What does such minarchism truly entail?

[determinist]

A retarded 2 year old orphan is a human being with rights, and that's all that matters, so no.

Can you explain, by logic alone, leaving all whims out, why a retarded orphan cannot be owned? What rational faculty does a retarded, 2-year-old orphan have that a complex chimpanzee does not? In the last chapter of The Virtue of Selfishness, Rand thought that assertions without logic are insufficient. Perhaps at 2 years old a child may have more advanced cognition than a chimpanzee, so I should revise this to a 1-month-old, retarded baby. My point is simply that if a human at any point in development has less reasoning ability than an advanced chimpanzee, and Objectivism holds that a human has rights because of rational faculty, precisely where is the logic in that? Anyone can claim it is an axiom that a baby deserves rights over a chimpanzee, but what I like about Ayn Rand is that she finds claiming something as an axiom as insufficient. I like how she tries to look strictly at the logical reasoning behind something.

Thanks. I enjoy hearing your thoughts.

Edited March 6, 2010 by determinist

[determinist]

On the grounds that the latter is a man, while the former isn't. Do you really think that that statement relies on emotion? Which emotion?

Well, you haven't provided a logical reason (yet?), and if you consider it axiomatic without logic to support it, could it be anything but a whim?

Let's examine the structure of:

X is true because X's truth is logical. Why is it logical? Because it is. You don't see why? Really?

Let's try plugging something else in for X:

The Koran statement is true because the Koran statement is logical. Why is it logical? Because it is. You don't see why? Really?

If you say a 1-month-old, retarded baby has rights because it is a human, and an animal with more advanced cognition does not because it's an animal, you have not explained why on purely logical grounds. You have just asserted a conclusion without presenting an argument to support it.

People who argue for taxes (for the record, I dislike the idea of any taxation whatsoever) sometimes assert their conclusions that "of course we need taxes," as if it requires no justification.

Thanks.

(I wasn't sure whether I should double-post or edit because my last post was so long ago that it was probably read by people. Sorry.)

[Jake_Ellison]

Can you explain, by logic alone, leaving all whims out, why a retarded orphan cannot be owned? What rational faculty does a retarded, 2-year-old orphan have that a complex chimpanzee does not? In the last chapter of The Virtue of Selfishness, Rand thought that assertions without logic are insufficient. Perhaps at 2 years old a child may have more advanced cognition than a chimpanzee, so I should revise this to a 1-month-old, retarded baby. My point is simply that if a human at any point in development has less reasoning ability than an advanced chimpanzee, and Objectivism holds that a human has rights because of rational faculty

You are misunderstanding the Objectivist position. Objectivist ethics assigns rights to men because, unlike all other animals, men have the capacity to reason. The existence of someone not yet fully developed, or less intelligent, does not have any bearing on the principle. They still have the capacity to reason to some extent, or can be expected to develop their ability to reason after some time.

Men are the only entities which have that capacity, so only men ought to be treated in accordance with the principle of individual rights. The reason for doing so is entirely selfish, men have the capacity to reciprocate, and treat me the same way, not to mention they might be useful trading partners. Treating men as property, on the other hand, would be quite unwise, in the longterm, and would mean destroying their rational mind (potentially the mind of someone who could cure cancer or develop a cheap source of energy). If there were other intelligent creatures, I would consider treating them according to the same principle of individual rights, if at all possible.

But there are no such creatures, so I don't. It would make no difference whatsoever if I did treat a chimpanzee according to that principle. It would still proceed to do exactly what it does, which is alternate between flinging its excrement at people passing by and biting their faces off. It does not have the ability now, or the capacity to ever in the future grow to understand the principle of individual rights, and treat humans in accordance with it, thus becoming a value to me.

So I treat chimpanzees the way it is selfish to treat them. As property. I don't torture them, but when it comes to other people's rights, I know better than to deny their right to their own property. If I did that, who's to say they can't turn around and deny me some of my rights, because their feelings are hurt by something I own or say? How would I go about explaining that it's the rational thing to do to respect my rights, after I just chose to not respect theirs? It doesn't mean I support the torture of animals, but I'm not ready to forfeit my own rights based on the feeling of revulsion such a sight might cause me. Not because I like that person, but because I put my claim to my own rights ahead of my emotions.

