Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Anarchy and Objectivism

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

If it wasn't a suggestion to clarify the issue of rights (which is what I'm clearly questioning), then why offer it? I've stated my position and offered common definition to support it. If you're suggesting I need to abandon Merriam-Webster definitions in favor of those provided by Leonard Peikoff, then I disagree.

I have read sections that are available online, and that are of interest to me. My exposure to Objectivism comes mostly though reading articles by Ayn Rand, including audio recordings by her on various subjects, by Leonard Peikoff and by other recognized Objectivists. I've found many areas of Objectivism that I agree with, and some that I don't, but I have yet to read the entire body of Objectivist literature.

My interest here is for a clarification of perspective on rights by those who understand the philosophy of Objectivism better than I do. I don't believe it's necessary to read the whole Bible, Qur'an, Torah, et al, in order to ask a more knowledgeable source for their perspective on a moral/political issue that I'm aware they address. That you prefer to assign further reading than respond to two very direct questions I've asked suggests an appeal to authority, and that you ask a moderator of this forum if they are being sarcastic, suggests you question the validity of the authorities you appeal to.

I pointed you in a direction where you could get clarification of the issue of 'a priori', since from what you've said you don't understand it and I think it would be helpful if you did.

Regarding your other questions, I've already said what I had to say about the issue of rights as far as this conversation is concerned. I'm not going to keep repeating myself. There's a difference between, "Read Peikoff and agree or you're evil," and, "Read Peikoff, it would clarify things for you."

I don't know where you're going with me discrediting authorities I appeal to regarding the moderator. Pretty baseless insult you've made there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Devil

Conversation with Overt

He was correct to question the moderators statement as sarcasm, as it was kind of a strange thing to say. Rights are induced from a large set of ideas on ethics which are induced from man's nature. I don't know how that would fit with the term "A Priori".

Overt was also correct in pointing you towards OPAR.

Without understanding what our words mean our conclusions will probably just seem unfounded and outrageous. For instance, I am about to use the word "principle" over and over, and if you don't know what I mean by that or why principles are important then what I am about to say won't make much sense. OPAR does a good job organizing Objectivism from beginning to end so you don't have holes in your understanding.

Rights

A right is a principle governing interactions between organized societies of people. While it is immoral for a man to initiate force against another in most contexts, this moral principle is not the same as "the right to live". Rights come into play when you start talking about by what principles societies should work. Rights have corallary moral principles. So when we ask "What are the principles of a society that functions well". I would ask, from an individual perspective, what in principle is the purpose of a society? An individual joins a society because it benefits them to do so. So a society that allows them to pursue their virtues is a society that will benefit them at a bare minimum. All of the other benefits of society like mutual aid, security, comfort, and trade have to be framed in the context of these rights, otherwise there will be damage to the individual.

Non-Coercion/selfishenss - Righ to Life (You can function towards your own survival)

Productivity - Right to Property (People keep what they earn)

Rationality/Integrity - Right to Liberty (Allow people to make their own decisions and be who they want to be)

Honesty - Protectiong Against Fraud (There are consequences for not making good on promises)

Justice - Right to Due Process. (You can not be punished arbitrarily, you will be judged rationally)

As an example, the right to life, based on the virtue of non-coercion and selfishness "Does a society that could potentially prevent individuals to seek their own surival, kill them, or get them killed arbitrarily good for them?". We can see the horror of societies that arbitrarily kill its citizens or cause their people to starve to death by takin their means of survival. Military Conscription and the police burtality are more common examples of the right to life being violated in the west. When the government can kill anyone it wants, that person could one day be you or your loved ones, even though right now you could be convinced you won't do anything to upset the government. Even kings have been brutally murdered by their competitors. So in a society like that, no one is safe.

"Anarchists" have issue with almost all of these rights, as in most cases they don't have any moral context in which to understand them completely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hairnet, overt, et al...

Moderator SapereAude's comment, "Objectivism holds that rights are a priori", makes sense to me according to the common definition of a priori. There seems to be some dispute among others in this thread as to whether or not this comment was intended to be taken seriously. Perhaps SapereAude will return to clarify this at some point.

There are two "snippets" in the Ayn Rand Lexicon for A Priori that suggest knowledge cannot be obtained without applying logic to experience. In being pointed to this, I gather that a right to life cannot be maintained as a self-evident truth, because self-evidence implies the lack of logic necessary to establish the truth of this right. If this is a fair representation of the Objectivist position, then I think I've gotten all the perspective that patience allows for on this issue.

My position is that the observation of actions necessary to preserve life, which are self-evident, establish the truth this right without further proof or reasoning. I certainly don't agree that such a right is necessarily delimited to a social/political context, however beneficial the recognition and protection of this right is. A hermit (or an anarchist) remains entitled to his life, as property, and it is correct and proper for him to dispose of it as he will; this meets the common and legal definitions of what a right is.

At any rate, I appreciate the feedback I've recieved, and am ready to move on unless there's something new to be added on this issue...

Edited by Devil's Advocate
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 6 months later...

