No Marc, no code. Why not just take my words at face value? What in the world is there to be insulted from? Isn’t that a bit oversensitive? You say you don’t know which anarchist arguments I’m referring to… which is exactly my point isn’t it? Thats exactly what im saying: that objectivists fail to even address many of the substantive arguments and have fallen so far behind in terms of scholarship on the subject, it is embarrassing. Objectivists have a few sadly generic responses and like to pretend no one he ever addressed them. Honest brokers and inquirers can look for themselves, and my point here is to merely encourage that.
You say you don’t know which anarchist arguments I’m referring to… which is exactly my point isn’t it? Thats exactly what im saying: that objectivists fail to even address many of the substantive arguments and have fallen so far behind in terms of scholarship on the subject, it is embarrassing. Objectivists have a few sadly generic responses and like to pretend no one he ever addressed them. Honest brokers and inquirers can look for themselves, and my point here is to merely encourage that.
Oh, I get it, you are not insulting me per se, you are just denigrating Objectivists in general. Objectivists who on this issue are dishonest pretenders who embarrassingly pretend to answer an argument while never addressing its substance. Objectivists whose sad generic arguments are unable to match the “scholarship” of the anarchists. No, we shouldn’t take offense to that at all. Absurd.
Presumably you include Ayn Rand as one of those pretending Objectivists with unsubstantial, sadly generic arguments. I’m sure she wouldn’t be insulted either. I guess we know which side you are on.
Well, I address one of the anarchist arguments above and while it may be simple, it is effective (I find that to be the best way). You are welcome at any time to actually address it with some substance of your own once you are done blowing hot air.
The only thing one needs to address anarchist arguments are simple generic ones. Really all one needs is perception: look at the world and examine where anarchy reigns and any person with half a brain can understand why they wouldn’t want to live there.
The only thing one needs to address anarchist arguments are simple generic ones. Really all one needs is perception: look at the world and examine where anarchy reigns and any person with half a brain can understand why they wouldn’t want to live there.
Good job proving his point entirely.
Arguments about political systems can’t be made like this. You need to identify principles. “Anarcho-Capitalism” fails on due process, This has nothing to do with the failed states or the post-communist-islamic feudal society that is somalia.
Picture a band of strangers marching down Main Street, submachine guns at the ready. When confronted by the police, the leader of the band announces: “Me and the boys are only here to see that justice is done, so you have no right to interfere with us.” According to the “libertarian” anarchists, in such a confrontation the police are morally bound to withdraw, on pain of betraying the rights of self-defense and free trade.
This is her best illustration. It describes a situation in which a group of men must save a potential criminal’s life from a mob in order to try him under fair laws. If the police were to act, it would be a defense of another man’s life, even though the mob claims they are acting in retaliation. The problem is they have no way to show that what they are doing is just or right. There are no predetermined procedures for a lynch mob, they are not applied consistently. In the acting of saving the potential criminal and trying him by a set of standards that everyone is able to understand, they have established themselves as a state.
You may ask “What makes the state’s system any better”. I would claim that at the very least the fact that due process applies to everyone and that everyone ideally knows about it means that it keeps the government in check in a way I wouldn’t trust to a conglomeration of competing police agencies that probably have different procedures that shift and change all the time.
Good job proving his point entirely.
As far as I can tell he has no point. He spoke only in false generalities and since you call on me to make a principled argument I’m wondering which legitimate point you think he made? Or even, which illegitimate point did he make? That Objectivist arguments are weak while anarchist “scholarship” is strong? He provided nothing to support this bald assertion and therefore made no point. He provided no argument and instead disparaged Objectivist thought in favor of anarchist “scholarship”.
This is what I said:
The only thing one needs to address anarchist arguments are simple generic ones. Really all one needs is perception: look at the world and examine where anarchy reigns and any person with half a brain can understand why they wouldn’t want to live there.
And you replied:
Arguments about political systems can’t be made like this. You need to identify principles.
Are you saying that arguments relying on perception are invalid? Are you saying that comparing life in the US and China is an invalid form of argumentation? Are you saying that looking at how life goes in North Korea as opposed to life in South Korea can play no role in identifying what freedom looks like? Good job understanding from where principles derive in the first place.
As it turns out, the example I gave (and it wasn’t limited to Somalia) does what I said it does: it is all one needs to know in order to decide why not to live there. However, I agree, to make a full philosophical argument one needs to identify principles and that is exactly what I did and what 2046 failed to do. Good job reading the thread before spouting off.