My point is simply that if a human at any point in development has less reasoning ability than an advanced chimpanzee

I'm not aware of any chimpanzee with any reasoning ability, or capacity for complex abstract thought. If you can show me any creature that is capable of ever understanding what rights are, and could develop the ability to choose to respect mine, I'd be happy to treat it the same way I treat any man, and would be entirely opposed to treating it as property. However, the closest anyone can come to that is to buy a chimpanzee, keep it as his property, and train it, through repeated reward and punishment as opposed to the sharing of rational ideas, to not harm humans and perform menial tasks. And then, if it bites his face off while acting purely on instinct, put it to death.

[determinist]

Men are the only entities which have that capacity, so only men ought to be treated in accordance with the principle of individual rights.

I have no doubt that most men do, but all men?

Does every last human alive have, or at some point will have, more advanced cognition than every last chimpanzee that exists?

[Jake_Ellison]

I have no doubt that most men do, but all men?

Does every last human alive have, or at some point will have, more advanced cognition than every last chimpanzee that exists?

I don't know about all men and all chimpanzees. If I did have the ability to know everything about every instance of every category of entities, I wouldn't need concepts at all, or any philosophy or thinking for that matter. I would be a perfect robot who knows everything about everyone, past, present and future.

But since I don't, I use the method of induction to form my view of the world, which means that I form the concept "man" based on the men I have encountered or learned about from others, and the concept "chimpanzee" based on chimpanzees I encountered and learned about, and then from those concepts, and all the others I formed over the years, I deduce principles to guide my interactions with them. All very logical. It is how human intelligence works, and it is the only way it works.

Without it, we'd all be paralyzed every time we encountered a new entity, since we would not know anything about it. (I mean literally, nothing, for instance we wouldn't know if another man we never met, dressed in a suit, reaching towards us is trying to shake hands or attack us, or if he's about to talk or bite -- the reason why we know is the concept man, which tells us they're usually civilized, just as the concept lion tells us they're usually vicious -- even though some men aren't civilized, and there's even the occasional lion which is not gonna attack you)

If you liked "The Virtue of Selfishness" because it tries to be logical at every step, I bet you would like "Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology" (where all this stuff is described) even more, especially since it will also help you place the methods Rand uses in Virtue of S. in perspective.

[Eiuol]

I have no doubt that most men do, but all men?

Does every last human alive have, or at some point will have, more advanced cognition than every last chimpanzee that exists?

Since having the capacity of reason is an essential part of the concept of 'man,' anyone without that capacity wouldn't fall under the concept of 'man'. Part of what indicates if someone has the capacity of reason is if they can form concepts. Although a person who is severely retarded may be functioning at a suboptimal level, they still have the ability to form concepts. A case could be made that people in a permanently vegetative state no longer fall under the concept 'man' since they are no longer able to think and form concepts, so therefore they would have no rights. Just to be clear, the fact that something has no rights does not justify torturing or killing it.

Edited March 8, 2010 by Eiuol

[determinist]

I find the fact that you started a thread to discuss the morality of some action to be hilariously ironic.

OK.

I find the fact that you started a thread to discuss the morality of some action to be hilariously ironic.

You are a DETERMINIST!!! Right???

YES!!! Right!!! lol I meant that light-hearted. I'm glad you used that punctuation. It makes me feel like I'm not the only one who gets excited in discussions.

Despite the possibility of true random quantum indeterminacy (which would not necessitate choice and physicists like Weinberg find it a less preferable explanation), I don't see any viable contender to determinism.

You think we are just like animals.

I don't think we are just like animals. We are animals. We are in the anamalia kingdom. I was stating a biological fact.

You aren't actually going to judge some torturer's actions are you? He had no choice in the matter.

Well, I had no choice but to judge him because I'm determined too. But that's actually irrelevant to my main response to your main point. The semantic, metaphysical truth operates at such a vastly complex level that the truth is entirely impractical. In practice, I implicitly speak of deliberations as action driven by frontal lobe activity of someone with a reasonably functional brain. (That's at least a rough sketch of a description for now. I might be able to find a loophole in the semantics of that I tried hard enough.) The difference between me and Ayn Rand is that I'm not claiming moral truths can be discovered via metaphysical philosophy. I am realizing this topic alone could branch off into a huge discussion. Maybe I'll append to a determinism thread.

