Is Objectivism Totalitarian?

[2046]

I agree with SapereAude that the lack of definition and specificity is harming the OP's case. In order to avoid and/or remedy the fallacy of context-dropping, several conditions must be met:

1. the concept(s) in question must be clearly grasped and defined

2. one must know the reasons for holding the concept, and know its validations

3. the concept's usage must not negate an earlier concept on which it depends (stolen concept fallacy)

Since the nature of knowledge is hierarchical (wider concepts built upon simpler concepts), a proposition must be integrated into the total context of knowledge available in order to be grounded and not a “floating abstraction.”

It appears to me that there is a stolen concept fallacy being employed here (using a concept while denying the validity of its genetic roots, i.e., of an earlier concept(s) on which it logically depends.). The concept “totalitarianism” subsumes the genetic root concepts “initiation of force” and “self-defense” which have to be smuggled in and ignored while “totalitarianism,” which depends on them, is being used to negate their application. You're attempting to use “totalitarianism” to claim resistance to totalitarianism is totalitarian.

The attempt to implement a totalitarian system, such as socialism, involves the initiation of force (the same goes for democracy or whatever else you want to call it):

1. In order to realize their views, socialists must create power of some men over other men, and success depends on them using this power.

2. The very success of the totalitarian group depends on the willingness to commit immoral acts, the ends must justify the means. A good socialist must be willing to do anything for the cause.

3. Even if they are democratically elected, from the socialist government's first act to the last it will be criminal aggression against innocents and the end result dictatorship.

4. Therefore, in order to carry out socialism on a political level (presumably we are not talking about a voluntary commune of sorts, and if we are, then it is virtually impossible that the entire country voluntarily chooses to live in one giant commune), the initiation of physical force is required.

Thus, those who employ physical force to resist and stop the socialists from carrying out revolution or change of the government and political system from a hypothetical Objectivist/capitalist government to a socialist or democratic government are not initiating force, but retaliating against those who are. The claim that to arrest the socialists would be a violation of their “freedom of speech” smuggles the concept “initiation of force” into the premise while ignoring it. Making violence legal, and resistance to it illegal, is the essence of totalitarianism. Making violence illegal and resisting those who practice it is the opposite of totalitarianism.

Secondly, the concept “self-defense” comes from knowing the differentia of “initiation of force” and “retaliatory force.” The concept of self-defense is implicitly being smuggled into the premise that the Objectivist/capitalist government is totalitarian while it is being used to deny the right of self-defense that forms the basis of the Objectivist/capitalist government's use of retaliatory force against socialist criminals trying to overthrow it.

The right to legally arrest a socialist or a whole group of them and put them on trial, present evidence, and judge them according to a rationally-derived legal code follows logically from the right of self-defense. (And if it is a war, then the same applies to killing them on sight.) If they were engaged in a direct threat to initiate any violence whatsoever, no matter what the political nature of it is, then the government has the moral obligation to persecute the socialists.

So this type of concept stealing basically boils down to the same kind of doublethink employed in the famous phrase: War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength, Objectivism is Totalitarianism, Expropriation is Free Speech, Mass Murder is Free Expression

[Grames]

Thus, those who employ physical force to resist and stop the socialists from carrying out revolution or change of the government and political system from a hypothetical Objectivist/capitalist government to a socialist or democratic government are not initiating force, but retaliating against those who are. The claim that to arrest the socialists would be a violation of their “freedom of speech” smuggles the concept “initiation of force” into the premise while ignoring it. Making violence legal, and resistance to it illegal, is the essence of totalitarianism. Making violence illegal and resisting those who practice it is the opposite of totalitarianism.

The threshold between what is an exercise of the right to think and speak and what is an initiation of force is the presence of an act of initiated force. This is an objective threshold, a clear bright line that is easy to use to discriminate the illegal from what is not. When you group together "revolution or change of the government" you are disregarding a distinction that is the basis of the law. The law must be objective because if it is not the result is totalitarianism and specifically politically correct thought police prosecuting thought crimes.

This position is not even remotely consistent with the conclusion that taxation is theft on the basis that each individual has the power to decide whether or not to support the government. If someone were to advocate a strike on funding the government in order to weaken it as a step toward changing it would you prosecute that? Or would you claim individuals can make their own decisions but cannot coordinate them? If it is legal to withhold funds from the government, then there cannot be a conspiracy to do so.

Your claims about what is the proper scope of individual freedom are contradictory.

[Jake_Ellison]

What?

You made a stupid statement: "Not condemning an action is just as bad as doing the action."

I applied that pseudo-logic, to illustrate just how stupid it is. That's what.

We are not talking about things that I or Rand didn't know about. Obviously it would be ridiculous to condemn someone for a lack of a position on something they are not aware.

Now you're just making up lies to smear Ayn Rand. She had no inside information on the supposed prosecution of homosexuals and innocents under the guise of fighting the Soviets. Please just go away, troll some other place.

[2046]

The threshold between what is an exercise of the right to think and speak and what is an initiation of force is the presence of an act of initiated force. This is an objective threshold, a clear bright line that is easy to use to discriminate the illegal from what is not. When you group together "revolution or change of the government" you are disregarding a distinction that is the basis of the law. The law must be objective because if it is not the result is totalitarianism and specifically politically correct thought police prosecuting thought crimes.

