Your idea of separation could work only with a government that took no money to run, meaning no government at all, anarchy.
That is simply not true, Voluntarily funding our own government does not equal anarchy. A separation of government and economics means that the government cannot use force to interfere to any economic entities in the market place where force has not already been initiated.
That is simply not true, Voluntarily funding our own government does not equal anarchy. A separation of government and economics means that the government cannot use force to interfere to any economic entities in the market place where force has not already been initiated.
I think (s)he was saying that a government can’t make money if it is absolutely positively separate from the government. Government expenditures will happen even in Objectivist society. The gov’t will pay defense contractors, they will pay soldiers who will eventually contribute to the economy, etc.
Now that I think about it, I really have no problem with a government-owned lottery.
Right.
And definitely he.
Why is Objectivism “incompatible with Democracy”?
Why is Objectivism “incompatible with Democracy”?
For the same reason it is incompatible with theocracy, or autocracy, or plutocracy. The only proper government is organized around the principle of defending individual rights, anything else is wrong. There is nothing wrong with voting to select particular office holders.
For the same reason it is incompatible with theocracy, or autocracy, or plutocracy. The only proper government is organized around the principle of defending individual rights, anything else is wrong. There is nothing wrong with voting to select particular office holders.
This is not very helpful, I’m afraid. What prevents a democracy from being “organized around the principle of defending individual rights”? By what virtue does a republican form of government offer superior organization in this respect?
In order to avoid equivocation or confusion, when I say “democracy,” I mean some political system where the citizens of a polity directly vote on issues, rather than delegating such responsibility to representatives. If by “democracy” you mean specifically a system where 51% of the population has complete tyrannical power over 49%, then I would agree with Objectivist rejection of this concept. However, there are many other forms of direct democracy (consensus democracy, for example), and it’s a rather crude straw man to dismiss the entire field by using one absurd conception which none of its advocates support.
Ayn Rand had very little to say about how a government ought to be organized, and much to say about what it should do. (No doubt she would say those were matters for the “special sciences.”) If terms like “democracy”, “monarchy” etc., are (for the moment) taken to simply be descriptions of the structure of a government, I don’t believe any of them are necessarily inconsistent with Objectivist principles–though it may be demonstrable by political scientists that such-and-such specific organization would be unstable, tending to collapse in anarchy, or would *inevitably* overreach its powers (or be at higher than average risk of doing so), at the other extreme. (This would be a proper subject of study for a discipline called “political science.”) But in all cases their powers and purpose would have to be constrained as Ayn Rand decides. The US at present is typically described as a representative democracy; the people elect representatives who actually set policy. The United Kingdom is a constitutional monarch; real power ultimately resides in Parliament (they even select the monarch’s ministers now) but there is a monarch with certain powers though I believe heavily constrained by either custom or law. One has to go back quite a ways in both cases to see these governments coming close to properly restricting their activities but the point is they both at times came close enough to doing so that one can at least imagine either a monarch or a representative democracy behaving properly. I could even imagine a government where the power actually *does* reside primarily in the monarch, being a respecter of individual rights (though I suspect it would not be a stable situation–and I think the founding fathers would agree with that, and that that would be why they forbade it even for state governments in putting together the US constitution).
When one discusses “absolute monarchy” (all power resides in the monarch, who may act without constraint), and “absolute democracy” (all decisions are made by plebiscite, without restriction), yes, you do run into problems squaring these systems with Objectivism, since there explicitly NO constraints on what a government may or may not do. If an enthusiast for either system tries to posit, for instance, a monarchy where the king/queen has all the authority but is not allowed to use it except to protect rights… such a government looks compatible at first blush, but wouldn’t stay that way for long since there is no way even to prevent the monarch from *mistakenly* violating his subjects’ rights, or correct such policy afterwards, much less if that monarch decides to deliberately do so. At this point the “special sciences” must be consulted and they must point out that such an animal as an Objectivist Absolute Monarchy cannot exist.
This is not very helpful, I’m afraid. What prevents a democracy from being “organized around the principle of defending individual rights”?
It being organized around majority rule?
Can you name a form of “democracy” that does not constitute a “tyranny of the majority”?