Let me reproduce my principled argument which answered at least part of the OP since you were unable to locate it:
Markets like minds do not and can not operate by force. “Freedom” means: free from force. When we speak of a free market we mean a market free of force. A “market in force” is not only a contradiction in terms but I believe it makes use of a stolen concept.
The only way to decide the issue is on principle:
The only thing that can violate your Rights is force.
Therefore, the only civilized interactions among men occur when no force is involved.
The only proper function of government is to protect your Rights.
It follows then that what government must do is outlaw the use of physical force.
You don’t outlaw the use of physical force by making it lawful for men to practice it.
You cannot uphold a principle by violating it.
“Anarcho-Capitalism” fails on due process, This has nothing to do with the failed states or the post-communist-islamic feudal society that is somalia.
“Anarcho-Capitalism” fails on many grounds. Due process is one legitimate argument to make against it but as the quote you provide (good job citing Ayn Rand by the way) shows and you acknowledge: the more fundamental issue is the confusion (or more likely: the intentional conflation) of initiatory force with retaliatory force.
It should be noted (and I’m not blaming you, I know you are just using their terms) that the term “Anarcho-Capitalism” is worse than a contradiction in terms, it is an anti-concept meant to destroy freedom, which is the goal of anarchism in the first place. So, just as anti-capitalists use the term “crony-capitalism” to denigrate capitalism, use of the term “anarcho-capitalism” should be seen as suspicious in and of itself and discouraged.
The reason it is legitimate to bring Somalia into the conversation is because this is the logical end-state of any system using anarchy to mete out justice. “Anarcho-capitalism” beautifies “anarchy” but doesn’t change its essential character at all. Once you allow private companies to use retaliatory force there is nothing in principle stopping every individual citizen from using retaliatory force and adjudicating matters in their own courts (if vigilantes even decide to be that civilized).
It sounds like you want to defend “anarcho-capitalists” by saying that they don’t really envision Somalia as their end-state. Well neither did Marx envision the USSR as his end-state. It doesn’t matter, neither understands that freedom means “free from force”.
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.
@ Marc K.
Your whole post wasabout being offended and then some bad throw away argument at the end. I don’t get why you even bothered to mention you were offended since being an Objectivist involved being offended so often its hardly worth mentioning. So I concluded you couldn’t actually be really all that offended so you were trying to bully 2042 into dropping the argument altogether because you were tired and frustratied with him constantly trying to promote “Anarchism” in every thread it comes up. I thought that this only helped his argument. I didn’t bother to look at your other post, I apologize.
Political systems rarely reflect in purity the values and practices of a specific ideology. This is why if you try to base an argument against a socialist in facts about a “socialist” country you are going to get bogged down into an endless chain of BS about capitalist pressures and traitors to the cause. Sometimes they are even right and the nation that someone was referring to was indeed not socialist at all but just wearing the title. Saddam Hussein’s political party was a socialist party, but it is really hard to use his country as evidence when talking about socialism because there was not worker control of production there.
Somalia is an islamic feudal society. Somalia is also post apocalyptic since they survived the collapse of a soviet allied regime. The people there do not care about liberty or anything like that. They care about tribal loyalty and religion. However a country filled with “AnCaps” would care about liberty in some sense, and this would probably produce other results.
Weirdly enough I find that you have to have principles before you can even start inducing the nature of specific governments.
We go Man - Morality - Rights - Government - Specific Governments.
Not Specific Governments - Governments in general - rights
Weirdly enough I find that you have to have principles before you can even start inducing the nature of specific governments.
We go Man - Morality - Rights - Government - Specific Governments.
Not Specific Governments - Governments in general - rights
Objectivism is a philosophy organized such that its base is metaphysics and epistemology from which an ethics is derived from which a politics is further derived. So, in Objectivism, we discover and define principles of metaphysics and epistemology before moving on to ethics. Similarly, ethical principles are discovered and defined before political ones. To the extent this is what you mean by the above I agree.
However, as a general rule and in principle, the way we learn is by looking out at reality, using reason and conceptualizing and generalizing about what we see. Objectivists follow this procedure, it is an inductive procedure. You cannot reason without having something to reason about. You cannot discover a principle without first having looked at reality. This is true about governments also so I must disagree with your last statement above. It sounds a bit rationalistic and is related to what you say here:
Political systems rarely reflect in purity the values and practices of a specific ideology.