This position is not even remotely consistent with the conclusion that taxation is theft on the basis that each individual has the power to decide whether or not to support the government. If someone were to advocate a strike on funding the government in order to weaken it as a step toward changing it would you prosecute that? Or would you claim individuals can make their own decisions but cannot coordinate them? If it is legal to withhold funds from the government, then there cannot be a conspiracy to do so.

Your claims about what is the proper scope of individual freedom are contradictory.

Actually, your claims are contradictory in the following way. You seem to be imputing to me the claim that any action taken with the intent of "changing the government" is worthy of physical force is ignoring the distinction between aggression and self-defense and that therefore if the government undertook force against the wrong kind of action it would amount to thought crime. How is this contradictory? It is contradictory with my actual claims: that violent aggression is a necessity as a means of changing a political system from capitalism to socialism, therefore for the government to undertake force against these (violent) actions, it is self-defense. These actions, such as terrorism, assassinations, lynchings, violent overthrow, revolution, waging war, expropriation, murder, or mob rule are different in kind from expressing ideas and the boycott (which is what a funding strike essentially is.)

Your second paragraph appears to be making up positions which you imagine I could be taking and then refuting them.

Edited October 29, 2010 by 2046

[Ryan1985]

I'm a troll, and I don't understand Objectivism. If these are your debating tactics then you'll never convince anyone of your ideas. This discussion is over.

[agrippa1]

Robbing banks is illegal and evil, right? And yet, watch this:

I think bank robbery should be legal. Allowed. In fact it should be subsidized, and first born sons should be sacrificed to the gods for good luck in our efforts to rob banks.

That's a pretty outrageous, terrible thing to say, huh? And yet, no one was hurt. Every bank and child on the planet is fine, all their rights are intact. Why? Because speech, no matter how evil, does not harm anyone!!! There is no conflict between free speech and rights.

In what part of this are you planning to rob a bank? I think I said...

I'm not talking espousing political systems, I'm talking the planning of a democratic takeover of the political system for the purposes of initiating force against the populace.

You do get that thinking bank robbery should be legal is espousing a political system, while planning to rob a bank is conspiracy, right? If you had said "I think I'm going to rob the 1st National Bank in Bumfugg, IN next week, and I'm looking for a trigger man to kill any cops that come along," you could still claim: "And yet, no one was hurt. Every bank on the planet is fine, all their rights are intact."

So speech does not harm anyone, if you're not concerned with context. But in context, it becomes part, a necessary part, of a series of actions which lead to harm.

Like it's been pointed out many times before, no, an Objectivist state would not allow the imposition of socialism just because a majority somehow got convinced to vote for it. Objectivism does not support democracy, it supports a constitutionally limited government. So no, the scenario you describe could not happen in an Objectivist state. Not because the people advocating it would be hauled off to jail, but because they couldn't rise to power by convincing the majority to vote for them. That would be illegal, and anyone who tried it would be disqualified as a candidate for political office.

Sounds like there would be no candidates, and no political offices, since anyone could be disqualified for disagreeing, in word or action, with the precepts of Objectivism. How would this work in practice? There could be no elections, since the right of the people to select their leaders would be limited by the choice of candidates given to them, presumable by the current leaders. And, after all, Objectivism does not support democracy. How do you check and balance the force of the government with the consent of the governed?

Don't confuse the right to speech with the right to be a tyrant or rob a bank. There is a clearly difference between the two: one involves the initiation of physical force, the other does not. Writing laws and judging specific instances to differentiate between the two is not only possible, it has been put in practice well in the USA, in First Amendment cases. American laws and courts have no problem differentiating between speech and action, it's only other rights (mostly the right to property) that they are confused about.

Free speech is actually one of the few areas that's handled well already in the US, and needs to be left alone, not changed.

I would differ with this last assertion. All free speech cases that reach the SCOTUS are judged by weighing free speech rights against other considerations. Yelling fire in a movie house, is, despite your contrary assertion, speech. Conspiracy to rob a bank, not conspiracy to change laws so that robbing a bank is legal, is: speech. Neither of these are protected because they can reasonably be assumed to lead to the use of force against individuals. There are other, much more nuanced cases in which the right to free speech is restricted on much more shaky grounds. I can't name any cases offhand, but I'll know them when I see them.

But the question still remains: Does conspiring to raise anti-Objectivist candidates to political office constitute protected free speech, or is should such speech be made illegal, as you propose?

because they couldn't rise to power by convincing the majority to vote for them. That would be illegal...

[Grames]

It is contradictory with my actual claims: that violent aggression is a necessity as a means of changing a political system from capitalism to socialism, therefore for the government to undertake force against these (violent) actions, it is self-defense. These actions, such as terrorism, assassinations, lynchings, violent overthrow, revolution, waging war, expropriation, murder, or mob rule are different in kind from expressing ideas and the boycott (which is what a funding strike essentially is.)

But that is simply not true. Terrorism, assassinations, lynchings, violent overthrow, revolution, waging war, expropriation, murder, or mob rule have not been the means used to bring socialism to the English speaking countries of the present. Bolshevism is not the only path to the socialist utopia, there is the alternative democratic socialism which is gradual and nonviolent. See Democratic Socialists of America. I knew this and assumed you did also.