A single state is necessary for ensuring that due process and objectivity of law. If everything is based on person to person consensus, retaliation of force becomes arbitrary and way to close to vigilantism.

Basically everyone needs to be on the same page and know before hand what the rules are, whether they like the partciulars of these rules or not.

I can elaborate if you need me too.

Most arguments against Anarchism are bad, and usually are based in hyperbole. The above is the real reason why it ultimately woudn't work. I don't want to live in the world of Snow Crash.

So then are you and advocate of a single worldwide government?

Edited by Researcher
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regardless, a right is not self-evident, as it depends on moral principles, which themselves are not self-evident.

I see that from a slightly different location...

In my view, rights are self evident... however, the enjoyment of those rights depends upon living a moral life deserving of those rights.

 

Anarchy would work just fine, but only if everyone governed themselves. It is those who fail to govern themselves who draw government into existence to do it for them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see that from a slightly different location...

In my view, rights are self evident... however, the enjoyment of those rights depends upon living a moral life deserving of those rights.

 

Anarchy would work just fine, but only if everyone governed themselves. It is those who fail to govern themselves who draw government into existence to do it for them.

 

What if it were that rational men instituted the idea of government due to a recognition of human nature, to keep those who couldn't govern themselves at arms length or at a minimum. It's a little less malevolent universie

Link to comment
Share on other sites

According to Christian myth even the Angelic Beings require the rulership of God.  One third of the Angels rebelled against God and were cast down from Heaven. 

 

Here is the thing.  As long as there are egotistical beings who  claim their own judgement as authority there will be strife.  That was the point Hobbes made in arguing for the necessity of government. 

 

Two rational beings can look at the same events and facts of nature and come to not only differently conclusions,  but contradictory conclusions.  It happens all the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What if it were that rational men instituted the idea of government due to a recognition of human nature, to keep those who couldn't govern themselves at arms length or at a minimum. It's a little less malevolent universie

Of course that is the process. Note that is is the recognition of the fact that people fail to govern their own behavior which creates the need for government to exist. And today the size of government indicates catastrophic personal failure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is the thing.  As long as there are egotistical beings who  claim their own judgement as authority there will be strife.  That was the point Hobbes made in arguing for the necessity of government.

Who cares what Hobbes said? The real question is, is this what YOU say? Apparently you agree otherwise you wouldn't have posted it. You (and Hobbes) are wrong.

The problem isn't that humans have an ego and MUST make judgments according to their own understanding: this is a FACT of nature and a requirement of life. The problem is those who don't think for themselves are swayed by some other authority, such as society or god or whim, and they take that authority on faith. Doing so they are unable to convince others and thus turn to FORCE others to accept their point of view.

Force is the evil here not "egotistical beings who claim their own judgment as authority". Our own judgment is all we can go by, who elses judgment would you have us go by?

What is your purpose on this forum? It seems it is only to bash Ayn Rand. You understand this is forum dedicated to Ayn Rand right?

You have made many assertions which you seem unwilling or unable to defend. In another thread you claim that Ayn Rand made errors and I asked you to name a few. You haven't done so, so I will ask again: name specifically some things you think Ayn Rand got wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who cares what Hobbes said? The real question is, is this what YOU say? Apparently you agree otherwise you wouldn't have posted it. You (and Hobbes) are wrong.

The problem isn't that humans have an ego and MUST make judgments according to their own understanding: this is a FACT of nature and a requirement of life. The problem is those who don't think for themselves are swayed by some other authority, such as society or god or whim, and they take that authority on faith. Doing so they are unable to convince others and thus turn to FORCE others to accept their point of view.

Force is the evil here not "egotistical beings who claim their own judgment as authority". Our own judgment is all we can go by, who elses judgment would you have us go by?

What is your purpose on this forum? It seems it is only to bash Ayn Rand. You understand this is forum dedicated to Ayn Rand right?

You have made many assertions which you seem unwilling or unable to defend. In another thread you claim that Ayn Rand made errors and I asked you to name a few. You haven't done so, so I will ask again: name specifically some things you think Ayn Rand got wrong.

I agree with Hobbes.  If there is no government or no authority then there will be strife a-aplenty and the evil strong will eat up the less strong or at least eat their lunch.

 

Every human society that has ever existed and survived for any significant length of time has has some form of regulating behavior within the society to prevent  widespread plunder and violence.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with Hobbes.  If there is no government or no authority then there will be strife a-aplenty and the evil strong will eat up the less strong or at least eat their lunch.

 

Every human society that has ever existed and survived for any significant length of time has has some form of regulating behavior within the society to prevent  widespread plunder and violence.  

That's not really what Hobbes says though. The argument wasn't simply, that gee, we need laws and order and security, and that these are good things. The argument he gives is that it is literally impossible for two people to cooperate, that they will be like wolves and eat each other up, unless a third party is like a wolf to both of them, ergo, we must have an absolute sovereign. Quite a different claim than the trivial one of, oh well we need laws and rules to prevent crime.

Edited by 2046
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So then are you and advocate of a single worldwide government?