That last argument you implied is actually similar to one used by Christians a lot. Natural selection can select for brains that model reality better than others. I have a pretty lengthy response for that and I'll post when I have more time.

Edited March 8, 2010 by determinist

[0096 2251 2110 8105]

Would a moderator change the name of the thread to its actual topic please?

[freestyle]

I just finished reading The Virtue of Selfishness, and despite the first chapter, I loved most of it. It begged a few questions, so I start with these:

A man, X, spots another man, Y, sadistically torturing a dog and realizes it has been going on for weeks straight. X initiates force against Y by pushing him out of the way and allowing the dog to run away.

Should Y be allowed to call the police to initiate force against X for violating his individual right? Was X behaving immorally (according to objectivism)?

Do you remember this part from your reading?:

Chapter 3: The Ethics of Emergencies

by Ayn Rand

(pieces from page 39)

The psychological results of altruism may be observed in the fact that a great

many people approach the subject of ethics by asking such questions as:

“Should one risk one’s life to help a man who is: a) drowning,

trapped in

a fire, c) stepping in front of a speeding truck, d) hanging by his fingernails

over an abyss?”

Consider the implications of that approach. If a man accepts the ethics of

altruism, he suffers the following consequences (in proportion to the degree

of his acceptance):

1. Lack of self-esteem

[snip]

2. Lack of respect for others

[snip]

3. A nightmare view of existence

[snip]

4. And, in fact, a lethargic indifference to ethics, a hopelessly cynical

amorality

[snip]

...

By elevating the issue of helping others into the central and primary issue

of ethics, altruism has destroyed the concept of any authentic benevolence or

good will among men. ...

[snip]

The men who accept that dichotomy but choose its other side, the ultimate

products of altruism’s dehumanizing influence, are those psychopaths who

do not challenge altruism’s basic premise, but proclaim their rebellion

against self-sacrifice by announcing that

they are totally indifferent to

anything living and would not lift a finger to help a man

or a dog left

mangled by a hit-and-run driver (who is usually one of their own kind).

Most men do not accept or practice either side of altruism’s viciously

false dichotomy, but its result is a total intellectual chaos on the issue of

proper human relationships and on such questions as the nature, purpose or

extent of the help one may give to others. Today, a great many well-

meaning, reasonable men do not know how to identify or conceptualize the

moral principles that motivate their love, affection or good will, and can find

no guidance in the field of ethics, which is dominated by the stale platitudes

of altruism.

So... I would just ask... Is this a scenario you've come across in your life, or one you've heard of happening on occasion? Are you trying to solve a particular ethical dilemma in relation to animal cruelty? If not... why this approach to ethics?

There should be absolutely zero question about whether a sadist dog torturer is acting morally in terms of the Objectivists ethic.

[Thales]

I just finished reading The Virtue of Selfishness, and despite the first chapter, I loved most of it. It begged a few questions, so I start with these:

A man, X, spots another man, Y, sadistically torturing a dog and realizes it has been going on for weeks straight. X initiates force against Y by pushing him out of the way and allowing the dog to run away.

Should Y be allowed to call the police to initiate force against X for violating his individual right? Was X behaving immorally (according to objectivism)?

The term "minarchism" isn't a good term. It's not an essential and implies anarchy. A proper government is one that respects individuals rights. A rights respecting government or capitalist government works better.

[JMeganSnow]

There should be absolutely zero question about whether a sadist dog torturer is acting morally in terms of the Objectivists ethic.

Precisely. But moral and illegal are not the same thing. Ethics and politics are not the same discipline. While it's immoral to torture an animal for fun, it should not be illegal, whereas assaulting a human being regardless of claimed provocation is properly illegal. There is no question of how the use of property "affects" you as long as it doesn't violate your rights. The only effect on you that the law is properly concerned with is some kind of violation of your rights. A man torturing a dog (assuming some other factor is not involved) is not violating your rights.