[2046]

But that is simply not true. Terrorism, assassinations, lynchings, violent overthrow, revolution, waging war, expropriation, murder, or mob rule have not been the means used to bring socialism to the English speaking countries of the present. Bolshevism is not the only path to the socialist utopia, there is the alternative democratic socialism which is gradual and nonviolent. See Democratic Socialists of America. I knew this and assumed you did also.

Of course what you are saying is true. Where you are going wrong is that the OP, or at least as I understood, is that we are talking about a hypothetical already-existing Objectivist/capitalist government (thus you should pay attention to the following words after the part you bolded in my quote) being changed by socialist revolutionaries. Inded this formulates the basis of my critique.

Now I feel like we have answered to the “letter” of the OP's objections, but perhaps not the “spirit.” It seems like the central concern is that, ultimately, under laissez-faire capitalism, if the legal code is thorough enough to prohibit almost every possible initiation of physical force known, then those who oppose the government will arbitrarily be declared traitors and the police power of the state brought down upon them, until no one will dare object to the government's actions, and tyranny will become possible. But this is a misguided objection. (If all initiations of force are banned, then this would presumably include initiations of force by the government against dissenters as well.) Under the Objectivist politics, dissent and disagreement with the government is not banned. Criticism of the government is not presumed to disappear with the implementation of laissez-faire. Indeed for the government to be maintained as limited, dissent from the government is absolutely necessary.

Socialists, democrats, interventionists, etc. are not, however, without hope for their preferred political goals. Their only way to achieve them, however, is by

1. convincing and persuading enough people that it will work or

2. by making war against the government, winning, and having the majority of the people passively accept the socialist victory.

Even privately, of course, you may be as socialistic as you desire, as there is absolutely nothing preventing socialism from being maintained by voluntary associations of free men (except maybe the laws of economics, but that has to do with the nature of man and the world, not government.) They simply have the right to take what belongs to them, and leave the arrangement.

But politically, they can still implement a totalitarian government, if enough of the population is deceived to this goal. This is not unique to Objectivism or a capitalist government. Ultimately, every political system remains subject to public opinion. If the mass of the people become convinced to socialism, then no police power in the world can stop it. Even totalitarian dictatorships are subject to this, e.g. the fall of the USSR, monarchist Iran, etc. Then, the capitalist government will fall and be relegated to history, until such a time that enough people become convinced for a second (or I guess in this case, third) American Revolution.

The only difference then, will be that if a hypothetical Objectivist government is put into place, it will be that much harder to convince the public of the merits of statism. Most socialists will likely (and rightfully) be ostracized out of the communities as sociopaths, much like the Ku Klux Klan and neo-Nazi organizations today are regarded. The idea that socialists are just well-intentioned people of good-will intending to help the proletariat is what is responsible for most of the horrors wrought on its victims. Socialists are dangerous people, and should be regarded as potential criminals, and their leaders as potential terrorists and mass murderers.

Another reason why it would be more difficult is that after the first American Revolution, the foot, so to speak, of interventionism was already in the door. (This is what you are referencing, Grames.) But in this hypothetical Objectivist society, there is nothing but private property and the rule of law. There are no public parliaments and popular government, which fortunately makes depredation against person and property that much harder by any would-be socialist revolutionaries. A socialist take-over would then almost require an open war, e.g. Chile's Allende. My point is, the response to protect freedom, in this hypothetical case, would look different than the first American Revolution, insofar as that government (the current one in real life) was corrupted in the beginning from the inside by contradictions in the legal code and moral code in society.

But this hypothetical Objectivist/capitalist government would be besieged from without by socialist conspirators. Therefore, in this case of open warfare, they will have to be shot down without mercy, and justly so. In this case, calling the resulting spectacle (government soldiers and militia putting down guerrilla fighters claiming the mantle of “the people,” instead of the other way around) “totalitarian” is a mistaken view based on the aforementioned context-dropping. Once it is understood who is killing in the name of totalitarianism and who is resisting totalitarianism, then it is clear that the government is obligated to resist with retaliatory force. And you should support that.

[Jake_Ellison]

But the question still remains: Does conspiring to raise anti-Objectivist candidates to political office constitute protected free speech, or is should such speech be made illegal, as you propose?

I'm not going to play this word game with you. No one here, no one in American law, and no one in Objectivism defines speech to include the use of force. What you are claiming is speech does not fit the definition.

That should be clear by now, if it isn't it's not going to become more clear after a few more pages of arguing about it.

[2046]

But that is simply not true. Terrorism, assassinations, lynchings, violent overthrow, revolution, waging war, expropriation, murder, or mob rule have not been the means used to bring socialism to the English speaking countries of the present. Bolshevism is not the only path to the socialist utopia, there is the alternative democratic socialism which is gradual and nonviolent. See Democratic Socialists of America. I knew this and assumed you did also.

On second thought, what you are saying is not even true. Yes, there is a difference in the strategy of Bolshevists and social democrats to utopia. You say mob rule has not been the means to bring socialism to Western countries, but that democracy has, and yet, what is democracy but mob rule? So, this is a self-contradictory statement. Social democracy may be gradual, but we certainly cannot call it nonviolent. If it were, the Objectivist nation would be social democracy, since Objectivism claims a society in which the initiation of physical force is banned.

