Is Minarchism Sustainable?

Political Philosophy
1

As someone with a good deal of respect for Ayn Rand’s philosophy and political ideas, it has always been hard for me to understand how she justifies advocating a minarchist government. Ideally a minarchist government would be very useful and would make possible an optimal level of both security and freedom, however there is every indication that it is within the intrinsic nature of government to grow and increase its own power. Both history and a thorough analysis of the nature of government lead again and again to the conclusion that it is utterly impossible for a government to remain “minarchist” – that is to say, to respect the objectivist rights of all people – for any considerable amount of time.

From a purely logical standpoint, even if a government initially limited its use of violence to “defensive” measures, its monopoly on the use of force (and the attendant concentration of power which always characterizes government) would always provide ample temptation for abuse by all-too-human government officials, no matter what checks and balances are incorporated in the political system. In order to function adequately as a state, the institution would have to have overwhelming power to maintain its monopoly, and any institution characterized by such power will inevitably (usually sooner rather than later) use that power to gain more power. Such is the nature of government.

It is also very obvious empirically that every government in history has far exceeded every theoretical boundary placed in its way. Even the U.S. government, the closest thing to a “success story” in history, has long since exceeded almost every limitation of the Constitution. This again is not surprising since power has always been utilized for the aggrandizement of those who wield it, and no means has yet been found to curb this tendency in government.

How do objectivists reconcile these problems with the ideal of a minarchist system? Can an objectivist justify initiating a system of government that he or she knows will inevitably violate objectivist principles? Do objectivists recognize these problems as such and try to work around them, or do objectivists believe that government power can be effectively circumscribed and limited to working in accordance with objectivist principles? If the latter is the case, how do objectivists propose such limitation can be achieved?

As I’m sure this question has already been addressed by someone, please point me towards a source who has dealt with this problem, or even better feel free to respond personally as I’m sure this could make for a lively discussion. Thanks ahead of time for your replies.

Metrodorus

2

There was related discussion in another thread, starting around this post (link).

I think the basic assumption that “it is within the intrinsic nature of government to grow and increase its own power” is flawed, because…

if this premise were true, the problem would not be how can we stick with “minarchism”. The problem would be: how do we ever get there in the first place, when we’re constantly moving in the opposite direction.

The question assumes the we can go from where we are now, to some minimal role of government. Really? How? I don’t understand how that can be assumed if we assume that “it is within the intrinsic nature of government to grow and increase its own power”.

So, the real question about forcing government in a direction opposite to its “intrinsic nature” becomes: how can we ever lessen the size of government from where we are now?

The way I see it, all around the world governments are changing in many ways. Some for the better, others for the worse. We need to understand the causes of the good changes. That ought to help figure out how to get more of them.

3

Do objectivists recognize these problems as such and try to work around them, or do objectivists believe that government power can be effectively circumscribed and limited to working in accordance with objectivist principles? If the latter is the case, how do objectivists propose such limitation can be achieved?

I believe I can answer this simply: Yes, Objectivists states that government power can be effectively circumscribed and limited to working in accordance with Objectivist principles.

To answer “how:”

It can only be achieved in the context of an Objectivist society and culture. an educated, rational populace that understands the proper purpose of government is an absolute necessity for achieving and maintaining such a government. Politcs cannot stand alone. Ideas move history.

(So your concern of the impossibility of the task is based on a truth: the truth that politics do not stand alone. But they do stand when backed by a culture of the proper ideas and the complete philosophical system to back it up!)

4

Second that Inspector.

Politics, since it is derived from a Metaphysics and Epistemology, can not work to change either. You can not pass a law that changes people’s minds. People’s minds change the law.

5

Softwarenerd:

I agree with your point that before we can worry about keeping government under control, we have to get it under control initially. This is no small task, but it has been done at least once in history when the American revolutionaries threw off the rule of the King and established a very minarchist government. Whether or not such a minimization of government is still possible, I do not know, but my point was that even if through violence you are able to disrupt the totalitarian rule of a government, it will by its very nature continue to expand from that point until it breaks free of any restraints placed on it.

