanks to MartianHoplite for the link.

What I am still missing is an argument about the scope of government. I take it that any government would be instituted by a majority vote of the inhabitants of the area the government governs. But how isthat area determined? How to determine who gets to vote? E.g. in germany there is a strong support for a leftist party (SPD) in the north while there is an equally strong support for an alledgedly rightist party (CDU) in the south. Taking these results I'd say the rational thing to do would be to cut germany in half. But if you agree on the right of the southern german states to secceed from the union then where do you stop this right of secession? Can a city secceed? What about an individual with his property? In the latter case I guess we arrive at the rothbardian model.

What bothers me a bit is that objectivists seem to tend to advocate large area governments. Do you consider a one-world-government a desireable thing?

I think you will find among Objectivists, that largely we do not care how big a government is. All we care about is that it is a government that operates according to justice (IE: A capitalist government) and also that it is a competent government (able to defend the country, etc.)

As for one world government, that is impractical, mostly due to language barriers. However, even if there was a myriad (say, 200) capitalist governments, the effect would be the same as one world government: because the laws would be the same (capitalist) and there would be free trade.

The geographical size of a country is a question of efficiency, above all else.

[Jake_Ellison]

Tordmor:

As long as there are countries like Russia (willing to go to war to expand their influence), there is a need for a single American government, for the sake of our survival. Since Russia does indeed exist (and many others like it) I'd say that ends the discussion on practical politics.

Now, in a hypothetical world with no outside threats.

While I can think of plenty of reasons for local authorities to have their own law enforcement (since this way there's a close connection between the people and the government, people can see exactly what happens to their voluntary contributions, and they benefit from them to a greater degree), it is still far more efficient to have a layer of law-enforcement that has jurisdiction over the entire country. There are criminals who move around, there are rare types of criminals (such as serial killers), who are caught faster by FBI specialists than local cops who've never seen them, etc.

But these are all practical considerations, and the exact details should depend on the exact conditions. It's not a philosophical question. Any government that is both moral and efficient would satisfy an Objectivist.

[DavidOdden]

What I am still missing is an argument about the scope of government. I take it that any government would be instituted by a majority vote of the inhabitants of the area the government governs. But how isthat area determined?

In the real world, there is no issue. You know where the United State is, so there is no question. Hypothetically, it would be a question for space explorers who decide to establish a society, or is it two societies. It's only when you actually have two societies that the question of two governments versus one is a rational one to raise. Suppose then you had "The Hill Society" in the north and "The Valley Society" in the south, and the question is whether to form one government or two. Unification would require majority approval from both areas.

How to determine who gets to vote? E.g. in germany there is a strong support for a leftist party (SPD) in the north while there is an equally strong support for an alledgedly rightist party (CDU) in the south. Taking these results I'd say the rational thing to do would be to cut germany in half.

Why is that rational? It would be rational only if a unified government fails to do what it's supposed to do (actually protect the rights of individuals) and splitting the country would result in two more-properly-functional states. The fact of different levels of support for Party A versus Party B is irrelevant.

But if you agree on the right of the southern german states to secceed from the union then where do you stop this right of secession? Can a city secceed?

You'll have to fill in the details of German law. Applied to the United States, the only way I can imagine a state legally ceceding would be via something like a constitutional amendment. Of course any dictator can declare his village to be now officially a separate country, but it's the duty of the federal government to squash such idiots and to be sure that the rights of individuals are still protected.

What bothers me a bit is that objectivists seem to tend to advocate large area governments. Do you consider a one-world-government a desireable thing?

Not if it's a crappy government. A one-world Objectivist-type government would be excellent. A one-world EU dictatorship would be miserable. The point is that the level of rights-protection as found in the US (or better) should be found everywhere, and it should not be the case that people in the UK suffer because their government is what it is. It would not actually matter if governmental principles and practices in the US and the UK were the same but the governments were different. What we want is that however many governments there are, they protect rights in the same way and as much as possible. That means that there has to be some implicit unification of US and UK law so that contract disputes can be adjudicated by objective law, and so that crimes involving borders (flight to avoid prosecution) can be dealt with.

[Tordmor]

It would be rational only if a unified government fails to do what it's supposed to do (actually protect the rights of individuals) and splitting the country would result in two more-properly-functional states. The fact of different levels of support for Party A versus Party B is irrelevant.

Ok, I get that.