It depends on what is technologically and economically viable. I think that a planetary government is desirable. If humans in the future decide to colonize the solar system, a unified government will be harder to accomplish due to the great distances an expenses.

Federalism is also an important principle here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It depends on what is technologically and economically viable. I think that a planetary government is desirable. If humans in the future decide to colonize the solar system, a unified government will be harder to accomplish due to the great distances an expenses.

Federalism is also an important principle here.

I'd love a one world government.

 

The bigger the bureaucracy with more useless unproductive government educated dummies employed in it...

 

...the bigger the cracks through which to fall. :thumbsup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's not really what Hobbes says though. The argument wasn't simply, that gee, we need laws and order and security, and that these are good things. The argument he gives is that it is literally impossible for two people to cooperate, that they will be like wolves and eat each other up, unless a third party is like a wolf to both of them, ergo, we must have an absolute sovereign. Quite a different claim than the trivial one of, oh well we need laws and rules to prevent crime.

Wish all you will.  Out there are people who regard their own judgement as supreme and will act on that assumption.  That means that someone is going to make life miserable for others.  The best way to handle this is for sane people to get together and establish a system of rules (i.e. law) and someone to enforce the law (without enforcement the law is worthless).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd love a one world government.

The bigger the bureaucracy with more useless;unproductive government educated dummies employed in it...

...the bigger the cracks through which to fall. :thumbsup:

You are starting to be a major image problem for this forum.

You made no attempt to understand the context of my post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only proper government function is to put the use of retaliatory force under the strict control of objective law. Even today government doesn't run law enforcement agencies-the police officers do. It doesn't run courts-judges suppose to be independent. Government even doesn't pay for these services-it doesn't create any wealth. Government only provides laws for police and courts to act which is its legitimate function and forces population to pay for it, which is violation of rights and initiation of force. So how a government which very existence is based on the violation of rights can protect rights? Only privately and voluntary funded law enforcement agencies and courts are compatible with the free objectivist society. The only proper government function, the legislation, would be voluntary funded by those who need it most-private security companies and courts.

What is your working definition of "objective law"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are starting to be a major image problem for this forum.

You made no attempt to understand the context of my post.

 

You said:

 

 

I think that a planetary government is desirable.

 

You see a big one world government as being good... while I view it as an accurate indicator of the failure of irresponsible people to govern themselves.

 

And since the government is created by the parasitic political majority, my approach to it is:  The bigger the bureaucracy, the dumber the bureaucrats, and the more it screws up... exactly like Ayn so accurately predicted it would in Atlas Shrugged.

 

Colonizing other planets is a utopian fantasy when people can't even budget their own finances, and neither can the government they created in their own irresponsible image.

Edited by moralist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I stand by my original post. I didn't say I wanted a world government made by the people of today. I also did not say anything about it being "big". I advocate a federal body that can manage police actions that need to take place across a large geographic region. Attacking this idea only results in an absurd sort of "anarchism" which claims that the police do not have the right to "invade" somone's house even if they are a wanted murderer.

International law does not hold the individual rights at their foundation. If you want police actions that must take place across the globe to be based on rule of law rather than international treaty, planetary government is the final answer.

This of course would have to happen in the far future, after the majority of states were already law abiding. The context of my post was theoretical from the get go and this should have gone without saying.

Technological progress has happened despite the supposed irresponsbility of people you have never met, and despite the government which have made no effort to understand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The bigger the government (in either scope of function or geographical extent)  the more incompetent it is.

...and oddly enough, the more freedom you can enjoy. I knew a courageous man who escaped from Germany during the war. Because he understood the principle of bureaucratic incompetence he was able to use it to gain his freedom.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wish all you will.  Out there are people who regard their own judgement as supreme and will act on that assumption.  That means that someone is going to make life miserable for others.  The best way to handle this is for sane people to get together and establish a system of rules (i.e. law) and someone to enforce the law (without enforcement the law is worthless).

Huh? What am I wishing? Are you clueless about what Hobbes actually says?

 

That's not really what Hobbes says though. The argument wasn't simply, that gee, we need laws and order and security, and that these are good things. The argument he gives is that it is literally impossible for two people to cooperate, that they will be like wolves and eat each other up, unless a third party is like a wolf to both of them, ergo, we must have an absolute sovereign. Quite a different claim than the trivial one of, oh well we need laws and rules to prevent crime.

Edited by 2046
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Huh? What am I wishing? Are you clueless about what Hobbes actually says?

 

That's not really what Hobbes says though. The argument wasn't simply, that gee, we need laws and order and security, and that these are good things. The argument he gives is that it is literally impossible for two people to cooperate, that they will be like wolves and eat each other up, unless a third party is like a wolf to both of them, ergo, we must have an absolute sovereign. Quite a different claim than the trivial one of, oh well we need laws and rules to prevent crime.

Consider the times in which Hobbes lived.  The hundred years war that lasted 116 years and the mayhem that took place between Catholics and Protestants on the continent.  Hobbes was empirically correct in his skepticism about natural "good behavior" between humans.   Stephen Pinker has pointed out that per capita the world is much less violent now than it was during Hobbes time.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...