Anarchy and Objectivism

[overt]

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?

The concept of rights isn’t validated by another person, it is only necessary because of a society; it is validated by applying reason to understanding the nature of man, then applying that understanding to the nature of man in relation to other men.

Regarding your last sentence, a person’s ideology does not change his fundamental nature. For example, an irrational man’s actions don’t fall outside the bounds of reality simply because he doesn’t acknowledge such bounds. A man has rights based on his fundamental, objective nature and the subsequent, objective requirements for human interaction.

[Eiuol]

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??

It’s basically that as a concept, rights are moot when living on a desert island with no one around. If no one else is around, the conceptual requirement (other people) is missing. A requirement for rights “to exist” isn’t the point. Rights don’t “pop into existence”. What happens is that if you are living in a society, you need to also consider what is required for a society to function, so rights become a meaningful concept. A further extension of rights is government as a means to assure that rights can be maintained. This is only a summary, though, but I had the same questions as you a long time ago.

[Devil_s_Advocate]

Objectivism holds that rights are a priori.

If your meaning is that rights are “derived by reasoning from self-evident propositions” (definition a priori, Merriam-Webster), then I agree. If a right is a freedom of action, and the actions of a right to life are self-evident, it follows that the right is derived by recognition of the actions.

[Devil_s_Advocate]

The concept of rights … is only necessary because of a society;

… rights are moot when living on a desert island with no one around. If no one else is around, the conceptual requirement (other people) is missing.

I disagree with the Objectivist position that a right to life is a moral principle delimited to a social context. Hermits have no less need to act morally for want of society. The validation of a moral principle depends on how one behaves when no one else is watching them, and the example of living alone on a desert island is abused if one presumes the freedom to act without regard to life as a property one retains even in seclusion.

It appears to me that Objectivists, not unlike anarchists, rely too heavily on the notion of a freedom from coercion to define their right to life.

[Jake]

I disagree with the Objectivist position that a right to life is a moral principle delimited to a social context. Hermits have no less need to act morally for want of society. The validation of a moral principle depends on how one behaves when no one else is watching them, and the example of living alone on a desert island is abused if one presumes the freedom to act without regard to life as a property one retains even in seclusion.

It is not the Objectivist position that the right to life is a moral principle. It is a political principle formed by applying a moral principle to a social context.

I’m sure you understand that a single word can refer to different concepts depending on the context/usages. It is right (i.e. good or proper) for a man to live. This is true alone on a desert island or in the middle of Times Square. Morally, a man’s actions should be taken with this in mind. Politically, the right (i.e. privilege, just claim) to life is a recognition of this moral fact applied to a social context. The right to life legally sanctions one man’s living while delimiting those actions which others may not take against him (killing or injuring).

If a man on a desert island jumps off the top of a palm tree to his death. It may be morally wrong, but it is politically null.

It appears to me that Objectivists, not unlike anarchists, rely too heavily on the notion of a freedom from coercion to define their right to life.

Freedom from coercion applies to the right to liberty, not life. Some Objectivists may reverse the conceptual hierarchy of rights and illegal actions, but Objectivism does not. The readings clearly show a conceptual progression like so:

Ethical principle: It is right for one to act in his own rational judgment

• Context: Society

= Political principle: Right to Liberty

“Freedom of coercion” comes from an understanding that the only way to interfere with a man acting on his own judgment is by force. Hierarchically, the bundling of all the specific actions one cannot take against an individual into “freedom from coercion” comes after the principle which sanctions the individual’s own actions.

There are, of course, many more pertinent facts which are used to fully validate these principles, but I’m not trying to rewrite CTUI or OPAR here.

[Devil_s_Advocate]

Ethical principle: It is right for one to act in his own rational judgment

• Context: Society

= Political principle: Right to Liberty

Ayyyyyyy, that makes sense to me; thanks for the clarification.

[overt]

If your meaning is that rights are “derived by reasoning from self-evident propositions” (definition a priori, Merriam-Webster), then I agree. If a right is a freedom of action, and the actions of a right to life are self-evident, it follows that the right is derived by recognition of the actions.

Regarding what you think of that definition as explained from Merriam-Webster, I suggest you read the “Analytic-Synthetic Dichotomy” by Leonard Peikoff. A priori and ‘self-evident proposition’ don’t mean what you’re thinking.

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

[Devil_s_Advocate]

Regarding what you think of that definition as explained from Merriam-Webster, I suggest you read the “Analytic-Synthetic Dichotomy” by Leonard Peikoff. A priori and ‘self-evident proposition’ don’t mean what you’re thinking.

What I stated earlier is, if a right is a freedom of action, and the actions of a right to life are self-evident, it follows that the right is derived by recognition of the actions. So…

1. Is a right a freedom of action? Y/N

2. Are the actions of an individual to remain alive self-evident, i.e. “evident without proof or reasoning” (definition self-evident, Merriam-Webster)? Y/N

Following your lead, I looked at Peikoff’s, “The Analytic-Synthetic Dichotomy” references in the Ayn Rand Lexicon. The only referents necessary for the concept of a right to life are a man and his actions. Presuming the the answer to #1 is yes, and that independent acts of preservation are observationally evident without further proof or reasoning, then it appears to me, “that men, being once born, have a right to their preservation” (as suggested by Locke). I don’t see where any social order is necessary, or how the lack of one creates an analytic-synthetic dichotomy.

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

I believe the actions are self-evident, and the moral principle and right are derived by observation of the actions. I’m not clear as to how this is fundamentally at odds with the Objectivist position…

[overt]

Following your lead, I looked at Peikoff’s, “The Analytic-Synthetic Dichotomy” references in the Ayn Rand Lexicon. The only referents necessary for the concept of a right to life are a man and his actions. Presuming the the answer to #1 is yes, and that independent acts of preservation are observationally evident without further proof or reasoning, then it appears to me, “that men, being once born, have a right to their preservation” (as suggested by Locke). I don’t see where any social order is necessary, or how the lack of one creates an analytic-synthetic dichotomy.

Reread my post suggesting you read Peikoff’s essay–it wasn’t a suggestion to clarify the issue of rights. And it was a suggestion to read the essay, not read snippets.

“I believe the actions are self-evident, and the moral principle and right are derived by observation of the actions. I’m not clear as to how this is fundamentally at odds with the Objectivist position…”

I’m not sure how that isn’t clear to you. Have you read OPAR?

[Devil_s_Advocate]

Reread my post suggesting you read Peikoff’s essay–it wasn’t a suggestion to clarify the issue of rights.

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’m not sure how that isn’t clear to you. Have you read OPAR?

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.

[overt]

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.

[Hairnet]

@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.

[Devil_s_Advocate]

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…

[Researcher]

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?

[moralist]

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.

[tadmjones]

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 univers_ie_

[ruveyn1]

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.

[moralist]

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 univers_ie_

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.

[Marc_K]

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.

[ruveyn1]

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.