Is Objectivism Totalitarian?

[Grames]

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.

Just because there is a legislature does not entail that it can make any law on any issue whatsoever.

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.

Because the legislature does that lawmaking and voting. If there was no legislature then police and judges would have to make things up as they go along. If every policeman and judge is his own authority, where is the objectivity? There can not be objectivity without uniformity. An emergent uniformity based on case law and precedent such as in English Common Law does not have any necessary relation to rights, nor any way to reform the system if it goes wrong. A legislature can change laws and judges, the judiciary can toss out laws as unconstitutional.

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?

Yes to all, because ultimately the government is by consent of the governed. There is no way to make government fool-proof, that is the absurdity of forcing people to be rational. Government can be made resistant to popular moods and demagogues by a constitution with explicit guarantees of specific rights and checks and balances between parts of the government and having a super majority vote margin required to modify it. That works pretty well in the U.S.

If objective law is formulated, then it is binding on society, all of society in fact.

There is not just one objective law, because then we could refer to it as a proper noun with a name: Objective Law. Objective law is not discovered, it is made. There are options and decisions to be made within the field of law and alternatives that can be defended as equally objective. (What language should the law be written in? At what age is a child to become an adult? etc...)

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.

...

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.

The thread asks if Objectivism is totalitarian, and here you are saying nice things about monarchy. We are quite on topic.

[2046]

Just because there is a legislature does not entail that it can make any law on any issue whatsoever.

Under democracy, it can if the majority wants it to, as you yourself would allow.

Because the legislature does that lawmaking and voting. If there was no legislature then police and judges would have to make things up as they go along. If every policeman and judge is his own authority, where is the objectivity? There can not be objectivity without uniformity. An emergent uniformity based on case law and precedent such as in English Common Law does not have any necessary relation to rights, nor any way to reform the system if it goes wrong. A legislature can change laws and judges, the judiciary can toss out laws as unconstitutional.

Yes to all, because ultimately the government is by consent of the governed. There is no way to make government fool-proof, that is the absurdity of forcing people to be rational. Government can be made resistant to popular moods and demagogues by a constitution with explicit guarantees of specific rights and checks and balances between parts of the government and having a super majority vote margin required to modify it.

Not having democracy isn't forcing people to do anything. It is majority rule, in each of these situations and more, that forces you to abandon your rationality. The fact that government exists by consent of the governed does not in any way prove that democracy is necessary. Democracy does not represent some absolute moral imperative. It just means the majority will eventually get the government it considers legitimate. Which goes back to the OP and the hypothetical socialist insurrection, so you are leading this conversation in a circle and this has officially become annoying. I think I'm done responding to your objections, unless you happen to post something more interesting.

That works pretty well in the U.S.

What the hell planet are you on? The internal checks have failed their intended purpose, and the “wait for the next election” remedy is obviously a farce. You yourself admit it would be permissible for the majority to vote to ignore the constitution and initiate force or even institute a dictatorship, and if we resist we're the totalitarians for denying the majority and its “consent”! This goes beyond the theory that governments exist by majority opinion. To you, the “consent of the governed” is all that matters. To hell with that, I don't consent, but apparently individuals do not matter in the face of the majority's will.

The thread asks if Objectivism is totalitarian, and here you are saying nice things about monarchy. We are quite on topic.

Omg! I said “nice things!” Great argument, Grames. Before I came to this conclusion, I, like most people, would object like “WTF, what an idiotic thing to say, how can you even think that?! Democracy is much better! Everybody knows that!” But that isn't an argument and that isn't thinking and this is something worth thinking about instead of shrugging it off with nice nonobjective, suggestive statements like “saying nice things.” Individual rights were much better protected in the 19th century in Europe, and in the US as well when the right to vote was extremely restricted. It is clear I have not advocated monarchy, I am just pointing out that, of two evil things, democracy is a step lower than monarchy. What I advocate is capitalism, which is based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned. To hell with the majority and its alleged “right” to rule by force.

[icosahedron]

I am disgusted to see the query "Is Objectivism Totalitarian" always on the top of the forum stack each day. So here I am adding to the thread and continuing the currency, go figure ...

