Under democracy, the individual must submit to the whims of the majority.
Is democracy a form of collectivism? How does democracy fit in with objectivism? Would a perfect system of capitalism (the kind espoused by Rand) be democratic?
Thanks in advance.
United States isnt a democracy! I assume that is the country you take your stance from. And as for the specific question. Democracy doesnt fit in with Objectivism. I believe a Constitutional Republic like america is much more towards the ideal i would shoot for.
Speaking of, I have my theories, but I was wondering if anyone knew exactly how the leaders would be chosen in a laissez-faire system. I know for a fact that it would be by vote, but I was curious as to more details on the process.
I beleive the American system (not in its entirety) is very close to ideal. If we could just get rid of those campaign regulations, and a few other ugly parts, it would be great.
I am in England. I am an 18 year old student, about to start university in October.
I have never come across the difference between a democracy and a constitutional republic before.
Please explain the difference between the two.
simply put a democracy is where majority vote rules all. There are no rights, if the majority votes it okay to kill a person then thats what goes. Another fundamental difference is that a republic elects representatives for each state, which maintains a certain level of sovereignty from the nation as a whole. Basically, the concept that the united STATES uses. There are some mixes of the two like, a representative democracy. Which isnt a true democracy but much like alot of countries use. If a country were a true democracy there would be a massive vote on every political issue to decide the action to be taken. In our republic, states maintain sovereignty, and our constitution limits what actions a government can take and protects our rights.
In a perfect constitutional republic, is the system of ammendments possible?
For example in the US Constitution -
Amendment XVI (1913)
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census of enumeration.
If this happened in the perfect constitutional republic, it would appear that the “constitutional republic” is more like a democracy. For example you have the constitution of rights, but these rights can be changed according to the whims of the majority (or whoever ammends the constitution).
it allows errors to be corrected. However, if it were “perfect” there might not be mistakes to correct. I dont agree that that is a good amendment, but I still support the amendment proccess.
What if a socialist came into power and made an ammendment to correct an error in the constitution? An “error” such as private property for example.
I would move.
Under democracy, the individual must submit to the whims of the majority.
Is democracy a form of collectivism?
An unlimited majority rule is every bit as collectivist as those systems more usually associated with collectivism.
How does democracy fit in with objectivism?
It does not fit at all.
Would a perfect system of capitalism (the kind espoused by Rand) be democratic?
There is a big difference between a democracy and a constitutional republic, the latter being the foundation of the United States. Here is an excerpt from Leonard Peikoff’s Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand, pp. 368-369.
"The American system, as has often been stated by conservatives, was not a democracy, whether representative or direct, but a republic. (I use these terms as the Founding Fathers did.) ‘Democracy’ means a system of unlimited majority rule; ‘unlimited’ means unrestricted by individual rights. Such an approach is not a form of freedom, but of collectivism. A ‘republic,’ by
contrast, is a system restricted to the protection of rights. In a republic, majority rule applies only to some details, like the selection of certain personnel.
“Rights, however, remain an absolute; i.e., the principles governing the government are not subject to vote.”
In a perfect constitutional republic, is the system of ammendments possible?
For example in the US Constitution -
Amendment XVI (1913)
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census of enumeration.
If this happened in the perfect constitutional republic, it would appear that the “constitutional republic” is more like a democracy. For example you have the constitution of rights, but these rights can be changed according to the whims of the majority (or whoever ammends the constitution).
Since people are not omniscient an amendment process is a way to deal with the unforseen. However, even a perfect document is only as good as the system that adheres to it. If the prevalent philosophy of a society permits a legislature to enact unconstitutional law, and if the law courts themselves do not properly adhere to the principles of the constitution, the the seeds of intellectual decay may take its toll.
Note, however, that a proper government, once formed, has such little power that the safeguards of the system, and the vigilence of the citizens, will keep things in check and running properly. But, philosophy trumps all, and bad philosophy is what enables the main destroyer of rights, the use of force.
Lesson to be learned: We all, individually and as a culture, desperately need a philosophy such as Objectivism to guide our lives.
Speaking of, I have my theories, but I was wondering if anyone knew exactly how the leaders would be chosen in a laissez-faire system. I know for a fact that it would be by vote, but I was curious as to more details on the process.
Okay, how do you know that for a fact? I am more or less of the opposite view, that the “leaders” should be appointed based on some kind of objective qualifications. That will tell you how much I think mob rule sucks :lol:
I am more or less of the opposite view, that the “leaders” should be appointed based on some kind of objective qualifications.
There should be some basic objective qualifications–such as age, citizenship, clean criminal record–but I suppose you have much more restrictive ones in mind. (University degree? Business experience? Military experience?) I see manifold problems with such an approach:
The requierments would have to be defined in the constitution, but the more restrictive the requirements are, the more difficult it will be to get them accepted by the constitutional convention. Everyone will easily agree that a minimum age of 25 should be required for the Presidency, but if you propose that a Ph. D. be required for the same office, you will be faced with a deluge of objections.
