What is the O'ist view on coming to agreements?

[donnywithana]

As I see it, there are four popular ways of figuring out what agreements a group will make amongst itself:

1. Anarchism: Your life is the highest value, and so you only agree to do things that will benefit you. No one can impose an agreement upon you except by force, and it's up to you alone to repel that force.

2. Monarchism: The enemy of the anarchist. You hold your life as the highest value, and so you force others to agree to whatever will further your cause.

3. Democracy: The enemy of both the monarchist and the anarchist. You, as an individual, have no ability to create an agreement by yourself. You must convince or force the majority of your group to align with your side of the agreement, and then the rest will have that agreement imposed upon them.

4. Socialism: A disguised wraith with properties similar to monarchism and democracy. You must convince or force the group to think that the group agrees with you. Once this belief is held by enough of those with enough leverage to cement your idea as the "group's" idea, your idea will become one with the group's philosophy.

Anarchism is the natural state of things, as we see throughout the natural world (all other organisms besides humans). However, we as humans realize that in order to live as men, and not as animals, it's in our best interest to agree to certain things, like not killing each other or stealing. However, these agreements don't exist before they are agreed on. What does Objectivism think the method of coming to agreements should be?

[JMeganSnow]

These are a lot of package-deals, like this idea that men "agree" not to murder each other; it reduces principles into arbitrary, subjective constructs.

[dondigitalia]

What does Objectivism think the method of coming to agreements should be?

The only thing Objectivism would have to say on the subject is: by rational means. What constitutes those means in a political context would be up to legal philosophers to decide.

Ayn Rand did give sanction to elections, but only in the context of a constitutionally restricted government. Objectivism rejects absolute democracy as being a form of statism.

You're entire analysis rests on the premise that the force is an unavoidable aspect of human relations. Objectivism rejects this premise and holds that a proper government is the means of avoiding it.

[Nate T.]

If one agrees with a person, it means that one has observed reality and by a process of reason arrives at the same conclusion as that person. To "impose agreement" here just means that one is forcing others to agree with you, i.e., forcing others to think and conclude as you do. However, processes of thought must be chosen. Therefore, Objectivism would say that there is no such thing as an "imposition of agreement." The most you'd get if you tried is empty noises of assent from your victim on the other end of the gun barrel, which have absolutely no epistemological import.

[DavidOdden]

1. Anarchism: Your life is the highest value, and so you only agree to do things that will benefit you. No one can impose an agreement upon you except by force, and it's up to you alone to repel that force.

Anarchism has no position on whether there are any values at all: it simply holds that it is wrong for two people to use force. Crazy.

2. Monarchism: The enemy of the anarchist. You hold your life as the highest value, and so you force others to agree to whatever will further your cause.

Not quite. Again, there is no position on values but there is the related view that you have a privileged position compared to all others, in that all others owe allegiance to you.

3. Democracy: The enemy of both the monarchist and the anarchist. You, as an individual, have no ability to create an agreement by yourself. You must convince or force the majority of your group to align with your side of the agreement, and then the rest will have that agreement imposed upon them.

Uh, well the concept of "agreement" necessarily means that you agree with someone -- it could be an alter-ego if you're schizo. Democracy is the friend of the monarchist, because the monarch holds that he best represents the whims or interests (typically, unknown and divine) of that majority. It isn't important whether that is true.

4. Socialism: A disguised wraith with properties similar to monarchism and democracy. You must convince or force the group to think that the group agrees with you.

Which is essentially how democracy works; also, English-style monarchy. Unsurprisingly, you have failed to distinguish democracy and socialism (because at this level of analysis, they are in fact identical).

Anarchism is the natural state of things, as we see throughout the natural world (all other organisms besides humans).

No, I don't think that's right. It's false for ants, bees and various other hive animals, most birds, also for the majority of mammals except certain leaderless "mass" mammals (antelopes and zebras for example). I think mosquitos and zebras and their ilk are the only really anarchic animals.

What does Objectivism think the method of coming to agreements should be?

Reason.

[donnywithana]

When I use the term anarchy, I didn't mean to include nihilism. I was under the impression that anarchy meant the absence of any "government" entity, and individuals could make their own rules.

In this sense, antelope are operating under anarchy, because if one of them chooses to leave the group (they, as antelope, can't actually choose anything, but you know what I mean), there's no mechanism engineered into the group to make them do anything.