I do not think this means that my assessment of government – that it constantly expands – is flawed in any way, it just means that even if some extraordinary feat manages to roll back the state, its continued existence will always be a threat. Also, I don’t think there is any contradiction between the possibility (at least in the past) of minimizing government and the fact that government’s nature goes against that, since all minimizations of government have been forced on government from outside. As far as I know, a government has never of its own volition weakened itself or minimized its own power. Even if such a thing has happened, I’m not claiming an iron-clad universal law, I am just referring to the obvious facts we have – that government seeks to enlarge itself.

This brings me to Inspectors point, which, if I understand correctly, is that government only expands because peoples’ beliefs and opinions support such expansion. This is true that government actions are a reflection of a number of social attitudes, and even in the strictest sense are allowed by the acquiescence of the populace. I of course agree that if every person was dedicated to the limitation of government (“in the context of an Objectivist society and culture”) then limiting government would be possible, and might even be fairly simple. How is this different, though, from the communist who says that if everyone was dedicated to sharing and caring for their fellow man, communism would work? For everyone to abandon government power requires a similar renunciation of self-interest for those who gain benefits from government at the expense of others. Even the tenets of objectivism reject such idealism – we have to recognize the world as what it is, and not base our beliefs on far-fetched “what-ifs”.

For the forseeable future, at least, there will be no mass transformation of human philosophy and action which facilitates the control of government by making everyone into a minarchist. Within this reality, what is the objectivist position on controlling government? Should the objectivist just “fight the good fight”, knowing they will fail in the near term, trying to control government until everyone on earth becomes an objectivist? I would imagine a certain amount of time would be dedicated to “spreading the word” about objectivism so that others will eventually join you, but what is to say any substantial number of people will adopt your philosophy?

This seems less a real working political philosophy and seems to amount to little more than, “when everyone agrees with me, there won’t be any problems.” Any political philosophy can be justified in this context, however the challenge is coming up with theory and practice that reflect the realities of the world (as objectivism should) and seek the best possible state of affairs. How do you reconcile the reality that we are not living in anything close to an objectivist culture and society with the imperative to work against the evils of government excess?

6

I’ll try to cover the essentials here:

There is one truth about Objectivist political theory that I neglected to mention: as soon as the state breaches the principles of individual rights and accepts that man’s life does not belong to him, then it does become incentivized to increase its own power and it does encourage/create the war of pressure groups and the ratcheted, creeping expansion of statism.

So it’s not just that the majority of people accept statist principles; it’s also that statist principles, themselves, act to grow the government.

As for the strategy, I think you’ve got a bit of an oversimplification there. It’s not simply “when people agree with us, then they’ll accept the politics.”

You’d do best to familiarize yourself with the Objectivist theory of history, namely that ideas (philosophy) are the major force in history. If you want to change the politics of America, you first have to establish a base of intellectuals and get the ideas out there. Can I cover all the necessary ground on a message board? No, I severely doubt that. You’ll have to go to the source for the specifics.

Finally, how is this different from the Communists who say that with enough “caring” it will work? Well, mostly because Communism is in gross opposition to the nature of man and the facts of reality. It couldn’t ever work, even if everyone agreed with it. It would still result in misery, poverty, corruption, and death; even if everyone was “okay” with that.

Finally, it is not in the self-interest of anyone to live in a statist society; not even for those who helm that state. So it does not call, like communism does, for anyone to renounce their interests. (again, for the details, you’d do best to read about the Objectivist theory directly)

7

I am familiar with objectivist ideas of history as driven by ideas, however that doesn’t really address the problem that objectivist political philosophy necessitates a widespread, radical restructuring of human preferences and philosophies before anything much can be achieved. The odds of a majority of people adopting the objectivist political philosophy are very small, so what can objectivism achieve short of this total revolution in human thinking? Part of the reason our current system has been sustained as long as it has is because it makes room for many opposing political views, even though these views are usually co-opted and made to work for state interests.