Now, as for why a proto-rational human (or one without the ability to ever become fully rational) has rights, that's based on a complex logical integration regarding the function of principles in human cognition.

Keep in mind that the fact you are not entitled to use force does not mean that you have no options. Pull out a video camera and inform the person that you're putting them up on YouTube. In a fully free society, their bank would be free to foreclose on their house, their boss to fire them, the local grocer to refuse to sell to them, etc.

[freestyle]

While it's immoral to torture an animal for fun, it should not be illegal....

On property that you own unconditionally, this is true.

However, if I have sold you land in part of a larger development that I own (and for some reason the determinist can explain to us, dog torturing is a big problem in free societies) then you would have most definitely agreed prior to my "no dog torture" clause in the contract. And therefore, the breach of contract would be enforceable.

Logic exists independent of government force. A society of rational Objectivists would not be a near utopia only marred by dog torturers. ;-) If a group of people want to live in a dog torture free zone, in a free society they would be able to arrange that situation.

Edited March 9, 2010 by freestyle

[Tenderlysharp]

Human infants, criminals, and the mentally retarded have the possibility of developing rational faculties.

It is important to treat a man as though he is conscious enough to be influenced by rational means? If you believe you can not find an objective resolution you will subversively control the situation.

Examples...Find out what the dog beater hates, and taunt him with it, hoping he will strike you. Follow the man home, and steal the dog when he is out. These kinds of reactions do not solve anything.

Emotion comes after reason, your emotion could be telling you that there is a reason for it, but it is up to you to justify your emotions objectively. It would be good to present an argument against torture. What is the core reason for repulsion of torture? Can torture be justified Objectively? Decipher the problem clearly. Spread the right kind of ideas.

Are you able to give the dog a reasoned argument for it to obey its master? Can you present a convincing argument to the owner of his own self-interest in training a dog that obeys without torture?

Excessive force is not the optimum for bringing out the greatest potential in the dog, it will create a skittish neurotic dog that makes the same mistakes again and again because it doesn't know how to behave in a way that will appease its master.

Is the owner torturing the dog for his own pleasure? Is this rationally justifiable or whim worship? What does it mean about the dog owners sense of life? Is he intelligent enough to realize the difference between dogs and humans or will he end up treating humans with a similar disrespect? Many murderers have admitted to torturing animals in their youth.

Perhaps the torture of the dog is superfluous to the owner, and he is doing it to get a reaction from you. He then proceeds to go down the road every day followed by a hundred protesters as he beats the dog, knowing that no one will force him to stop. This doesn't seem like a very likely scenario in a rationally dominated society. As others have stated, there are many ways to rationally deal with immoral behavior without using physical force.

Ayn Rand had pets of her own that she probably felt affectionate toward, and wouldn't want to see tortured... though... cats won't put up with being beaten the way dogs will.

[determinist]

The term "minarchism" isn't a good term. It's not an essential and implies anarchy. A proper government is one that respects individuals rights. A rights respecting government or capitalist government works better.

Minarchism implies anarchy? How did you arrive at that conclusion? I realize this is Wikipedia but it appears to reasonably cite sources:

In civics, minarchism (sometimes called minimal statism,[1] small government, or limited-government libertarianism.[2]) refers to a political ideology which maintains that the state's only legitimate function is the protection of individuals from aggression.[2][3] (Such states are sometimes called night watchman states.) Minarchists defend the existence of the state as a necessary evil,[1][4] but assert that it may only act to protect the life, liberty, and property of each individual.

A minarchist state would therefore consist of very few branches/parts of government, in the most minimal way - such as, for an example, courts (but not necessarily). Generally, minarchists identify themselves within the broader propertarian libertarian movement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minarchism

Even after what I quoted, it elaborates on how it differs from market anarchy. It sounds like Ayn Rand's ideal government vision perfectly fits into that description of minarchism.

[determinist]

Human infants, criminals, and the mentally retarded have the possibility of developing rational faculties.

To paraphrase Sam Harris: Every cell in your body with a nucleus, given the right manipulation, is a potential human being.

Examples...Find out what the dog beater hates, and taunt him with it, hoping he will strike you. Follow the man home, and steal the dog when he is out. These kinds of reactions do not solve anything.