Conceivably, an extremely unusual antelope could choose to try to eat another antelope, and there would be no consequence besides what the other antelope decided to do about it.

I guess this does reduce agreements down to the subjective, but look at it this way. If I'm born without very much capacity for intelligence, and I'm incapable of surviving in a world that has decreed, through "reason," that man has the "right" to live qua man, but I am a darned good hunter. According to my own reason, that which will further the end of my own life might be cradle robbery and cannibalism.

Now, I understand that I could probably be employed tilling a farm or something, and I also understand that philosophies aren't grounded in ridiculous hypothetical situation. I'm certainly not advocating that we change Objectivism's ideals.

I'm saying that reasonable conclusions as to how man should live, in order to support the end of living "qua man," only apply to man. Thus, it might be subjective to any man that is some sort of broken unit, who can not operate qua man, but is deprived the right of living as an animal.

A policeman is given the power, by "society" to impose "agreements" upon people. One might say that these agreements "should" be derived from reason, but reason is based on premises which can be debated, and until the debate is settled, there needs to be an interim solution. For example, we've defined "human being" in a specific way in order to solve the problem of abortion, but someone could certainly challenge that. Not to say the definition come to on this forum and by Objectivists is wrong, but it's certainly based on a lot of premises that someone might have a problem with.

If we disagree on something, and "reason" is taking some time to figure out who's right, how do we decide which of our policies to impose in the meantime? Does everyone get to decide for themselves? Can someone impose their policy on someone else? Can a majority impose a policy on the minority?

[JMeganSnow]

When I use the term anarchy, I didn't mean to include nihilism. I was under the impression that anarchy meant the absence of any "government" entity, and individuals could make their own rules.

Nihilism identifies a metaphysical position, Anarchism is a political position. Anarchy is neither, it's a word meaning a temporary breakdown of civilized law and order, temporary because no one could live long-term in such a situation, so the immediate response to Anarchy is for small groups to band together for mutual protection, forming the "government" of gang rule.

guess this does reduce agreements down to the subjective, but look at it this way. If I'm born without very much capacity for intelligence, and I'm incapable of surviving in a world that has decreed, through "reason," that man has the "right" to live qua man, but I am a darned good hunter. According to my own reason, that which will further the end of my own life might be cradle robbery and cannibalism..

Sneer quotes around reason?! Are you suggesting that the rest of "society" just pulled this idea out of their collective behind?

And it certainly will further the end of your own life . . . because someone will shoot you. Probably six or seven times.

If we disagree on something, and "reason" is taking some time to figure out who's right, how do we decide which of our policies to impose in the meantime? Does everyone get to decide for themselves? Can someone impose their policy on someone else? Can a majority impose a policy on the minority?

Ahh, here we go, this is what you were trying to get at. The answer is: no one can impose their "policy" on someone else by right. Existentially they might be able to do it, if they've got a big enough gun and a big enough gang, but morally they are wrong. Civilization actually requires that this principle be generally accepted; if people disagree, the dissentors remain free to go their own way.

Your error comes in the form of package-dealing and stolen concepts. "Agreement" assumes a resolution between two or more men, not between men and animals or between men and "humans" that have chosen to attempt to live like animals. If a man proclaims his desire to kill you, what you have is nothing so simple and polite as a "disagreement" . . . what you have is a bloody frickin' war. Rights are not a matter of "policy" . . . they are requirements for man's survival.

[Inspector]

Something tells me he considers the implementation of the non-initiation of force principle to be an "imposition of policy."

Thus, it might be subjective to any man that is some sort of broken unit, who can not operate qua man, but is deprived the right of living as an animal.

This is because man cannot survive qua non-man. Man CANNOT survive qua animal. It is against his essential nature. Please re-read "The Objectivist Ethics."

One might say that these agreements "should" be derived from reason, but reason is based on premises which can be debated, and until the debate is settled, there needs to be an interim solution. For example, we've defined "human being" in a specific way in order to solve the problem of abortion, but someone could certainly challenge that.

Sneer quotes around not only reason but also should?!?

Let me try and put this simply:

Ayn Rand has proven that SHOULD is a valid concept and that OBJECTIVE right and wrong DO exist.