Edited October 29, 2010 by 2046

[Grames]

But in this hypothetical Objectivist society, there is nothing but private property and the rule of law. There are no public parliaments and popular government,

Your speculations on a proper government are your own and not supported by anything in political history, political philosophy or Ayn Rand's fiction.

There are two theories to account for the origin of political power. The first theory is that power is derived from the consent of the governed, and so is a theory about the moral legitimacy of government. The second theory is that power flows from the barrel of a gun, and so is a theory of physical power and "might makes right". Because these theories are about different kinds of power (moral and physical, or long term and short term) they are not contradictory but instead are combined in an armed citizenry living in a rights respecting republic.

The two existing theories are jointly exhaustive of all possible theories of government. If you have invented some third theory about government power lets see it.

You say mob rule has not been the means to bring socialism to Western countries, but that democracy has, and yet, what is democracy but mob rule?

Democracy is majority rule. The French Revolution is mob rule. See Wikipedia: Ochlocracy

It is contradictory to be so cynical about the possibility of popular government and at the same time to advocate leaving government finances at the mercy of that same population.

[2046]

Your speculations on a proper government are your own and not supported by anything in political history, political philosophy or Ayn Rand's fiction.

There are two theories to account for the origin of political power. The first theory is that power is derived from the consent of the governed, and so is a theory about the moral legitimacy of government. The second theory is that power flows from the barrel of a gun, and so is a theory of physical power and "might makes right". Because these theories are about different kinds of power (moral and physical, or long term and short term) they are not contradictory but instead are combined in an armed citizenry living in a rights respecting republic.

The two existing theories are jointly exhaustive of all possible theories of government. If you have invented some third theory about government power lets see it.

This is perfectly in line with the view that public consent is ultimately what a government's existence depends on. Your criticism that non-democratic government is “not found in Ayn Rand's writings” is not only false, but irrelevant, and I find it close to a referencing of dogma as a source of legitimacy.

Democracy is majority rule. The French Revolution is mob rule. See Wikipedia: Ochlocracy

It is contradictory to be so cynical about the possibility of popular government and at the same time to advocate leaving government finances at the mercy of that same population.

I don't think so. Any government's existence ultimate depends on public consent, but that is no reason to give the public a legal means to vote away each other's lives and property, does it? What I find is contradictory is your professed desire for a “rights-respecting republic” and your advocacy of taxation and public voting.

It doesn't appear this particular debate is becoming any more fruitful.

[Grames]

This is perfectly in line with the view that public consent is ultimately what a government's existence depends on. Your criticism that non-democratic government is “not found in Ayn Rand's writings” is not only false, but irrelevant, and I find it close to a referencing of dogma as a source of legitimacy.

You read that narrowly. Your theory is not supported by anything in Objectivist or non-Objectivist political history, political philosophy, or in Ayn Rand's fiction. It is just arbitrary, having no source or attribution and so far no other justification offered for it. Where or how do you come up with this?

[RationalBiker]

Where or how do you come up with this?

I'm wondering that too given the existence of places like Burma that rule by brute force and intimidation.

[2046]

You read that narrowly. Your theory is not supported by anything in Objectivist or non-Objectivist political history, political philosophy, or in Ayn Rand's fiction. It is just arbitrary, having no source or attribution and so far no other justification offered for it. Where or how do you come up with this?

Well now I am wondering exactly which "theory" of mine you are referring to, since everything I posted seems to be pretty much 99% explicit in Rand and perhaps 1% my own thinking (and even that seems to be implicit in Rand.) You know as well as I that "arbitrary" does not mean lacking citations from other people. What have I not provided justification for? What "this" are you asking how I came up with? Are you seriously suggesting that there is no justification in Objectivism, classical liberal politics, or historical analysis that democracy is evil?

[Grames]

Well now I am wondering exactly which "theory" of mine you are referring to, since everything I posted seems to be pretty much 99% explicit in Rand and perhaps 1% my own thinking (and even that seems to be implicit in Rand.) You know as well as I that "arbitrary" does not mean lacking citations from other people. What have I not provided justification for? What "this" are you asking how I came up with? Are you seriously suggesting that there is no justification in Objectivism, classical liberal politics, or historical analysis that democracy is evil?

I am referring to this quote from the middle of your post #58 (which I already quoted once)

But in this hypothetical Objectivist society, there is nothing but private property and the rule of law. There are no public parliaments and popular government,

That is not workable. If there is law, it must be because there is some source and mechanism for making law. If it is not a congress of representatives or a parliament, then what is it? How would the budget be made? Who decides how to regulate the armed forces and whether to make war? Who appoints judges without a need to seek approval?

Democracy can be evil. What has that got to do with America's republican form of government, or the republican form in general? If you are simply concluding that voting is evil or a symptom of evil because democracy is evil then you are making a logical non sequitur.

[2046]

I am referring to this quote from the middle of your post #58 (which I already quoted once)

That is not workable. If there is law, it must be because there is some source and mechanism for making law. If it is not a congress of representatives or a parliament, then what is it? How would the budget be made? Who decides how to regulate the armed forces and whether to make war? Who appoints judges without a need to seek approval?

Democracy can be evil. What has that got to do with America's republican form of government, or the republican form in general? If you are simply concluding that voting is evil or a symptom of evil because democracy is evil then you are making a logical non sequitur.