Re: Steve-
Your comments are interesting. I am skeptical that a consistent argument could be put forward showing that democracy (but not a republic) is “inconsistent” with Objectivist principles.
It being organized around majority rule?
I am astonished that you seem to have missed the very next part of my post:
In order to avoid equivocation or confusion, when I say “democracy,” I mean some political system where the citizens of a polity directly vote on issues, rather than delegating such responsibility to representatives. If by “democracy” you mean specifically a system where 51% of the population has complete tyrannical power over 49%, then I would agree with Objectivist rejection of this concept. However, there are many other forms of direct democracy (consensus democracy, for example), and it’s a rather crude straw man to dismiss the entire field by using one absurd conception which none of its advocates support.
If you are merely opposed to any system of government by which the majority of the votes in some political body may enact legislation, then I’m afraid that you would also be required to oppose republican forms of government. If you have something else in mind which you believe distinguishes republicanism from democracy (given my loose definition), then you may always produce a post with some actual meaningful (non-glib) content.
Can you name a form of “democracy” that does not constitute a “tyranny of the majority”?
There are plenty of directly democratic systems which seek to reduce this worry. Consensus democracy is one example. Switzerland provides us with empirical data on this subject; it is probably the most directly democratic system in the world, yet it ranks above more republican systems (such as the United States) in terms of economic liberty (according to the Economic Freedom Index).
One common concern is that the poor will vote themselves largess at the expense of the wealthy.
While this is possible, we have considerable evidence that republicanism is a failure in preventing construction of safety net programs. If this is one of our concerns, it does not seem to be a concern for which republicanism may claim any significant advantage. Furthermore, the reverse concern (that the wealthy will corrupt the system to create a socialist nanny state for the rich) seems far less likely under a direct democracy. Can there be any doubt that, were it left to the public, the bailouts and nationalizations would never have happened? This particular corruption seems peculiar to republicanism, a concern for which democracy appears to compare favorably. Moreover, the advantages democracy could have in this respect for capitalism seem considerable, and I take it that most of us agree that a more free and laissez faire capitalism is not only more just, but will also lead to greater prosperity.
Checks and balances which exist in current republican forms of government may also exist in democratic governments. A study of Switzerland’s system can provide you with ideas of some of the many ways this could be accomplished.
Another argument for democracy which I find compelling is concerned with the ineptitude, corruption, and uselessness of the political class. I am really uncertain what good they do us, or why we actually need them. That the political class is inept seems obvious. That it is corrupt goes without saying. That it is useless is not a burden of proof which rests on the supporter of democracy; the political class should demonstrate or provide arguments for why we need to give those individuals such extraordinary power and influence over our property and other liberties. If they cannot provide convincing evidence or arguments, then getting rid of them could be a fruitful social experiment. A critical premise in Madison’s argument in favor of republicanism (Federalist 10) rested on the assumption that elected representatives would be enlightened and moral individuals who would guide the country with wisdom and objective clarity. Looking at the evidence from the last 200 years of republicanism around the world, I think it’s safe to say that this premiss has been thoroughly falsified.
All-in-all, I remain unconvinced that republicanism offers any real advantages over democracy when it comes to the concerns of libertarians and Objectivists, and would indeed argue that certain systems of democracy (through decentralization of power and abolition of instruments of federal force), can plausibly be said to offer distinct theoretical advantages.
All-in-all, I remain unconvinced that republicanism offers any real advantages over democracy when it comes to the concerns of libertarians and Objectivists, and would indeed argue that certain systems of democracy (through decentralization of power and abolition of instruments of federal force), can plausibly be said to offer distinct theoretical advantages.
The real question is “why does Anacyclosis happen and can it be stopped?” The answer must be determined by the ideas held by the citizenry. If we accept determinism is wrong, then there is no way to arrange things so that subsequent generations can’t go wrong.
In order to avoid equivocation or confusion, when I say “democracy,” I mean some political system where the citizens of a polity directly vote on issues, rather than delegating such
responsibility to representatives.
I’m curious what would be voted on in a laisse faire system?What did you have in mind?