Granted, my statement about “when everyone agrees with me, there won’t be any problems” was an over-simplification, however it was meant to expose the fact that objectivists, in viewing objectivism as some key to real, absolute truths, often discounts the importance of individuals’ differing perceptions and opinions. As is common of objectivists, you said that government is not beneficial for anyone including those who command government according to their whims. You did not offer any explanation for this, although I am familiar with the common reasons for making such a claim. Despite the arguments for this, however, as far as self-interest goes perception is much more important than any claim to objectivity. For example, people are not served by the state taxing them and giving them a fraction of their own money back in poorly managed services, however people mostly view these programs as “free”. This is why they continue to exist.grante The perception is more important than the “objective” truth.

Along these lines, even though you can make an argument that it isn’t within the self-interest of government officials to exploit their power to accumulate wealth and influence, according to their goals and priorities there is no better way to act in their self-interest. Claiming that certain views of what should be done are “objective” in some sense or more “rational” is nothing but a baseless assertion with no backing since each invidividual chooses their goals and priorities according to what they prefer. The objectivist saying that government does not serve the interest of those in government is like telling a child that eating a candy bar does not serve his self-interest. The child wants the candy bar, and no amount of preaching and rationalizing is going to make the child admit that the candy bar is not what he wants, because he really does want the candy bar and it is in his perceived self-interest to eat it. This, again, is a reality that objectivists need to deal with – their view of what is right in a given situation is only one of many possible interpretations. The fact that your interpretation is the most persuasive to you does not mean that it will be the most persuasive to others, and even if yours is true in some objective sense, no one is obligated to recognize it as such.

One problem I have with objectivism is the common conflation of what-should-be as viewed by Rand with what-is. The reason communism doesn’t work economically is because people naturally act in accordance with their perceived interests these perceived interests are usually somewhat selfish. My point is that just as communism tries to restructure human nature by redefining what is in the individual’s interest, so too objectivism tries to supplant people’s natural desires with an objectivist view of what self-interest is (i.e. power over others is not good, self-interest should be strictly interpreted as rational, long-term self-interest). The answer is not for me to read more objectivist theory (I have read a lot of it) but for objectivists to address the unrealistic and idealistic aspects of objectivism.

I personally find many of Rand’s teachings to be very persuasive and rational, however I do not pretend that there is some natural force of truth which will lead her theories to prevail. I recognize that as a practical matter (even if there is objective truth), we live in a world of subjective tastes and opinions held by individuals. These things given, history is of course defined to a certain extent by ideas, however one must not confuse the ideas with the reality that is the application of these ideas. For all the above reasons, as long as human beings survive, there will be those willing to exploit others through government because they think it is within their interests, and because of this government will continue to violate the rights of individuals. My question is what real measures objectivists propose to deal with this problem, since in reality objectivists will not be capable of radically restructuring society’s perceptions of self-interest and power any time soon.

8

Translation of the above:

There is no objective reality.

There is no objective truth.

Logic and reason are impotent.

Might equals right.

Yeah, you understand objectivism.

9

My question is what real measures Objectivists propose to deal with this problem, since in reality Objectivists will not be capable of radically restructuring society’s perceptions of self-interest and power any time soon.

Just to be clear, you’re now asking a question that is different from the original one. The original one is how to sustain Capitalism. Now, you’re speaking of how to get there. I think it’s the right question; I’m not complaining, just clarifying.

How to change the actions of one particular man? One can either convince him to change or force him to change. In the context we are speaking of, force is impractical. So, one has to convince. One can convince people of specific, narrow issues or of wider ones. The battle is intellectual, there is no other practical alternative. You were convinced of many things weren’t you? Well, most human beings ar similar.

I should also mention that – unless you make it your career (e.g. you’re working for a “think tank”, the ARI, etc.). – changing the world is not among one’s top priorities.