What do you mean by "reason is based on premises which can be debated"?!? NO IT IS NOT. If you are referring to REASON ITSELF, then NO that is NOT debatable. Reason exists and it is man's sole means of survival.

The "debate" over the qualities of the nature of man HAS been settled. Ayn Rand had PROVEN that the nature of man has certain requirements if he is to survive qua man. And "qua man" is the ONLY way he SHOULD survive.

Moderators: I thought that Danny's posts were going to be reviewed for anti-Objectivist content? This last one was FULL of it...

how do we decide which of our policies to impose in the meantime? Does everyone get to decide for themselves? Can someone impose their policy on someone else? Can a majority impose a policy on the minority?

You have left the wording of this statement vague enough that it could mean almost anything? What do you consider to be "imposing" a "policy?" If I wanted to create a nation in which the initiation of force was banned from human relationships by law, would you consider that to be "imposing" a "policy?"

Edited November 1, 2005 by Inspector

[donnywithana]

I didn't mean the quotes to smear the subjects, I meant them to denote terms that are being used in specific ways that aren't necessarily the common uses. I appologize if this caused unnecessary confusion. The reason for the quotes around "reason" was because I was using it to denote Objectivist reasoning, which is based on certain logical assumptions, and can not be called the only form of reason, as others clearly exist. The quotes around "should" were because it wasn't an absolute statement, it was a subjective statement, and therefore "should" is an iffy word to use.

Would "agovernmentalism" be a better term to describe what I was referring to as "anarchism?"

Actually the idea of a "non-imposition of force policy" isn't what I had in mind. I allow that agreements should be determined through reason, and because the "non-imposition of force" policy has been reasonably induced, it follows that dissenters are ignoring reality, and "should" (according to Objectivist opinions) be forced to choose between accepting the "truth" (as derived from Objectivist premises), or leaving the group.

It's closer to the packaged deal concept brought forward by JMeganSnow. If I live in a society with a reasonably defined law code, and an exigency were to arise, necessitating an immediate policy change, how would that policy be enforceable?

According to Objectivism, would society have the right to enforce a policy that was not reasonably derived (with enough specificity as to not allow for rational dissent)? And I repose: If so, what form of imposition is best? Does any individual, or group of individuals, have the right to temporarily impose an agreement on another individual?

[DavidOdden]

I was under the impression that anarchy meant the absence of any "government" entity, and individuals could make their own rules.

Right -- each individual can. The concept of "government" is not well-defined at all under anarchism (surprising and yet not surprising, since they reject it), but the best I can come up with is that government involves two or more people, and it involves force.

BTW your initial point about four popular ways for organizing agreements misses two of the most relevant. What you identified are forms of government, not strategies for agreeing. And I'm really not sure what you think popularity has to do with the point. One strategy for reaching an agreement is "collective pragmatism", the attempt to compute the greatest net benefit for the largest number of people. This works with supposed altruists. Anybody with a bit of mathematical knowledge (or common sense) will realize that this is just nonsense. The other is "individual pragmatism" -- also known as "selfishness" -- where each person seeks the best deal they can get.

I guess this does reduce agreements down to the subjective, but look at it this way. If I'm born without very much capacity for intelligence, and I'm incapable of surviving in a world that has decreed, through "reason," that man has the "right" to live qua man, but I am a darned good hunter. According to my own reason, that which will further the end of my own life might be cradle robbery and cannibalism.

Some arguments are certainly subjective. [insert rant about typical meetings, and arguments that are ended by the declaration 'I guess that's just how I feel']. If you're claiming that the fact of you (hypothetically) being stupid gives you the right to predate against other men, then thank heavens the government will stop you. At heart, there is an important point here, which is exactly the reason why I ended up rejecting anarcho-libertarianism. Namely, you may well talk yourself into the belief that killing others for food is good for your life, because of some lacunae in your knowledge (a pretty huge lacuna). If you are required to reconstruct an entire moral framework ex nihilo, which is what is necessary under anarchism, then your stupidity may well lead you to the wrong conclusion -- lord knows, mankind suffered tens of millenia of such stupidity before it started to get a clue.