If any public voting existed at all, it would have to be limited to simply minor procedural matters (most of what you mention), the outcome of which will violate no one's rights, based on the principle that anyone who is elected does not gain extra rights and power that he does not have acting as an individual. Not only limited in scope, but also limited in availability to only those individuals in the community that are property owners and/or actual contributors and benefactors of government. Voting is not evil, per se, but what would be contra-constitutional (and the source of all valid law would be an airtight constitution) is anything that boils down to popularly deciding how the country shall be governed. If no one is allowed to vote away the life, liberty, or property of another, then I can't imagine any type of central legislative body existing where all men should have “the right to vote” on public lawmaking and officials, or anything other than mere procedural matters limited in scope. There should be no “representative democracy” or “democratic republic” because that would utterly concede the principle that everyone is “equal” and therefore has a “right to vote” on the use of governing power in society. This has “got to do” with America's supposedly “republican” form of government in the sense that it is way too democratic.

I hope then I won't be accused of lacking any philosophical or inductive historical basis for this analysis. If you would like me to provide a brief summation of that, then I can.

[Grames]

... based on the principle that anyone who is elected does not gain extra rights and power that he does not have acting as an individual. ...

(and the source of all valid law would be an airtight constitution) ...

There should be no “representative democracy” or “democratic republic” because that would utterly concede the principle that everyone is “equal” and therefore has a “right to vote” on the use of governing power in society. This has “got to do” with America's supposedly “republican” form of government in the sense that it is way too democratic.

But everyone cannot write his own law, there must be a single code of laws for law to be objective law. Those entrusted with that power do in fact have a power denied to others. In the same way, the power to enact retributive justice belongs to the agents of the government and vigilantism is outlawed. The equality that must exist is only equality before the law, not an equality of authority. Equality of authority in using the governing power is another restatement of the principle of anarchism.

It is not possible to make an airtight constitution that guarantees everyone's rights once and for all. For one thing, we don't even know what everyone's rights are. Rights are discovered. This is especially true in property rights where technology creates new forms of property and material value. Definitions and protections for new forms of property have to be legislated. There is a possibility of error in making new laws on technological frontiers, and contradictory court decisions may have to be reconciled with statutory law instead of case law. All people have rights, not just the fellow citizens of your same country. The decision of whether or not to go to war can definitely violate rights. A legislature is a necessity.

I think freezing the House of Representatives at 435 members has been a corruption of the principle of representation. In other words, I think America is not democratic enough. I think the popular election of U.S. Senators has removed a real veto power states formerly had over the U.S. Congress. In this sense, America is too democratic. The degree of democracy is not the relevant variable, the real problem is the government is less representative and more distant from the citizens now than at the founding.

[2046]

But everyone cannot write his own law, there must be a single code of laws for law to be objective law. Those entrusted with that power do in fact have a power denied to others. In the same way, the power to enact retributive justice belongs to the agents of the government and vigilantism is outlawed. The equality that must exist is only equality before the law, not an equality of authority. Equality of authority in using the governing power is another restatement of the principle of anarchism.

It is not possible to make an airtight constitution that guarantees everyone's rights once and for all. For one thing, we don't even know what everyone's rights are. Rights are discovered. This is especially true in property rights where technology creates new forms of property and material value. Definitions and protections for new forms of property have to be legislated. There is a possibility of error in making new laws on technological frontiers, and contradictory court decisions may have to be reconciled with statutory law instead of case law. All people have rights, not just the fellow citizens of your same country. The decision of whether or not to go to war can definitely violate rights. A legislature is a necessity.

I think freezing the House of Representatives at 435 members has been a corruption of the principle of representation. In other words, I think America is not democratic enough. I think the popular election of U.S. Senators has removed a real veto power states formerly had over the U.S. Congress. In this sense, America is too democratic. The degree of democracy is not the relevant variable, the real problem is the government is less representative and more distant from the citizens now than at the founding.

No one is suggesting everyone should get to write his own laws in society, so that's a strawman. Those who do discover and write an objective legal code don't have a single right denied to other people. Government and the limited functions of police, court system, and armed forces, as well as all administration and regulation of the justice system also require specialists: professional policemen, judges, clerks, bailiffs, interpreters, secretaries, managers, etc. It is not anarchistic to say that the division of labor does not stop short of the functions of government. This does not impose upon my rights, no more than to have a few people manufacturing shoes for everybody else. But it does say that I do not need to be ruled over by 435 professional politicians. This is not a some “authority” imposing governing power by superiors onto inferiors, but a principle of individual rights, which means justice, therefore it is not anarchy.

What you are suggesting, like what is going on in the taxation thread, is that governing authority comes from consensus. This is the principle of democracy, which means, of statism.

All that matters is that the law is objective, and since it is objective, that means it can be rationally investigated and discovered by man's reason, therefore no authority needs to be derived from consensus to some men and denied to others in order to write objective law.

There is a question of how such a system is constitutionally limited and put into place and form the passage of laws defining and dealing with the use of initiatory and retaliatory force. This will likely be done by a sort of “natural elite,” that is, of particularly respected and influential members of the community, such as patriarchs, statesmen, businessmen, etc. much like the original founding fathers of the United States (as embodied the Judge Narragansett character who authored part of the new constitution in Atlas Shrugged.) There is nothing wrong, of course, with electing such men and others as representatives for this purpose. Ultimately, this will be a free association of various individuals looking to form an Objectivist government for the purposes of constraining the use of retaliatory force to objective rules. Since this is to be a society comprised of “new intellectuals,” indeed these natural statesmen will have received the voluntary respect of the community of property owners.