10

Honestly, just because I haven’t provided you right here and now with the full and complete explanations as to why the Objectivist position is actually objective, that doesn’t mean that such an explanation does not exist; it’s just that I don’t consider it particularly prudent to try and swallow a topic that huge right here and now.

Maybe you’ve met some people who are young and new to Objectivism and they think that other should just automatically agree with them and have nothing at all in terms of an argument to back them up. Fair enough, such people do exist. But that shouldn’t taint your view of the philosophy as a whole. That’s why I said: go to the source. Don’t take my word for it.

Now, I can tell you right now that either your analysis of Communism was compromised by your brevity, or you really don’t understand the Objectivist position on the nature of Communism. It really is in opposition to the nature of man… not just the nature of what some men choose to be like. May I ask what Objectivist texts you have read? Perhaps I can point you to the part you’ve missed. After all, it wouldn’t do to have you thinking the Objectivist position on communism is weak simply because you haven’t really heard the full story.

11

Translation of the above:

There is no objective reality.

There is no objective truth.

Logic and reason are impotent.

Might equals right.

Yeah, you understand objectivism.

That was very cute, except I never said any of those things above and never ascribed them to objectivism in any way. In fact, where I came close to saying anything like that, it was in raising objections to objectivism, since I know objectivism is the exact opposite of those principles.

Unless you were just trying to be clever, you could explain what it is I said that you took as meaning these things, but in the meantime I’ll make myself more clear:

“There is no objective reality.” & “There is no objective truth.”

I said that whether or not there is an objective reality or truth which is attainable by man (I personally believe that there is and that man can ascertain it), this truth will always be expressed by imperfect individuals who, no matter what their aspirations, do not act in a purely rational manner. Objectivism seeks to have individuals act in a rational matter as much as they can, which I have no problem with, however I think this has led objectivists to ignore the degree to which people do not act rationally. To recognize this characteristic of humanity is very much objectivist, since objectivism encourages individuals to see the world as it is, not as they wish it to be.

When I talked of differing views of what is in someone’s self-interest, that is because different people take as their goals different things. Some seek material wealth. Others seek internal peace and calm. There is no single goal of humanity, and nothing that says every person must strive for the same things. Thus when the objectivist says that government is never beneficial for anyone, this is based on taking freedom and self-determination as metrics for value. Those in government usually strive for power, influence and wealth, while not respecting the freedoms of others. Within this framework, government in fact does work for the benefit of certain individuals. I do not agree with their worldview (I value freedom), however this does not make it any less important that they ascribe to a certain view of value which affects their decisions and actions.

“Logic and reason are impotent”

When I was talking about the same principles as I just addressed above, I said that objectivists assume that the rationality of objectivism makes it somehow more legitimate than other philosophies. I pointed out that different people with different experiences and goals can use equally rational methods to arrive at different conclusions. This does not make logic and reason impotent, it just recognizes that all people are not exactly the same. There is ample evidence for this in the world around us, as intelligent and rational people often pursue very different tracks in life. It seems you wish to impose some sort of homogeneity on human affairs based on a very strict, monolithic view of reason. I disagree with this, and I do not say that my disagreement is any way representative of objectivism.

“Might is right”

I would say that might often determines the course of the world, but I never said that the use of force is in any way legitimate or “right”. I may have been unclear in describing the perception of self-interest of those in government, but let me now make it clear that I do not believe the urge to control and subjugate is right or moral. At the same time, it is important to realize that much of the world acts according the principle that if might does not make right, it at least controls much of human action. This is something to be opposed, however any time we seek to make the world a better place it is important to understand the world as it is so that we can take meaningful action.

It seems your knee-jerk reaction to my few objections to objectivism was to twist my words into absurdity and write me off as ignorant of objectivism. It may surprise you that I am actually very familiar with objectivism, however I do not agree with some parts of it. It is not very objectivist to irrationally and defensively dismiss any views differing from yours, so I might ask how much you know about objectivism.