Objective analysis means that men using reason and in possession of the same relevant facts will agree on a conclusion. They will not disagree just because "That's just how I feel". Such an objective analysis would result in their being a law that prohibits you from eating your neighbor, even if you don't totally understand the wisdom behind that law. Certainly we would try to explain to you why cannibalism is not proper behavior; the point, as far as government is concerned, is that even if you don't get that point, surely you will get the point that being locked away for the rest of your life is not in your best interest. If not, you'd be beyond stupid, you'd be pathological.

If we disagree on something, and "reason" is taking some time to figure out who's right, how do we decide which of our policies to impose in the meantime? Does everyone get to decide for themselves? Can someone impose their policy on someone else? Can a majority impose a policy on the minority?

On point 1: there is a hierarchy of "rules". Initiation of force is bad, don't do it. Obviously then we're looking at a lower level of disagreement. What do we, as a company, want to do (assume equal partners). Then we talk about it, looking for common ground. If the bottom line is intolerable and you cannot persuade your partner to go for some other action, there is no barrier to you taking the exit. That is how. Point 2: No, I do not get to decide for you what you will do. I may get to set policy, per our contract. Or if I am a lawmaker, I get to set policy. Point 3: yes, I get to impose a policy on you or others within my sphere of imposition, either because I'm the boss and you agreed to work for me, or I'm the governing official (we can leave open how government officials become such). Point 4: Yeah. Ask Hitler what one can do. Whether or not the policies are just is a separate matter: the point is that the majority does "get to" impose conditions in everybody (i.e. the majority and the minority).

[Inspector]

I didn't mean the quotes to smear the subjects, I meant them to denote terms that are being used in specific ways that aren't necessarily the common uses. I appologize if this caused unnecessary confusion. The reason for the quotes around "reason" was because I was using it to denote Objectivist reasoning, which is based on certain logical assumptions, and can not be called the only form of reason, as others clearly exist.

What I see when I see the "sneer quotes" around a term is in essence, this:

You have "proven" it.

(MEANING: You have done something which you claim proves it, but I think you're full of sh*t.)

Ditto "reason" and "should." (i.e. "should" = what you think should be but I think is full of sh*t)

Now do you understand why that is making us mad?

What are these "assumptions" that Objectivism is based on, which in order for you to mention, you presumably disagree with? (Yes, I am sneering at you there)

The quotes around "should" were because it wasn't an absolute statement, it was a subjective statement, and therefore "should" is an iffy word to use.

Sorry, but that statement is in opposition to Objectivism. If you have an argument to make against a "should," then make it. Otherwise, when we say "should," we mean "OBJECTIVELY should." (note this time that the quotes are not sneers)

Would "agovernmentalism" be a better term to describe what I was referring to as "anarchism?"

See, that is a non-sneering use of quotes.

Actually the idea of a "non-imposition of force policy" isn't what I had in mind. I allow that agreements should be determined through reason, and because the "non-imposition of force" policy has been reasonably induced, it follows that dissenters are ignoring reality, and "should" (according to Objectivist opinions) be forced to choose between accepting the "truth" (as derived from Objectivist premises), or leaving the group.

Again, no need for the quotes around "should" and "truth" unless you disagree with the Objectivist stance.

...Now, that having been said, what is your response to my statements? And what, precisely, are you asking? Give a concrete example instead of ill-worded abstractions.

[donnywithana]

To reiterate something I brought up in the abortion thread as an example:

What right does a child have to support from it's parents?

Quick, Paula's child hasn't eaten in days, and he doesn't see why he should be forced to feed it.

You could say, "Paula chose to have the child, which implies some sort of agreement," but Paula doesn't agree, saying that she has the right to do as she chooses with her own property, and her child doesn't have the right to steal anything from her.

Using reason, we might be able to figure out a solution, but it's certainly a complicated question. So in the meantime, do we impose some sort of rule on Paula to make her feed the child? Can we take the child from her even though she's the one who produced it?

According to Rand, the only ethical reason for helping someone is if they're in immediate physical danger. Under this paradigm, it might not even be right to help the child.

What I'm wondering is how someone might go about imposing their will upon someone that doesn't agree with them. Laws that are rationally decided upon can be enforced with the knowledge that they are correct, as long as everyone agrees on the premises on which the rationale is based.

However, not all laws are rationally decided upon, because there arise exigencies which need immediate attention. How does Objectivism feel about this idea? Does a group have the right to impose an agreement on someone before they are able to produce a full logical proof of its necessity?