This is true of ALL existents and yet we are still able to conceptualize. All specific instances of a concept differ in manifold ways from other specific instances of it. That doesn’t mean that we can’t conceptualize and generalize about cats, animals, apples, fruits, plants, or even governments.
It is not only possible but necessary and crucial that we do examine particular governments throughout history looking at their similarities and differences, grouping them by essential characteristics in order to generalize and conceptualize about what a proper government looks like and how it should act. When comparing governments one concept that quickly becomes apparent as a clear dividing line is the concept of “force”. Free or semi-free countries stand on one side of this divide. All the others, including anarchist systems, stand on the other.
I think one of the best ways to deal with socialists is to have them define what they mean by socialism and then point out that where ever and when ever this has been tried it has been a disaster from beginning to end.
Somalia is an islamic feudal society. Somalia is also post apocalyptic since they survived the collapse of a soviet allied regime. The people there do not care about liberty or anything like that. They care about tribal loyalty and religion. However a country filled with “AnCaps” would care about liberty in some sense, and this would probably produce other results.
How could ancaps care about liberty when they don’t understand what it is? It is like saying that the thief cares about wealth production or the wealthy. The thief cares about wealth in as much as it allows him to survive and on principle he destroys the very thing that allows him to survive – same with ancaps.
An ancap country would have to start out being a capitalist country because we and they know that it couldn’t start out in anarchy and become free on purpose. But then the very principles that make a capitalist country free; and I am speaking of the principles of government (i.e., a monopoly on the retaliatory use of force, or, more illustratively when talking about anarchy, outlawing the use of force) – I know that other principles, held by the people, are prerequisites; the very principles of government that make a free country possible are the ones the anarchists want to overthrow.
An ancap country might start out differently than Somalia but it would soon devolve into pure anarchy. That is, to the extent they implement their plan to make the use of force “legal”, is the extent their country will be destroyed.
Your whole post wasabout being offended and then some bad throw away argument at the end.I don’t get why you even bothered to mention you were offended since being an Objectivist involved being offended so often its hardly worth mentioning. So I concluded you couldn’t actually be really all that offended so you were trying to bully 2042 into dropping the argument altogether because you were tired and frustratied with him constantly trying to promote “Anarchism” in every thread it comes up.
I didn’t know that that was the case with 2046 though I did invite him to link to an argument if he had one, he chose not to. After you said this I did look a little at past anarchist threads. I have participated in a few as has 2046 but I haven’t read any of his posts and I haven’t engaged him in the past (as far as I know).
I was insulted by his false generalizations about Objectivists, which presumably includes Ayn Rand, especially since he would not defend them. When someone insults something or someone you value, being offended and defending them is an appropriate response. I won’t apologize for it particularly considering where we are. If there is any place on the internet where you should defend Objectivism this is it. So actually, I don’t think I bullied anyone.
And while my “argument” may have been short and incomplete I don’t think it was either bad or throw away, it was realistic and essential.
Anyone happen to see The Dark Knight Rises yet? I saw it last night, and without giving away spoilers, I thought it was a beautiful artistic representation of what happens under anarchy or rule by “the people”. The “courtroom” scene relates almost directly to this conversation.
I’d like to remind those starting to get a bit overly personal on this topic of this from Ayn Rand:
“It is not dishonest if one is unable to see a point. It is dishonest when one is unwilling to see it.”
Those mulling the potential merits of anarchy seem to be doing so honestly and they are processing information back and forth.
That they have not yet come to the “party line” conclusion from the information they have does not make them stupid or dishonest, although most Objectivists will say that they are wrong.
Human society will always be an imperfect thing and that some would show concern about turning over certain personal liberties to the government (especially seeing how low our US government has sunk) is natural. That watching what was formerly the greatest nation in the world sink into tyranny and fascism would make some question whether any government can be trusted is also a natural stage of philosophical inquiry.
So long as those discussing anarchy as an option remain honest and within forum rules I’d ask that they be treated respectfully.
And the principle of individual rights cannot in fact be logically extended to give you (and all individuals) the right to arrest thieves and put them in jail, or hang them, or whatever else your idea of justice and retaliatory force may be.
I agree; Individual rights begin and end with the individual. A government is necessary to protect individual rights, but is a government necessary to create them? I believe that an individual’s right to life, liberty and propery is derived from the nature of man, and can be unified by the premise of a right of self-preservation (as suggested by Locke). In consulting the Lexicon, I find the following statement by Ayn Rand:
“The right to life is the source of all rights—and the right to property is their only implementation. Without property rights, no other rights are possible.”