Thus the only law then binding upon men is objective law. If the constitution of a society consists of a statement of objective law which prohibits the initiation of force, then it is objectively valid and morally binding on men, all men in fact, and not just the men of the particular society for which it was written. Therefore there is no right to compete with this system of law, not from without by competing agencies, and not from within by electing individuals to the government to destroy the objective laws.

What is clear, is that no one has a right to declare himself “representative of the people” and pass some arbitrary nonsense. If we seek to, in Rand words, leave no legal possibility for the redistribution of wealth by government, then it seems contradictory to have the legal possibility of doing this by simple manner of having “open entry” of public officials who have that capacity of doing something as “your representative in government” which would otherwise be rightly prohibited as a private individual.

[Grames]

No one is suggesting everyone should get to write his own laws in society, so that's a strawman. Those who do discover and write an objective legal code don't have a single right denied to other people. Government and the limited functions of police, court system, and armed forces, as well as all administration and regulation of the justice system also require specialists: professional policemen, judges, clerks, bailiffs, interpreters, secretaries, managers, etc. It is not anarchistic to say that the division of labor does not stop short of the functions of government. This does not impose upon my rights, no more than to have a few people manufacturing shoes for everybody else. But it does say that I do not need to be ruled over by 435 professional politicians. This is not a some “authority” imposing governing power by superiors onto inferiors, but a principle of individual rights, which means justice, therefore it is not anarchy.

What you are suggesting, like what is going on in the taxation thread, is that governing authority comes from consensus. This is the principle of democracy, which means, of statism.

This is just "hand-waving", you assume the problem of authorizing the government and its agents to act goes away without delving into the details of the mechanics of an actual government. It is not enough to have principles to avoid anarchy, there must be laws and officers or in other words: a state.

This sentence comes close to an equivocation: "Those who do discover and write an objective legal code don't have a single right denied to other people." The near equivocation and confusion is on the referent of the word 'right'. All people have the same moral rights due to being human, but not all people have the same rights to action regarding particulars. The owner of property has the right to use and dispose of it, not others. A government official by virtue of his title has possession of a legal right to act in certain ways denied to others. Organizing a government and specifying the permitted powers of its officers is not a creation of moral rights, but it does create certain legal rights within the legal system. Ayn Rand contrasts rights against permissions, so it is clarifying to state government officials act from permission not from right.

Those specialists you mentioned, the professional policemen, judges, clerks, bailiffs, interpreters, secretaries, managers, they are ruling over you every bit as much as the legislature you are so wary of. What constrains them are the same constitutional principles that constrain the legislature. If constitutional limits are not protection from one branch of government then they also not protection from the other.

All that matters is that the law is objective, and since it is objective, that means it can be rationally investigated and discovered by man's reason, therefore no authority needs to be derived from consensus to some men and denied to others in order to write objective law.

"Man's reason" does not write law, men do. Some particular persons will write objective law. Which ones, can you identify them or the method for finding them?

This will likely be done by a sort of “natural elite,” that is, of particularly respected and influential members of the community, such as patriarchs, statesmen, businessmen, etc. much like the original founding fathers of the United States (as embodied the Judge Narragansett character who authored part of the new constitution in Atlas Shrugged.) There is nothing wrong, of course, with electing such men and others as representatives for this purpose. Ultimately, this will be a free association of various individuals looking to form an Objectivist government for the purposes of constraining the use of retaliatory force to objective rules. Since this is to be a society comprised of “new intellectuals,” indeed these natural statesmen will have received the voluntary respect of the community of property owners.

This is utopian fantasy. Only Galt's Gulch is a society of "new intellectuals", that entire society was composed of the "natural elite". No real country defined geographically will be comprised of people who think the same thoughts and respect the same people. It follows from the utopian premise that no real government comprised of less than elite men can ever be valid. This is why you want to have no legislature, you want a fool-proof government. Volition makes it impossible to ever have such a guarantee, even from a "natural elite".

You repeatedly avow you are against anarchism, but no method of government can satisfy you as being sufficiently secure from statism.

[2046]

This is just "hand-waving", you assume the problem of authorizing the government and its agents to act goes away without delving into the details of the mechanics of an actual government. It is not enough to have principles to avoid anarchy, there must be laws and officers or in other words: a state.

This is your tactic, to pick something utterly irrelevant and turn it into your strawman to be demolished. Who says it is “just enough” to have principles and no state is needed? Where did you pull this out of? Not anything in my post. I do not, in fact, assume the detailed mechanics of government simply “go away,” I am trying to engage with you in error elimination about which principles the mechanics of a proper government that does not force a man to forgo any individual rights should be based on.

This sentence comes close to an equivocation: "Those who do discover and write an objective legal code don't have a single right denied to other people." The near equivocation and confusion is on the referent of the word 'right'. All people have the same moral rights due to being human, but not all people have the same rights to action regarding particulars. The owner of property has the right to use and dispose of it, not others. A government official by virtue of his title has possession of a legal right to act in certain ways denied to others. Organizing a government and specifying the permitted powers of its officers is not a creation of moral rights, but it does create certain legal rights within the legal system. Ayn Rand contrasts rights against permissions, so it is clarifying to state government officials act from permission not from right.