Ignoring the situation or attempting to verbally persuade a sadist/sociopath seems at least equally doubtful.

This doesn't seem like a very likely scenario in a rationally dominated society.

The majority of the world is religious. What does that say about how rationally dominated humanity is?

Edited March 16, 2010 by determinist

[freestyle]

The majority of the world is religious. What does that say about how rationally dominated humanity is?

Aren't you asking about how things would work in the type of society Ayn Rand promoted? (Specifically in your VoS reading?)

Of course irrationality will exist. Do you think this dog torturer situation IS a likely scenario (even now)? And I don't think anyone here is arguing that the current state of affairs is dominated by rationality.

Remember in your reading?

3. The Ethics of Emergencies

8. How Does One Lead a Rational Life in an irrational Society?

12. Man’s Rights

14. The Nature of Government

I'm not sure what you're really asking. In the book she takes on these types of questions very directly. Is there something specific in her answers that you disagree with, and can articulate here?

Or maybe you're operating on what she called (in the book) the altruist ethics based on a "malevolent universe" metaphysics?

Edited March 16, 2010 by freestyle

[0096 2251 2110 8105]

The term "minarchism" isn't a good term. It's not an essential and implies anarchy. A proper government is one that respects individuals rights. A rights respecting government or capitalist government works better.

I'll have second Determinist and ask how you arrived at this conclusion. Is it simply because both terms end with "archism"? Or this there some crucial reason for "minarchism" not being a good term?

[2046]

"Minarchism" implies a political spectrum in which statism is on one end, anarchy is on the other, with minarchism being on the extreme right, just one step away from anarchy. The logically consistent libertarian view is anarchism. Obviously, Objectivists view libertarianism and anarchy as a form of statism, so they deny this whole "just one step away from anarchy" spectrum and instead view it as collectivism/statism on one side and individualism/capitalism on the other (capitalism by definition requiring a limited government.) Thus, generally speaking, Objectivists do not call themselves "minarchists."

[Tenderlysharp]

It sounds like Ayn Rand's ideal government vision perfectly fits into that description of minarchism.

Ayn Rand criticized Libertarians for stealing some of her ideas without crediting her, and leaving her morality out.

[Tenderlysharp]

To paraphrase Sam Harris: Every cell in your body with a nucleus, given the right manipulation, is a potential human being.

I don't see a likely scenario where every viable cell in my body will become a human being. But if they did, they would need willing host mothers, and they would not have rights until they were able to survive outside of the mothers body.

Ignoring the situation or attempting to verbally persuade a sadist/sociopath seems at least equally doubtful.

All rational means of persuasion should be thoroughly exhausted. Freeing the dog will not keep him from getting another dog.

The majority of the world is religious. What does that say about how rationally dominated humanity is?

Do you believe religious people will abandon god and turn to torturing dogs?

[Dante]

"Minarchism" implies a political spectrum in which statism is on one end, anarchy is on the other, with minarchism being on the extreme right, just one step away from anarchy. The logically consistent libertarian view is anarchism. Obviously, Objectivists view libertarianism and anarchy as a form of statism, so they deny this whole "just one step away from anarchy" spectrum and instead view it as collectivism/statism on one side and individualism/capitalism on the other (capitalism by definition requiring a limited government.) Thus, generally speaking, Objectivists do not call themselves "minarchists."

It doesn't seem to me that the structure of the word itself implies this. Just looking at the word, I would glean that the person so described supported (what they believe to be) the minimal state. It is true that the common perception of minarchism is that it is adopted by those who think of themselves as less extreme than anarchists. However, that's not an argument against Objectivists using the word to describe themselves, any more than the fact that the word "selfish" is commonly understood to be someone who sacrifices others is an argument against Objectivists describing their morality as selfish. Rand chose selfish not because of its common connotations, but rather to take the word back from such connotations, because the structure of the word itself portrayed exactly what she intended: someone fundamentally oriented towards themselves. It seems to me that the word "minarchism" is in a similar state; commonly understood as a libertarian holding out against the logic of anarchy, but in actual structure simply conveys the idea that the state should be kept only to its proper minimal duties.