What I’m unclear on, from the perspective of Objectivism, is what is the source of the right to life? Does Objectivism agree with Locke on this issue??
What I’m unclear on, from the perspective of Objectivism, is what is the source of the right to life? Does Objectivism agree with Locke on this issue??
“Life is a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action; the right to life means the right to engage in self-sustaining and self-generated action—which means: the freedom to take all the actions required by the nature of a rational being for the support, the furtherance, the fulfillment and the enjoyment of his own life. (Such is the meaning of the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.)” Also from the Lexicon and “The Virtue of Selfishness”.
I’m assuming you read this, so I’m not sure what you’re asking. I’m quoting the above to see if you got this point, and why you don’t think this explains the source of man’s right to life.
“Life is a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action; the right to life means the right to engage in self-sustaining and self-generated action—which means: the freedom to take all the actions required by the nature of a rational being for the support, the furtherance, the fulfillment and the enjoyment of his own life. (Such is the meaning of the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.)” Also from the Lexicon and “The Virtue of Selfishness”.
I’m assuming you read this, so I’m not sure what you’re asking. I’m quoting the above to see if you got this point, and why you don’t think this explains the source of man’s right to life.
I’m asking if the right to life is derived from the study of human nature, self-generated, or generated by government; does a right to life exist without government sponsorship?
How does the Objectivist position you’ve quoted differ from the self-evident truths refered to in the Declaration of Independence? Is the distinction simply a secular one??
does a right to life exist without government sponsorship?
How does the Objectivist position you’ve quoted differ from the self-evident truths refered to in the Declaration of Independence? Is the distinction simply a secular one??
Objectivism holds that rights are a priori.
Objectivism holds that rights are a priori.
… as in: existence, consciousness, identity & rights?
I’m asking if the right to life is derived from the study of human nature, self-generated, or generated by government; does a right to life exist without government sponsorship?
How does the Objectivist position you’ve quoted differ from the self-evident truths refered to in the Declaration of Independence? Is the distinction simply a secular one??
-
Rights are a consequence of the requirements of man’s life; a man has rights in any context, but his ability to exercise them is stopped by another man’s use of force.
-
Rights are not self-evident. If you have a copy of OPAR, Peikoff addresses the idea that rights are self-evident very well. Basically, rights are an extension of morality and the foundation for any discussion of politics.
-
Probably the most important distinction from the Constitution is Objectivism’s foundation for rights (as rights are stated to be self-evident in the constitution). Also crucial is the inclusion of a man’s right to property in Objectivism, which is only implied in the constitution.
Objectivism holds that rights are a priori.
How did you come up with that one? Are you being sarcastic?
- Rights are a consequence of the requirements of man’s life; a man has rights in any context, but his ability to exercise them is stopped by another man’s use of force.
The only things true in any context (or all contexts) are axioms. The context for rights is society. Man has rights in a social context. If a man is alone on a deserted island, all of the conceptual prerequisites are there for him to have rights, except one: other people. It is right for him to live, and right for him to use his own judgment, and right for him to use the products of his efforts, but without another person with whom to interact, he has no need for rights. No one is there to take his life, liberty, or property.
A small technical point perhaps, but worth mentioning, I think.
The only things true in any context (or all contexts) are axioms. The context for rights is society. Man has rights in a social context. If a man is alone on a deserted island, all of the conceptual prerequisites are there for him to have rights, except one: other people. It is right for him to live, and right for him to use his own judgment, and right for him to use the products of his efforts, but without another person with whom to interact, he has no need for rights. No one is there to take his life, liberty, or property.
A small technical point perhaps, but worth mentioning, I think.
You’re right. In trying to communicate that man has rights based on his nature and not as something given to him by society, I made a blunder.
I should have said that rights are based on man’s nature applied to a social context. A man has the basis for rights without society, but only needs the concept of rights when in a society.
If a man is alone on a deserted island, all of the conceptual prerequisites are there for him to have rights, except one: other people. It is right for him to live, and right for him to use his own judgment, and right for him to use the products of his efforts, but without another person with whom to interact, he has no need for rights. No one is there to take his life, liberty, or property.
No one, but himself… If it is right for him to live, and right for him to use his own judgment, and right for him to use the products of his efforts, why is it necessary for his fundamental ‘right’ to be validated by the existence of any other person (or government)? Is it not, in fact, self-evident??
In respect to this topic, do anarchists have a right to life, or does a denial of government preclude that possibility?