Just because I do not take the same simplistic, black-and-white absolutist position as you does not make me a foolish relativist or cynical sycophant for power. I am in fact quite the opposite. To you or anyone else who wants to address my real concerns, however, I can rephrase my question in a couple more fundamental questions (after also reflecting on the helpful answer of softwareNerd): Does objectivism reflect a significantly nuanced view of human nature to account for legitimate differences among the views of rational individuals? Please explain how this is so (or how it is not really a problem) in light of the objections I have raised. And, relating to my initial question, how do we reconcile the objectivist view of political philosophy with the reality that human beings – either rationally or irrationally – pursue power over others and will likely not cease to do so any time soon?

It seems the answer to this so far has been that we need to persuade others to adopt and objectivist view of the world – is this sufficient to affect change and likely enough to happen to merit dedicating time and effort to it? I obviously have my doubts as to objectivism’s ability to deal with these problems, and I am curious as to how objectivists view these issues.

Sorry, I just saw Inspector’s reply to me – to make myself clear I think that Objectivism has a very strong argument against communism, and I agree that communism is totally against human nature. As you said, I think my above statement was compromised by trying to make it brief. I would not under any circumstances defend communism or attempt to refute the truth of the objectivist critique of it.

It seems to me that objectivism does not adequately address the fact that people’s views of what constitutes rational action can vary quite a bit. I don’t think objectivism is anything like communism, my point was that it seems objectivism seeks to impose a very strict, limited view of what is “rational” which seems to exclude a lot of human action and a lot of the variability in humans pursuing what they view as their self-interest. I think that Rand’s view of “rational self-interest” is a very good ideal toward which we should strive, but at the same time I think that the majority of human beings do not act in accordance with such a strict view nor will they ever come to do so. (Politicians will not likely ever cease to seek power over others just because objectivists tell them that such power is not really in their interest.) Given this, are objectivist political institutions – based on the establishment of a strictly rational human nature – adequate even if it is probable that they might be compromised by others with differing views of their self-interest?

12

Does objectivism reflect a significantly nuanced view of human nature to account for legitimate differences among the views of rational individuals? Please explain how this is so (or how it is not really a problem) in light of the objections I have raised. And, relating to my initial question, how do we reconcile the objectivist view of political philosophy with the reality that human beings – either rationally or irrationally – pursue power over others and will likely not cease to do so any time soon?

It seems the answer to this so far has been that we need to persuade others to adopt and objectivist view of the world – is this sufficient to affect change and likely enough to happen to merit dedicating time and effort to it? I obviously have my doubts as to objectivism’s ability to deal with these problems, and I am curious as to how objectivists view these issues.

To an extent, I agree with you. The idea of convincing one moocher that it is not in his long-term best interests to live off the government is an unwelcome task - let alone millions :wink:

It seems to me that objectivism does not adequately address the fact that people’s views of what constitutes rational action can vary quite a bit. I don’t think objectivism is anything like communism, my point was that it seems objectivism seeks to impose a very strict, limited view of what is “rational” which seems to exclude a lot of human action and a lot of the variability in humans pursuing what they view as their self-interest.

I don’t think it necessary to create massive numbers of Objectivists in order to have good government - only a lot of people to have values close to it.

Most importantly though, it’s absolutely vital that those who are harmed by particular bad governmental policies react. An inventor opposing the diminishing of IP rights is their best defense; one allowing their creations to be appropriated is the worst impediment to progress. Convincing the harmed to oppose their illegitimate losses is (in theory) much easier than convincing the looters to relinquish their illegitimate gains.

Given this, are objectivist political institutions – based on the establishment of a strictly rational human nature – adequate even if it is probable that they might be compromised by others with differing views of their self-interest?

I suppose I could ask “what’s the alternative?”

Regardless, in answer, I’d reply that any system involving volitional beings can be compromised, and that any government is ultimately limited to what its people won’t physically fight against.

I can’t see a Galt’s Gulch scenario being enacted on a massive scale, but I do think minarchist (if not wholly Objectivist) institutions are feasible.

This IMO is an interesting topic; I’d like to think about it further.