[2046]

It doesn't seem to me that the structure of the word itself implies this. Just looking at the word, I would glean that the person so described supported (what they believe to be) the minimal state. It is true that the common perception of minarchism is that it is adopted by those who think of themselves as less extreme than anarchists. However, that's not an argument against Objectivists using the word to describe themselves, any more than the fact that the word "selfish" is commonly understood to be someone who sacrifices others is an argument against Objectivists describing their morality as selfish. Rand chose selfish not because of its common connotations, but rather to take the word back from such connotations, because the structure of the word itself portrayed exactly what she intended: someone fundamentally oriented towards themselves. It seems to me that the word "minarchism" is in a similar state; commonly understood as a libertarian holding out against the logic of anarchy, but in actual structure simply conveys the idea that the state should be kept only to its proper minimal duties.

Yeah, that's exactly the reason why it does not adequately describe Objectivism's political branch. It isn't about the consensus of the term, but what the term means and term "minimal statism" is an incorrect view of a legitimate government. This does not get rid of the problem presented by the libertarian spectrum of statism-anarchism. Objectivism is not "one step away" from anarchism, niether are they "holding out" against anarchism, or its "logic." They are poles apart and simply incompatible. Just look at the OP in the thread, which was based on finding out where the limit was, or where he could seek out and discover the boundary line instead of asking more fundamental questions like "do animals have rights" and "what is the moral qualification for legitimate government action." In other words, it plays into a "quantitative view" of government versus a morality-based view of what is proper and what is not. Objectivism is not worried about "minimal duties," but with objectivity. Otherwise, if your goal is only the minimal duties necessary, then the obvious response is zero government, because that's as minimal as you can get, and that is why the more consistent version of libertarianism according to its own tenets is anarchy. Minarchism a confused, contradictory concept that belongs to libertarians, not Objectivists.

Edited March 17, 2010 by 2046

[Hotu Matua]

Human infants, criminals, and the mentally retarded have the possibility of developing rational faculties.

So do embryos and yet embryos have no rights.

Indeed, a healthy embryo in a healthy mother has more chances to develop rational faculties that many adults with severe irreversible brain damage.

Torturing a dog for fun is immoral because it is irrational. It has nothing to do with anyrights of the victim, but with the effects on the agressor.

It is irrational because it adds no value to my long term survival and flourishing, while destroys a potential or actual source of value.

Furthermore, torturing a pet for fun affects my ability to respect humans, making me, eventually, to be perceived as a threat to people and be treated accordingly. People hate to see animals tortured because it goes against our nature. Going against my nature is a source of inner conflict and dissatisfaction and eventually will affect other aspects of my life. In short, torturing animals goes against my own interest.

Having said that, it should not be illegal to torture a dog. As JMeganSnow clearly stated, immoral does not equal illegal. Ayn Rand suggests economic boycott and social ostracism as powerful weapons to combat evil that do not need retailatory force excercised by a government.

Edited March 17, 2010 by Hotu Matua

[Tenderlysharp]

So do embryos and yet embryos have no rights.

Indeed, a healthy embryo in a healthy mother has more chances to develop rational faculties that many adults with severe irreversible brain damage.

Abortion is a separate and very involved topic, I will copy your question to this thread abortion and offer my perspective there.

Edited March 17, 2010 by Tenderlysharp

[determinist]

"Minarchism" implies a political spectrum in which statism is on one end, anarchy is on the other, with minarchism being on the extreme right, just one step away from anarchy. The logically consistent libertarian view is anarchism. Obviously, Objectivists view libertarianism and anarchy as a form of statism, so they deny this whole "just one step away from anarchy" spectrum and instead view it as collectivism/statism on one side and individualism/capitalism on the other (capitalism by definition requiring a limited government.) Thus, generally speaking, Objectivists do not call themselves "minarchists."

If that is the case, then perhaps this page should be updated?

The Objectivist philosophy of Ayn Rand is notable for its support of minarchism, believing that non-voluntary taxes that fund government actions are essentially theft. Objectivists argue that a form of the night watchman state is the only ethical as well as truly practical way of organizing the state.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night-watchman_state