No matter how restrictive you make the requirements, there may always be two or more candidates who meet them. You would still need a way to choose among them.
If your requirements are too restrictive, it may be that no one meets them.
Over time, the requirements may become obsolete.
I think the best solution is still to elect the leaders by voting, but the circle of voting citizens should be kept relatively small. Voting rights should only be given to a person who satisfies a set of basic objective requirements AND has the recommendation of, say, seven people who already have voting rights.
Okay, how do you know that for a fact? I am more or less of the opposite view, that the “leaders” should be appointed based on some kind of objective qualifications. That will tell you how much I think mob rule sucks
Appointed by whom - and who decides who gets to do the appointing?
Fred Weiss
There should be some basic objective qualifications–such as age, citizenship, criminal record–but I suppose you have much more restrictive ones in mind. (University degree? Business experience? Military experience?)
I wasn’t thinking of mechanical credentials, but more the knowledge that the person has the ability to perform the proper function of government. Basically, this comes down to devising a “test” (72 hour takehome, closed-book or something like that 
.) I would be quite opposed to a credential-based system that required e.g. a PhD. On occasion, I entertain the idea that possession of a PhD could be an absolute bar to holding governmental power. But that’s only temporary annoyance, not an actual position of mine.
Your points about putting the requirements in the constitution are correct, and above all I believe that a good constitution should articulate the purpose of the document. The fundamental problem in objective law is that the words tend to become a mantra over time, and law is seen as ritual obedience to a set of words rather than as a means of achieving a specific goal. The US constitution does not set forth a clear statement of the purpose of a proper government, and we’re in trouble because of that. So, as has been suggested here (and elsewhere) a number of times, any law should be rigorously held to a specific purpose: the protection of rights.
So the test of the man would be, does this person understand what the government’s monopoly on force is about; will he mandate its use properly? The takehome exam (I don’t really mean that literally) is a means of determining whether the person has the moral character and knowledge needed to implement the stated function of the constitution. Remember too that a proper government, which exists only to protect rights, will not have a division of Traffic and Parking Enforcement, Health and Social Services, Parks Department, Building Codes, Interstate Commerce Commission, The Mint, FDA, IRS, FCC, DEA, ATF and so on. At the domestic level, all you need is the courts (including the manpower to enforce decisions). The qualification most needed there is knowledge of (objective) law.
Appointing a new judge is a significant event (as is removing a disfunctional judge), and you can rightfully ask questions of implementation. My stock answer is that a 2/3 supermajority should be required to change the makeup of the courts, and that all deliberations must be carried out with explicit reference to the fundamental principles of the constitution. The “initial bootstrap” aspect of the system would basically be however we actually get a laissez-faire capitalist constitution in the first place.
The basic requirement, that government exists solely to protect the rights of man, will not become obsolete over time. The fundamental requirement is that a government official recognize that function and respect it, and if you can’t find someone who can satisfy that requirement, we’re all scrod. As for the problem of selecting the best candidate given two or more equally capable candidates, well, people manage to decide (the “arbitrary decision” problem exists no matter what system you use).
David Odden:
I will simply quote Ayn Rand, cause she explained it very well,
"The Theory of representative government rests on the principal that man is a rational being, i.e., that he is able to perceive the facts of reality, to evaluate them, to form rational judgments, to make his own choices, and to bear responsibility for the course of his life. Politically, this principal is implemented by a man’s right to choose his own agents, i.e., those whom he authorizes to represent him in the government of his country. To represent him, in this context, means to represent his views in terms of political principles. Thus the government of a free country derives its ‘just powers from the consent of the governed.’
see Representation Without Authorization by Ayn Rand
I have a question: What government would objectivism use?
I have a question: What government would objectivism use?
Read the essays “Man’s Rights” and “The Nature of Government” in The Virtue of Selfishness. The book is widely available at your local library and bookstores.
I can only say briefly that it would be very similar to the one originally established by the Founding Fathers–in fact, it would be exactly the same in its essential structure. Only the details would change (such as specific powers of Congress, an explicit statement of the purpose of government, and perhaps the presidential election process).
I have a question: What government would objectivism use?
Others might disagree with me, but I don’t think that Objectivism does (or should) stipulate what form a government should take. As long as the government has no role other than protecting the rights of citizens, it’s actual structure should not be a matter for philosophy at this level. I don’t think that a democracy (or a constitutional republic) is at all necessary; it would certainly be possible for other forms of government such as monarchy or aristocracy to govern a laissez faire society, and as long as they did not step outside their jurisdiction, I would not have a problem with this.
edit: I realise that Rand personally leaned towards a Constitutional Republic, but I would hold that this was her opinion rather than a requirement of her politico-philosophical premises.