13

When I talked of differing views of what is in someone’s self-interest, that is because different people take as their goals different things. Some seek material wealth. Others seek internal peace and calm. There is no single goal of humanity, and nothing that says every person must strive for the same things. Thus when the objectivist says that government is never beneficial for anyone, this is based on taking freedom and self-determination as metrics for value.

Then you do not understand the Objectivist position. Whatever optional values one chooses to pursue in the course of one’s life, it is universal that life is the goal of everyone who wants to go on living, and reason is the only means of realizing this goal. This doesn’t mean that everyone becomes a robotic clone, marching in lockstep; people are different and will choose different goals in their lives, even if they are perfectly rational the whole time and never make any mistakes.

But… there are certain things: rationality, political freedom, etc, that are necessary for absolutely everyone, whether they like it or not. A person who abandons reason is embracing their own death; this isn’t a difference of opinion, or a reasonable “alternate” lifestyle choice: it is the declaration of war on all of their fellow men and on their own existence.

This fact does not have to convince every parasite that they are harming themselves most of all. Even if they continue to believe, against reason, that their actions are in their interests, everyone else will know that their actions are in nobody’s interests and are in fact a threat to everyone. Such parasites would not be given positions of power, or any other means by which to harm others; they are recognized for what they are.

Within this framework, government in fact does work for the benefit of certain individuals.

As I said, the Objectivist position is that nobody benefits from such a framework, not even those in power. They only “achieve their values” inasmuch as they value death and that is what they will receive.

objectivists assume that the rationality of objectivism makes it somehow more legitimate than other philosophies.

Well, it is.

But you mean that people won’t automatically assume this just because the Objectivist says so? Of course not, and I would say that these “Objectivists” you know are rank amateurs if they think so. But that shouldn’t reflect negatively on the philosophy itself.

I pointed out that different people with different experiences and goals can use equally rational methods to arrive at different conclusions.

Sure, for things like pizza toppings and what sort of car to buy. A lot of values are personal and depend on the very specific nature of the individual in question.

But as I said, some things are universal. Sure, people can reach erroneous conclusions due to a lack of knowledge without ever breaching rationality. But that’s where the intellectuals come in: they spread knowledge to eliminate this problem.

I would say that might often determines the course of the world, but I never said that the use of force is in any way legitimate or “right”.

Nobody ever said that freedom wouldn’t have to come at a price. Tree of liberty being watered by the blood of patriots and all that. Of course, I’d like to combine the wisdom of Jefferson with the insight of Patton: The tree of liberty should properly be watered with the blood of tyrants, because after all, you win a war by making the other bastard die for his cause.

Does objectivism reflect a significantly nuanced view of human nature to account for legitimate differences among the views of rational individuals?

Absolutely. These are called “optional values.” They do not, however, include such things as rationality vs irrationality, capitalism vs statism, or the choice to initiate force. There are plenty of examples of this on the board, and maybe someone can point you in the direction of where this is covered in Objectivist text.

And, relating to my initial question, how do we reconcile the objectivist view of political philosophy with the reality that human beings – either rationally or irrationally – pursue power over others and will likely not cease to do so any time soon?

Only a small minority of people actually live their lives in the pursuit of the enslavement of their fellow men. The vast majority of people are simply ignorant of the nature of this enslavement. They encourage and support the system unwittingly. We don’t have to convince every last person; it is enough to simply convince the majority of the intellectuals, from whom the common man draws his ideas. It is through such a process that a society is moved.

Politicians will not likely ever cease to seek power over others just because objectivists tell them that such power is not really in their interest.

They might seek it, but when the system is not geared toward their kind, they will be marginalized. Instead of being handed the keys to the kingdom, such people would be reduced to petty crimes or con-games. The clowns would no longer be running the circus.

I don’t give a whole lot of detail here because this is all covered in Objectivist non-fiction, so if you want that kind of detail, you should go to the source.