The real question is “why does Anacyclosis happen and can it be stopped?” The answer must be determined by the ideas held by the citizenry. If we accept determinism is wrong, then there is no way to arrange things so that subsequent generations can’t go wrong.
This is indeed an interesting question, but note that it has no bearing on whether or not we ought to prefer republicanism or democracy. If neither political system under consideration is incapable of instilling such genuine virtue, and no other known system could accomplish this, then this cannot count for or against either system. We are still left with the question: going by the facts of reality, which system would offer us the most liberty and prosperity? I think that the answer to this question is far less clear than is commonly supposed by many libertarians and Objectivists, and that positions in favor of republicanism often rest on unquestioned, out-dated, and falsified 18th century assumptions.
First, I think of a Republic as a system of government where the right to vote exists as a check against the government rather than a voice in government. The ‘rights’ established in the constitution (verb) of the republic are the ‘voice’ of the people. So everyone should be able to vote. A cursory study of the history of civil rights for black Americans shows the importance of this, as well as the impropriety of literacy tests and poll taxes.
Second, in another thread I decided that a government - at some level - must have the power to coercively tax. The reason is that the the rights articulated in the law are meaningless to criminals. Criminals cheat, conspire, assasinate, and so forth. History is repleat with examples of factions that, although it wrecks the economy and society internally, resort to feudal bickering which you can see operating in the modern-day examples of the mafia. The ability to finance power - thugs, muscles, arms, guns - will exceed that of the legally commissioned law enforcement if the wealth of society is sufficiently looted by this criminality. If the police don’t have money, they can’t stop criminal cartels from burning down their rivals’ infrastructure. Then, more of the wealth is concentrated with the criminals, and there aren’t enough non-criminals to donate. Law enforcement therefore needs to be able to procure funding necessary and proper to do their job.
Third, taxation for defense is only proper when protection exists as a public commodity. What I mean (in an example) is that protection in 1700’s S. Carolina from pirates did not affect the immediate safety of Britain. Britain, therefore, theoretically, did not have an obligation to fund the choice of S. Carolinians to live in S. Carolina unless they felt an interest. Protecting trade, keeping the pirates from someday reach England - sure, those are reasons, but reasons up to England to decide upon. So, mandated national defense is sort of altruism depending on the scope, but not altruism also depending on scope. Technically, I, in Maryland, don’t have to worry about Mexican drug cartels in Arizona, or N. Korean missiles in Hawai’i, if I don’t want to. But illegals or terrorists that cross the border in Arizona, and come to Maryland, or Russian missiles that can equally target any spot in America - these issues affect all America. Just as much as I shouldn’t have to pay for the defense of other regions/states, they shouldn’t have to bear all the burden of the cost of defending my region when the threat is nationwide. I think the solution is to use state governments to raise militias, with the power to do so coercively (I mean they may tax). The idea is that if you are walking safely on the street or trading in the market of a town, you are receiving the benefit of those who have defended that homogenous area. Residency itself requires that you pay money. I don’t know what to do about the national army - on the one hand, donations would be appropriate because you can’t argue the ‘country as a whole’ is one unit or identity that is explicitly defended as a whole - not if it’s sufficiently large. Technically, the American Navy and Air Force are one ‘unit’ that effectively deter and depress major conflict worldwide. So, technically, the whole world ‘owes’ America. It’s complicated, but I can see philosophically how taxation or no taxation for national defense would be consistent policies.
The issue has to do with Ayn Rand’s insistence that economic power is not political power. This is a conditional thing: It is political power in fact, because economic power is the power to obtain and concentrate value from the physical world. This idea is about the same as accumlating and concentrating the ability to project power in the physical world. Technically, value usually has to do with building, force with destroying - an important distinction - but both rely on the ability to concentrate energy for one purpose or the other. My point is that economic power is not political power only in a system of power where individual rights are properly protected. Not theorectically or philosophically protected, but actually successfully protected.
The American system is really really good. It’s incomplete and outdated in ways: for one it was envisioned with no real precedent, and assumes many roles of a traditional ‘crown’ and relies a great deal on traditional common law. It is outdated in the sense that there might be better ways than winner-takes-all regional congressional districts. I think Jefferson and later Heinlein imagined a system where within large regions like-minded citizens formed their own representative blocs. But overall it is astonishing.