No, it's not an equivocation, it's a statement of fact that you at least profess to agree with here: “All people have the same moral rights due to being human...” the second part:”... but not all people have the same rights to action regarding particulars,” does not contradict anything I said, so this objection is more strawmanning.

The equivocation is more relevant the phrase “act in certain ways” to your statement, “legal right to act in certain ways denied to others.” To which I can only reply: All people have the same moral rights due to being human, but not all people have the same rights to action regarding particulars.

Those specialists you mentioned, the professional policemen, judges, clerks, bailiffs, interpreters, secretaries, managers, they are ruling over you every bit as much as the legislature you are so wary of. What constrains them are the same constitutional principles that constrain the legislature. If constitutional limits are not protection from one branch of government then they also not protection from the other.

But what about those constitutional limits constrains them? Certainly not just by saying “you are constrained.” You limit by taking the apparatus of coercion away, not by saying “you be good now, or we'll not vote for you next time.” I don't think I need to point out that that is one of the exact reasons we are in the situation we are in. A clerk or bureaucrat working for a limited government under the principles I have laid out has no power to pass laws in the same way a democratic politician does under the government you seem to be advocating. You seem to be painting me against government, but I am only against democratic politicians being in my government.

"Man's reason" does not write law, men do. Some particular persons will write objective law.

Both these sentences are rhetorical nonsense.

Which ones, can you identify them or the method for finding them?

No.

This is utopian fantasy. Only Galt's Gulch is a society of "new intellectuals", that entire society was composed of the "natural elite". No real country defined geographically will be comprised of people who think the same thoughts and respect the same people. It follows from the utopian premise that no real government comprised of less than elite men can ever be valid.

In every society of any degree of civilization, there exists certain outstanding individuals who command voluntary respect and authority from others in the community due to various natural talents, such as superior wisdom, judgment, wealth, experience, peacemaking, etc. Since their opinions and judgments posses a voluntary authority within the community, and these are typically at the forefront and leadership roles in a revolution. No fantasy is required, you can look to the men of the original American Revolution for historical examples (Or in the most narrow sense, you can discern between the members of this very forum who are the certain outstanding individuals.) of a natural elite. Since government can only sustain itself with the public opinion behind it, the task confronting us will be of convincing the public of the case for egoism and liberty, and there will have to be a certain natural elite that will fill leadership roles and command voluntary respect for the specialized functions of government planning.

This is why you want to have no legislature, you want a fool-proof government. Volition makes it impossible to ever have such a guarantee, even from a "natural elite".

No, being “fool-proof” by some standard beyond the capacity and identity of humans to act is not required. But not purposely acting in contradiction to your own acclaimed principles within our capacity is a different matter, then we should not allow public voting on lawmaking and temporary democratic caretakers with the power to initiate force.

You repeatedly avow you are against anarchism, but no method of government can satisfy you as being sufficiently secure from statism.

Is that an arbitrary observation or an argument? Not “no method of government,” just not democracy. Democracy is what doesn't satisfy me as secure against statism. Again, it's clear you want to impute as “anarchist!” any method aside from democracy, but this is only your false dilemma. A method of government is either democracy or non-democracy, not either democracy or anarchy (or dictatorship. But in fact democracy leads to dictatorship.)

[Grames]

This is your tactic, to pick something utterly irrelevant and turn it into your strawman to be demolished. Who says it is “just enough” to have principles and no state is needed? Where did you pull this out of?

From here:

But it does say that I do not need to be ruled over by 435 professional politicians. This is not a some “authority” imposing governing power by superiors onto inferiors, but a principle of individual rights, which means justice, therefore it is not anarchy.

You maintain a government is possible without lawmakers. But since government needs laws, and laws must be written and decided upon by lawmakers, I maintain that is impossible.

All people have the same moral rights due to being human, but not all people have the same rights to action regarding particulars.

Good. Some people get to write the laws, the rest don't. The difference is not a matter of different moral rights for different people.

But what about those constitutional limits constrains them? Certainly not just by saying “you are constrained.”

Actually, yes that is the starting point. The U.S. Constitution lays down the following defenses: The first line of defense is their own understanding. The second line of defense is a veto by an executive, the third line of defense is judicial review, and the ultimate defense is the next election.

You limit by taking the apparatus of coercion away, not by saying “you be good now, or we'll not vote for you next time.”

Then how the hell do all those policemen, judges, clerks, bailiffs, interpreters, secretaries, managers, etc. know what to do and how do they get paid?

I don't think I need to point out that that is one of the exact reasons we are in the situation we are in. A clerk or bureaucrat working for a limited government under the principles I have laid out has no power to pass laws in the same way a democratic politician does under the government you seem to be advocating. You seem to be painting me against government, but I am only against democratic politicians being in my government.

So you are in favor of what, exactly? A monarchy? An oligarchy of the natural elite? What? How does the business of government get done?

Both these sentences are rhetorical nonsense.

No, they are exactly literally undeniably true. I want you to state how the law gets created in your ideal government without elected legislators.

No.

Without a source of law there is no law and no government. This is a problem for those of us who wish to avoid anarchism and its discontents.