First of all, the question is not semantically valid, and worse, it misleads one into accepting its implicit premise, i.e., that "totalitarian" is an adjective appropriate to describing a philosophy. But totalitarian has nothing, per se, to do with philosophy; totalitarian refers to human social control structures, such as governments, where power-mongers who operate the structure dictate the behavior of the structure's individual constituents.

So, really, the question needs to be rephrased, e.g.: Does the logical implementation(s) of a government consistent with Objectivist principles result in the construction of a totalitarian state?

The answer to THIS (correctly posed) question is an emphatic "NO!", and the reason is simple: Objectivism advocates the virtue of independence, and does not sanction any political system that makes that virtue impractical. A totalitarian state, by its nature, requires that the virtue of independence be obliterated from public view.

So, "NO!": The logical implementation(s) of government consistent with Objectivist principles will NOT result in the construction of a totalitarian state.

NONONONONONO!!!!!!!

- ico

[Greebo]

It pains me - all this discussion about how well democracy works here in the US.

Cause we aren't one.

[icosahedron]

It pains me - all this discussion about how well democracy works here in the US.

Cause we aren't one.

Agreed. I am so sick of hearing how great democracy is ... it's right up there with "creating jobs" as a goal.

Democracy is simply a means to select representatives; it is not a form of government. Sheesh.

- ico

[Grames]

It pains me - all this discussion about how well democracy works here in the US.

Cause we aren't one.

What baffles me is the attack on democracy, because the U.S. is not one. It is just irrelevant to the issue of a legislature being necessary for a republican form of government.

[Grames]

What the hell planet are you on? The internal checks have failed their intended purpose, and the “wait for the next election” remedy is obviously a farce.

See? Utopianism breeds bitter cynicism when reality fails to measure up to fantasy. The U.S. system is robust and withstands tremendous pressures its designers never anticipated, for longer than they ever imagined.

Omg! I said “nice things!” Great argument, Grames. . . . It is clear I have not advocated monarchy, I am just pointing out that, of two evil things, democracy is a step lower than monarchy.

It was not an argument, I just pointed out what you did there without claiming you advocated monarchy. And your conclusion is wrong, democracy is not worse than monarchy. Both are antithetical to rights and equally unacceptable.

What I advocate is capitalism, which is based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned. To hell with the majority and its alleged “right” to rule by force.

You believe in the magical intrinsic qualities of Objective Law, which somehow just appears as needed and everyone obeys by acclamation. Fantasies will not lead to or protect capitalism.

[prescient]

While making detailed plans to enact taxation is not making plans for theft at gun point it would necessarily be theft by legislative fiat.

Non-compliance with this would get the attention of authorities specifically law enforcement, who does have guns.

See the case of Edward and Elaine Brown.

In a society of competing and conflicting interests, it would be nearly impossible to get a consensus on taxation based on a democratic process.

While taxation is a way for the state to raise revenue it is not the way.

Government regularly levies fees for the services it provides.

This is a point of sale relationship and not a confiscatory practice which is practiced by governemnt at all levels.

This argument naturally leads to a VAT tax which would be levied on ALL consumers at the point of purchase based on a consumers choice to buy a product or service.

[agrippa1]

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.

Yes, you are playing a word game. You are claiming that political speech is protected at the same time you explicitly outlaw political speech towards a purpose. You are, in essence, denying (or, at least, nullifying) the concept "political speech" (which is speech intended to convince the voting populace to vote a certain way) as a means of "protecting" that speech in an Objectivist society.

You wrote:

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.

If "no one ... defines speech to include the use of force," and "convincing the majority to vote for them ... would be illegal," then either convincing the majority to vote for them is considered force, or it is unprotected speech.

What is the functional difference between disqualifying any candidate based on his political views, and outlawing those political views outright?

[CapitalistSwine]

I don't understand the issue her with respect to political speech. Peikoff and many other prominent Objectivists have commented on this issue before. Does anyone care what they said or are we just going to do a circlejerk in here?

Edited November 11, 2010 by CapitalistSwine

[Grames]

It is best that forum posters first advocate their positions using their own understanding of the principles involved using their own words before resorting to the method of citing the arguments of authorities.