This is not my view, but theres a prominent figure who makes those arguments in a newly made video that I thought some people here would be interesting in watching.
I also would be interested in hearing your thoughts.
Video below:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-NQWJn-AHw
The narator makes a substantial (fatal) error in identifying the “fundamental question”, as being about “scarce resources”. Objectivism clearly understands that “scarce resources” is a distraction, this guy incorrectly thinks of government as a tool of Divine Macroeconomics. The central question is based on the fact that man’s actions are not metaphysically given, then are chosen (with the concommitant concept of “free will” – chosen means “freely, optionally selected”). From this fundamental error in fundamentals, we predict that the discussion will rapidly go off the rails.
Divine Macroeconomics is a theory with an invalid unchecked premise, that all actors are rational. Actually, quite a number of people are just plain nuts. The primary concern therefore should be determining “what do we do about people who just plain nuts?”. Some people who are nuts are benignly nuts (sleeping bag guy under the freeway), but others are seriously dangerous to others. This defines the primary job of law, which is to classify “allowed” from “disallowed” actions.
This particular spinning of the Non-Aggression Principle as being about “initiating conflicts” is offensively wrong even from the anarchist perspective. “Conflict” is not the same as “force”. This is so obvious and well known that I am offended that he initiated conflicts by forcing me to say that. He follows by making ludicrous false statements about “the law of the jungle”: if Friday takes your stuff, you “cannot complain” because everybody is free to initiate conflicts. Here’s a hidden premise: there’s a list of circumstances under which you can complain. That’s just sloppy thinking. Under all models of government, you can complain, that is an axiom from Objectivism that actions are chosen. You can complain. Under a rights-respecting government, there are different consequences to complaining, compared to under anarchy.
13 hours ago, DavidOdden said:
The narator makes a substantial (fatal) error in identifying the “fundamental question”, as being about “scarce resources”. Objectivism clearly understands that “scarce resources” is a distraction, this guy incorrectly thinks of government as a tool of Divine Macroeconomics. The central question is based on the fact that man’s actions are not metaphysically given, then are chosen (with the concommitant concept of “free will” – chosen means “freely, optionally selected”). From this fundamental error in fundamentals, we predict that the discussion will rapidly go off the rails.
Divine Macroeconomics is a theory with an invalid unchecked premise, that all actors are rational. Actually, quite a number of people are just plain nuts. The primary concern therefore should be determining “what do we do about people who just plain nuts?”. Some people who are nuts are benignly nuts (sleeping bag guy under the freeway), but others are seriously dangerous to others. This defines the primary job of law, which is to classify “allowed” from “disallowed” actions.
This particular spinning of the Non-Aggression Principle as being about “initiating conflicts” is offensively wrong even from the anarchist perspective. “Conflict” is not the same as “force”. This is so obvious and well known that I am offended that he initiated conflicts by forcing me to say that. He follows by making ludicrous false statements about “the law of the jungle”: if Friday takes your stuff, you “cannot complain” because everybody is free to initiate conflicts. Here’s a hidden premise: there’s a list of circumstances under which you can complain. That’s just sloppy thinking. Under all models of government, you can complain, that is an axiom from Objectivism that actions are chosen. You can complain. Under a rights-respecting government, there are different consequences to complaining, compared to under anarchy.
This should have been posted in the comment section in YouTube.
Very well said.