14

Inspector, I understand what you are saying and I think that you make some very good points. I am familiar with Rand’s view that certain things – freedom, rationality, etc. – are intrinsically good in that as they further the interest of humans as living beings, and I am not attempting to cast that aside. All I am trying to convey is that even if certain people are “choosing death” and if their actions are harmful in the long run, this is not an absolute, inviolable principle and a good number of people get lucky and end up living very fulfilling lives (as they subjectively value them) at the expense of others. The point is, people see that it is at least possible to get away with living contrary to Rand’s principles in the short term, like the teenager who tries a drug and never thinks that he could become addicted.

I agree that in the long run a society such as ours based on government exploitation and limitation of freedom is doomed, but like heroin addicts, people usually only concern themselves with the here-and-now, or at most with the near-term. What I am saying is that weakness and shortsightedness are just as intrinsic to human nature as the need for freedom and rationality. I certainly believe that intellectuals could effectively disseminate principles of freedom and limited government, but I question if they could convince people to stop putting pleasure and immediate satisfaction above their rational self-interests. Minarchist principles would then always be in danger of being undermined by peoples’ compulsive and irrational actions.

When I question if objectivism is somewhat opposed to human nature, I mean that I question if most people – or even if most self-proclaimed objectivists – are capable of actually acting contrary to their immediate desires in the name of the more universal rational self-interest. Even if they can act this way sometimes, can people act consistently in such a strictly rational manner? Maybe this is a somewhat cynical view of human nature, but even if the only price of freedom was to stop eating chocolate, I think most people would eat the chocolate and accept a certain degree of servitude.

Objectivists seem to split human choices into two categories, just as you said before, and say that some values are not optional while others are. You seem to be taking rhetorical flourishes and abstract philosophical ideas – that certain actions are “choosing death” – and you take them as reality. In the long term and as a general principle of society, I agree that irrationality and statism are untenable, but states hobble along for quite some time and many people benefit in the short term from them before they collapse. Humans can and do “value death” because they cannot see how their choices are contrary to principles of life and freedom, or if they do see, they just don’t care. My skepticism regarding objectivism is whether intellectuals will be able to convince people to act according to these higher rational principles, even when doing so means deferring their pleasure and acting in ways that might seem contrary to immediate perceptions of what is right.

15

Well, there are a few threads around here somewhere that address the fact that even if someone can become rich and powerful through irrational methods (and some people surely do), and even if they manage to maintain their wealth and success over a lifetime (the nature of how they gained it tends to make it slip from their grasp…) that psychologically speaking, happiness, fulfillment, etc are impossible to such a person. (thus the common belief that money will make one spiritually empty… in fact, it is only ill-gotten money that does so) So really there are a great many arguments that show on every possible level that such a life is not a pleasant one.

The bottom line is that once you know the full truth of the matter, such a life is not “tempting” in any sense of the word. There wouldn’t be any need for iron-clad willpower to resist such a lifestyle because its appeal is based on a false understanding of how things work. Once you remove that false understanding, you remove the temptation… at least for most people…

But you’re asking about those who simply refuse to live by reason. Those who aren’t open to any sort of argument; who truly are the monsters who intend to live by victimizing others, and aren’t deterred by having this fact brought to life.

Do you really think that this sort represents the majority of humanity? I don’t. I think they’re a small minority and that the majority of people, at least in the United States, would want nothing to do with that sort if the full truth became known to them.

Yes, they are a growing number these days… Robert Tracinski’s recent article on Hurricane Katrina and the full consequences of the welfare state comes to mind.. In essence, the welfare state actually creases the intellectual equivalent of the stagnant mosquito-breeding swamps in which such monsters are bred.

In large part, if you “drain the swamps,” then you’re going to see far fewer of these types. So the situation is again not quite so hopeless as you might think. Just as evil ideas breed the spread of evil, so when good ideas are established will good be spread.

Of course, we have the advantage of being based on truth and ideas that are consonant with the requirements of life on earth, whereas our opponents must engage in lies and con-games to make it seem like they are. I mean most people do at least profess to want to live, right?