Applied to the United States, the only way I can imagine a state legally ceceding would be via something like a constitutional amendment. Of course any dictator can declare his village to be now officially a separate country, but it's the duty of the federal government to squash such idiots and to be sure that the rights of individuals are still protected.

You seem to imply that individual rights are in fact protected in the United States. However the US has compulsory taxation, drug prohibition and legal tender laws that I think are recognized by objectivism as violation of individual rights. Now If California which has re-legalized marihuana would ceceed from the union because they realize the DEA's infringement on individual rights they would increase the protection of rights. In this case would you still say that the legal prohibition of secession would weigh more than the increase in rights protection?

To tie this back to the thread's topic: As I understand it Libertarians are trying to move into a direction. And while the final goal of this effort might not be compatible with objectivism I think at least the three things I mentioned above are compatible. So my question is: would you say that the result is more important than the idea, i.e. would you work together with Libertarians to decrease the state's infringement on human rights by let's say legalizing drugs and getting back to a gold standard. Or would you say that the idea is more important than the results, i.e. tolerating immoral laws for now (maybe even to the point where you publicly justify the enforcement of these laws) and focusing your effort on spreading the idea rather than short term action?

[DavidOdden]

You seem to imply that individual rights are in fact protected in the United States.

I most certainly do not. I assert that rights are protected better in the US than anywhere else in the world, but that there is still room for improvement.

Now If California which has re-legalized marihuana would ceceed from the union because they realize the DEA's infringement on individual rights they would increase the protection of rights.

That's a non sequitur. They would decrease protection of individual rights overall, and simply lighten up on one point. California would be justified in starting a war against the US only if the principle which they were defending -- to be enshrined in a new national constitution -- were something along the lines that the sole legitimate purpose of government is the protection of individual rights, or something along those lines. There is no right to establish the Socialist Dictatorship of Lalaland based exclusively on an administrative tiff over whether federal law supercedes state low for possession of MJ. Look at the total package, which includes onerous restrictions on property and hefty taxation to support the welfare state.

As I understand it Libertarians are trying to move into a direction.

Which direction? Specifically, to legalize MJ? That's probably correct in an abstract sense, but I don't see that as a significant effort worth us being concerned about. Are you suggesting that there are Libertarian congressmen introducing bills which will increase personal freedom, which we ought to be supporting? If so, I'm completely unaware of these efforts -- most likely because there are no Libertarian legislators in my state. If this is about Ron Paul, we have specific threads about why Paul hardly deserves to be called a Libertarian.

So my question is: would you say that the result is more important than the idea, i.e. would you work together with Libertarians to decrease the state's infringement on human rights by let's say legalizing drugs and getting back to a gold standard. Or would you say that the idea is more important than the results, i.e. tolerating immoral laws for now (maybe even to the point where you publicly justify the enforcement of these laws) and focusing your effort on spreading the idea rather than short term action?

That really is the essential question -- should we be working for a temporary immediate fix to one or two issues, or a permanent, long-term solution. I am working for a permanent, long-term solution. In general, Objectivism holds that you should take the long-range view, which means addressing the cause of these bad laws.

[Jake_Ellison]

So my question is: would you say that the result is more important than the idea, i.e. would you work together with Libertarians to decrease the state's infringement on human rights by let's say legalizing drugs and getting back to a gold standard. Or would you say that the idea is more important than the results, i.e. tolerating immoral laws for now (maybe even to the point where you ) and focusing your effort on spreading the idea rather than short term action?

I wouldn't go as far as to advocate enforcing immoral laws, but I also wouldn't advocate breaking them, as an act of civil disobedience. (If you can break them and get away with it, i.e. pay fewer taxes, good for you. But to break them as a protest is both ineffective and often a threat to our relatively civilized ways) I advocate abolishing such laws.

To answer your question, I don't think there is a conflict between Libertarians fighting (peacefully) for immediate results and Objectivists focusing on spreading ideas.

Why would Objectivists need to "publicly justify the enforcement of immoral laws?

AND/OR

What specific means are Libertarians using in this fight, that Objectivists would need to publicly denounce, and therefor come into conflict with this aspect of their activities?

I think the conflict between Libertarians and Objectivism is on a philosophical level (most libertarians are altruists, and beyond that have no single philosophical-epistemological- basis for their morality and politics). The main issue, as far as politics goes, is the anarchism (which in Ron Paul's case is defeatism) Libertarians advocate, which contradicts and threatens every single value and ideal Objectivism promotes.

[Tordmor]

That makes sense. Thank you both.