The republic as a government of laws, and therefore rights, and not people is the only proper way to have government. Federalism is also something I think is necessary. You have states on one end which are sufficiently empowered to protect rights (taxes and so forth), but a federal government on the other which technically is empowered only against the states for the sake of the people, or foreign enemies. The ultimate idea is the limit power as much as possible, so that nowhere in society can a man or men claim any political power for their own will or ideas. Brilliant really. Too bad the idea of this comes from the notion of man’s depravity. Rather, man has no right to initiatory force. So the use of power must be articulately proscribed beforehand in order for man to properly retaliate.
I am astonished that you seem to have missed the very next part of my post:
In order to avoid equivocation or confusion, when I say “democracy,” I mean some political system where the citizens of a polity directly vote on issues, rather than delegating such responsibility to representatives.
That’s clearly a system organized around majority rule, not protection of rights. I didn’t miss it, I responded to it. That is the correct answer to your question.. If you think it is glib, then you should spend more time thinking about what to ask, so your question doesn’t have an obvious enough answer to make giving it comical.
When you define a system that would at least show you understand what individual rights are, and attempts to protect them by design, then that will warrant a longer discussion on the matter.
Jake_Ellison:
I hope that you will understand that, to the lay reader such as myself, your reply seems as wholly inadequate and unworthy of serious response as my naive questions appear to scholars such as yourself. While I do not doubt that I am missing abounding profundities in your replies, and that—contrary to what appears to be your own inability to understand or read my own lengthy points on these matters, some of which seem to bear directly on your claims and concerns—increased time spent in contemplation of your short responses could yield much fruit, I believe that my best course of option is to wait and hope for an exegesis on your work which is accessible to the extreme layman.
Is this the analytic-synthetic dichotomy at work?
What prevents a democracy from being “organized around the principle of defending individual rights”?
That is not the correct question to ask, or a relevant question. Only a system which necessarily respects individual rights is consistent with Objectivism. Democracy is consistent with fascism: it entails the possibility of fascism. Objectivism is fully inconsistent with fascism, and entails non-fascism. That is pretty much a classical example of the logical concept “compatible with; consistent with” and it’s denial. If you’d like a more formal treatment, I can, but that’s probably a pointless exercise. I think your problem in understanding comes from understanding “consistency” as it applies to concepts – consistency is basically the subset relationship. For example, the concept “boy” is consistent with the concept “male” (everything that is a boy is also a male); but that’s not the case with “child”, since many instances of “child” are “girl”, which contradicts “male”.
Professor Odden,
My symbolic logic is not good at this point. I am familiar with basic concepts of modal and truth-functional logic, however.
My understanding from truth-functional logic is that two statements are consistent if it is possible for both to be true at the same time. So, (1) “Smith is a boy” and (2) “Smith is a male” are consistent statements. Additionally, (1) “Smith is a child” and (2) “Smith is a male” are also consistent; there is no logical contradiction in these two statements, and they could both be true at the same time. This seems to be how you’re using “consistent” when you write, “Democracy is consistent with fascism: it entails the possibility of fascism. Objectivism is fully inconsistent with fascism, and entails non-fascism.” Of course, in this sense, Democracy is also consistent with non-fascism: it entails the possibility of non-fascism.
You lose me a little bit on the next part. Are you saying that if concept p is consistent with anything which contradicts concept q, then p is not consistent with q?
Professor Oden,
I have a question about another comment you made. You write:
Only a system which necessarily respects individual rights is consistent with Objectivism.
It’s not clear to me what this means. I don’t think you mean that the only form of government which is consistent with Objectivism is one where it would be logically (or nomologically) impossible for that government to ever commit a rights violation. What do you mean by “necessarily”? If you just mean that it is required that the system itself not have rights violations built into the concept as a matter of logical necessity, then I think democracy can get a pass on that one. There is nothing contained within the concept of “some political system where the citizens of a polity directly vote on issues of concern to that polity, rather than relinquishing this decision-making authority to representatives,” which seems to logically entail lack of respect for individual rights. I don’t think this is what you mean either.
I could keep speculating, but maybe you would clear this up for me.