[jrs]

What does Objectivism think the method of coming to agreements should be?

Truth and goodness are more effective than falsehood and evil, so they win out in the end. No method of imposing general agreement is required. On matters that require cooperation, unanimous consent of those involved is appropriate.

[DavidOdden]

What right does a child have to support from it's parents?

Food, water, shelter: the basic survival stuff.

You could say, "Paula chose to have the child, which implies some sort of agreement," but Paula doesn't agree, saying that she has the right to do as she chooses with her own property, and her child doesn't have the right to steal anything from her.

Paula should give the child up to be adopted by someone who will serve as custodian of the child's right.

So in the meantime, do we impose some sort of rule on Paula to make her feed the child?

Yes, until the matter is resolved definitively.

According to Rand, the only ethical reason for helping someone is if they're in immediate physical danger. Under this paradigm, it might not even be right to help the child.

Rand said no such thing. A general policy that you should follow is directly quoting Rand, if you think she says something. That may keep you from making outrageous false claims.

What I'm wondering is how someone might go about imposing their will upon someone that doesn't agree with them. Laws that are rationally decided upon can be enforced with the knowledge that they are correct, as long as everyone agrees on the premises on which the rationale is based.

No, a law can be enforced, period. That's basically what "law" means. Laws should be rationally based; and it would be a good thing if all people recognised the rationality of the law.

However, not all laws are rationally decided upon, because there arise exigencies which need immediate attention.

Or simply, not all laws are decided rationally, period. The pretext may be an emergency (a fairly common excuse) or "justice" (specifically, the desire for the unearned). No law should be enacted to address an emergency: that perverts the concept of morality and the relationship of morality to law. If there is a true emergency, the law be damned, you have to survive so don't throw yourself on the sacrificial fire for the sake of the sanctity of law. An emergency may make you aware of facts which you did not consider, and can lead to changing the law, to allow a proper resolution of a future situation that was not anticipated earlier.

[donnywithana]

Food, water, shelter: the basic survival stuff.

Why? No one else besides children have the "right" to food, water and shelter.

Paula should give the child up to be adopted by someone who will serve as custodian of the child's right.

Should? What if she doesn't want to? It's her child; she produced it (with another man who, for the purposes of this illustration, agrees with her completely). She doesn't think she "should" give it away.

Yes, until the matter is resolved definitively.

Ok, now we're getting somewhere. The entire purpose of this thread: how does a group get to decide how to impose a law on Paula if they can't back it up immediately? Do they need a majority consensus? Can one individual impose it on Paula alone? Be careful in answering, because this has a lot of very important implications.

Rand said no such thing.

Ok, I don't have my copy of The Virtue of Selfishness on hand at the moment, so I can't reread the chapter about the ethics of emergencies right now. I'll assume that I grossly misinterpreted or misremembered the text until I can reread it. However, I do remember there being something in there about it being ethical to help someone if no sacrifice is involved. Upon further thought, I suppose that if it was more profitable to personally bear the cost of raising the child yourself than to do nothing and allow its struggles to continue, then no sacrifice would be involved in helping it. However, would someone need to come forward to help the child before it could be taken from the negligent parent, or could the police get involved based on a "law" that prohibits depriving a child of "survival stuff?"

No, a law can be enforced, period.

Ok, so how do we decide that something should be a law?

Or simply, not all laws are decided rationally, period.

Then how are they morally enforceable?

If there is a true emergency, the law be damned, you have to survive so don't throw yourself on the sacrificial fire for the sake of the sanctity of law.

Evidence of the natural state of "agovernmentalism" being altered by agreements or "laws" to fit the "needs" of man.

Truth and goodness are more effective than falsehood and evil, so they win out in the end. No method of imposing general agreement is required. On matters that require cooperation, unanimous consent of those involved is appropriate.

If the bottom line is intolerable and you cannot persuade your partner to go for some other action, there is no barrier to you taking the exit.

Ok, here's an answer to my question. Does Objectivism hold that agreements must not be imposed by force under any circumstance? What about in the illustration of the child?

How does this relate to Objectivist support of American settlers' displacement of Native Americans or America preemptively protecting itself against ideologies that would have it destroyed through initiation of force? If I'm wrong about Objectivism's support of either of these things, please let me know so I can find other examples or try to find my sources.