In every society of any degree of civilization, there exists certain outstanding individuals who command voluntary respect and authority from others in the community due to various natural talents, such as superior wisdom, judgment, wealth, experience, peacemaking, etc. Since their opinions and judgments posses a voluntary authority within the community, and these are typically at the forefront and leadership roles in a revolution. No fantasy is required, you can look to the men of the original American Revolution for historical examples (Or in the most narrow sense, you can discern between the members of this very forum who are the certain outstanding individuals.) of a natural elite. Since government can only sustain itself with the public opinion behind it, the task confronting us will be of convincing the public of the case for egoism and liberty, and there will have to be a certain natural elite that will fill leadership roles and command voluntary respect for the specialized functions of government planning.

Every delegate to the Continental Congresses and the Constitutional Convention was appointed by his state's legislature. The officers of the Continental Army were appointed by the Continental Congress or the respective state legislature of his militia unit. America's representative in France was appointed by the Continental Congress. How does any of this get done without legislatures?

[2046]

You maintain a government is possible without lawmakers. But since government needs laws, and laws must be written and decided upon by lawmakers, I maintain that is impossible.

Again, there is no reason why voting is illegal per se. I maintain a limited government is not possible with a central legislature that maintains open entry into the constant making of “new” laws on any issue whatsoever and that not only will the government not fall apart without this feature, but it will exceed its limits with it.

Actually, yes that is the starting point. The U.S. Constitution lays down the following defenses: The first line of defense is their own understanding. The second line of defense is a veto by an executive, the third line of defense is judicial review, and the ultimate defense is the next election.

Then how the hell do all those policemen, judges, clerks, bailiffs, interpreters, secretaries, managers, etc. know what to do and how do they get paid?

They use their minds, they follow the law, and they collect their paychecks. I don't see why you think the whole of the government will fall apart without the people having periodic voting. Do they police by majority rule? No. Do they judge by majority rule? No. Do they need to vote to figure out how to perform their tasks? No.

Now I have questions for you. If you maintain that a legislative branch (I assume you mean each citizen has a vote in deciding on the rulers or “representatives” who then decide on the policy of government) is necessary for a limited government, then you must accept all the consequences that includes.

1. Can the majority vote to contradict the constitution?

2. Can the majority vote to change or abolish the constitution?

3. Can the majority vote to end the separation of economy and state?

4. Can the majority vote to initiate physical force?

5. Can the majority vote to end the democracy, such as voting for a monarchy, anarchy, or dictatorship, or my non-democratic laissez-faire government? Does your system of democracy permit itself to be democratically voted out of existence?

If you answer number five positively, then either your democracy is a route toward dictatorship or toward a purely free private property and rule of law government, where I simply maintain that there would be nothing available for the millions of individuals living across this country, each with a right to life, to vote over on how to control the life of his fellow. If voting remains restricted to the minor procedural matters of government (including, if you insist, those matters as deal with the defining of laws regulating the use of retaliatory force only), then I am satisfied.

So you are in favor of what, exactly? A monarchy? An oligarchy of the natural elite? What? How does the business of government get done?

Monarchy throughout history was generally superior to democracy. Individual rights were protected much more under colonial rule, and the violations the early Americans did suffer were by far a lot milder than what we do to each other under majority rule. But the business of government is the protection of individual rights. It gets done by people choosing to form a limited government constrained to those tasks.

I want you to state how the law gets created in your ideal government without elected legislators.

Already sated that in post #69 paragraph 4. A free society is a voluntary association of men for the purpose of subordinating the use of force in society to objective law. If objective law is formulated, then it is binding on society, all of society in fact. If nonobjective law is formulated, then people should follow Thomas Jefferson's call (“...it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security...”) and seek out each other to associate and formulate a proper government.

Edit: is this present debate even relevant to the topic of the thread, or should there be a split into an "Objectivism vs Democracy" thread? Perhaps the cut-off point should be post #60 or thereabouts.

Edited November 2, 2010 by 2046

[SapereAude]

It has been my impression that in an Objectivist government there would of course be periodic voting but the nature of voting would be different.

You would essentially be voting on the character, skills and intellect of individuals whose job it would be to carry out the functions of government. You would rarely be voting on "issues" as such because Objectivism is a closed system.

You wouldn't be voting on people's rights, welfare entitlements, union cardcheck.

It would be more like voting for admin positions in your hunting club- "I trust this guy to handle the cash, this guy to handle the permits, this guy to handle the maintenence of the shooting range"... but of course on a much larger scale.

[Dante]

I don't see why you think the whole of the government will fall apart without the people having periodic voting. Do they police by majority rule? No. Do they judge by majority rule? No. Do they need to vote to figure out how to perform their tasks? No.

Sheriffs are usually elected, and police commissioners or chiefs of police are sometimes elected; seems like at least partly "policing by majority rule." Many cities and counties also "prosecute by majority rule," in that the DA or County Attourney is elected. Judges are usually appointed, of course, but they are appointed by elected officials. One can imagine the alternative, appointees appointing appointees endlessly down the line... wouldn't be too hard for those people to gain an inordinate amount of power. It's fine for the state or city constitution to place limits on these people, but if there is no one empowered to take them from power, they are not beholden to such documents.

How to design a government structure that sticks most closely for as long as possible to its starting constitution is a complicated question, and I don't think you can simply rule out majority voting as an option a priori. My position on voting is similar to SA's as he's stated it above.

Edited November 2, 2010 by Dante