16

Blah, now hasn’t this become a sloppy topic :wink:

Minarchist principles would … always be in danger of being undermined by peoples’ compulsive and irrational actions.

Do you simply mean that any minarchism in action won’t be faultless (natch,) or that minarchism in action will have such faults that some other system will work better?

Like softwareNerd said, I think the question is not whether government can be changed for the better, but in what manner are improvements to government to be made, and what can be done to make those improvements lasting.

17

Although I am always skeptical of anyone saying “oh, well they may think that they are happy, but really they aren’t”, I think you make some good arguments, and I certainly agree that good ideas breed good behavior and that “draining the swamp” would do a lot to improve people’s actions and perceptions of right and wrong.

I think I’ve gotten a pretty good idea of what the objectivist response is to the questions I was raising, and I think that objectivist ideas for how to improve the world are at least worth a try. As far as what other options we have, I sometimes think that trying to reform the world or a whole society is somewhat futile, and I tend to lean towards individuals doing whatever is in their capacity to live free and minimize the power of illegitimate institutions such as government. I think that any given individual should be able to exercise more influence over their own life than any other entity, and as such should be able to form for themselves a world that fits with their ethical beliefs. Of course I don’t mean we should ignore the society around us, but I tend to concentrate on what we can do now for ourselves, instead of theorizing about what to do once the world has changed in this way or that way (such as when we live in an “objectivist culture”).

I’m not saying objectivism can’t be applied in the here-and-now, but sometimes it seems like most political philosophies drift towards meaninglessness and irrelevance as they become more and more concerned with their own utopian visions. I would argue that a little less theorizing and a little more action would go a long way for most libertarian/objectivist/minarchist individuals. I am guilty too of theorizing too much, but it is something we can all work on.

hunterrose: My main point relates to any political system being too dependent on assumptions as to what others will do, as I hinted at above in this post. I think it is more important to develop means to individually pursue a more just society and to remake our own lives to match our theories. In practical terms, this would mean actively opposing the government and doing many things which aren’t safe. Most people (myself included) shy away from tax evasion, direct resistance, and other such forms of resisting the state because of the risk inherent in these, but this all amounts to letting the government win. The reason they threaten violence is because they want you to think resistance isn’t worth it. By constantly waiting for the time when action will be acceptable (once we get past the point of spreading the word), we are just conceding that they are more powerful. By simply refusing to admit defeat, we could gain a lot of ground.

This has gotten a little off the original topic, but I think it relates to it in an important way because whether or not high ideals and institutions (such as a minarchist government) can be established or maintained, there should be a way for individuals to assert themselves and their rationality in order to make the most of life and not give in to the powers that be. I’m very wary of any political theory that is impotent in the present, yet always promises great things tomorrow. I don’t think objectivism need be like this, nor do I think it is like this for many people. However it comes off that way quite frequently when people talk of convincing others that what makes them happy really doesn’t, or of gradually convincing everyone else to change their views.

As you said:

I think the question is not whether government can be changed for the better, but in what manner are improvements to government to be made, and what can be done to make those improvements lasting.

I agree with this, but I would also add and/or modify it with this: the question is not even so much how to improve government and make those improvements lasting, but rather how to make ourselves more independent of government and more in control of our own lives, so that we need not wait for others before we can improve things. I think that this can be done in the context of objectivism, but I think objectivism needs to become a little more “radical” in its demands for the present and its means of bringing about change for the future.

P.S. Good thoughts and well-made points all around. That’s one thing I certainly like about objectivists: they’re always up for serious discussions and tend to not be too close-minded.

18

I agree that it would be a great deal of help to most of us if there were more out there in terms practical, everyday advice. But you have to start with the principles, first. Right now I think that “everyday advice” type organizations are actually a very growing segment of the Objectivist movement. There are a great number of blogs, publications, campus clubs, etc, that are out there or in the works. (How about The Undercurrent, for example?)

So to summarize, I’d say that the type of stuff you’re asking for is very much out there… and growing.