Is tyranny intrinsic to governments?

Questions about Objectivism
21

. A national government does not necessarily constitute collectivism, particularly one which recognizes individual rights.

A man does not necessarily constitute a liar. Yet all men lie sooner or later, and keep lying more or less often for the rest of their lives in some respect or at some level. That’s why we take provisions against fraud.

A national government will not necessarily violate property rights. Yet all governments do. All governments have done it. I have no reason to believe that this will change, as I have no reason to believe that men will someday stop lieing. That’s why we take provisions against power-hungry governments.

One of the provisions that volco, me and many others propose,is to keep States small… Also in geographical/demographic sense.

22

A man does not necessarily constitute a liar. Yet all men lie sooner or later, and keep lying more or less often for the rest of their lives in some respect or at some level. That’s why we take provisions against fraud.

A national government will not necessarily violate property rights. Yet all governments do. All governments have done it. I have no reason to believe that this will change, as I have no reason to believe that men will someday stop lieing. That’s why we take provisions against power-hungry governments.

One of the provisions that volco, me and many others propose,is to keep States small… Also in geographical/demographic sense.

23

I agree with most of Volco’s views.

Maybe the most effective way to keep a State in check is by keeping small the number of people over whom it holds a monopoly of force.

Yes. That was originally called Federalism, not to be confused with the Federal Government (of either Mexico or the States)

The breakdown of current big nation-States into small city-States, like Hong Kong or Singapore, will be essential in the future, as long as large rogue hostile States are dismantled by bold action of the USA and its allies.

Once we live in a world without Irans and North Koreas, the USA should lead an international effort toward converting current nation-Sates into confederated collections of autonomous provinces, and then, further ahead, into polis or city-States.

Then the efficacy and commitment of each government to freedom will ensure competition and nationhood-shopping, as Volco suggests.

Despite your excellent defense on every other topic, I am in no way advocating the purposeful ruin of America and a World Invasion to promote Federalism. If I understood correctly (probably not what you meant).

This is in line with Ayn Rand’s appeal to patriotic loyalty as something that should be earned by the country in question.

Today, it makes little sense to most of human beings to ask themselves whether their country deserves their loyalty or love. It makes little sense because they have, most of the times, no way out. Either their country is too big ( Russia, China, USA) or too fused with other countries (European Union) or their target country too unwiling to accept immigrants, specially if they are poor ( USA towards Mexico, or France toward gipsies).

In a really free world, why 145 large cities would accept to be ruled by the same central government, knowing that, at any time, this government could go wrong, with dire consequences for the 145 of them?

If another Obama ever takes office in the future, he would apply his guardian-of-your-brother policies only over the polis of Chicago, not over >200 million people, from honolulu to Miami. Citizens from Chicago who dislike the policies could move to Saint Louis and swear loyalty to their new “homenation”

Even if another Hitler arises in the future, he would rule over Munich, not over Hamburg or Frankfurt.

Rather than considering the USA as a permanent Galt’s Gaulch, we should consider the formation and growth of the USA just as a positive STEP in a long-standing struggle of free men to remain free. It is a step that should be followed by other steps. We must keep a vision of our children or grandchildren coming out of the gaulch, victorious, marking the whole world with the sign of the dollar.

We should not settle with nothing less that the whole planet as our home.

The historical Fact is that Hamburg and Frankfurt, collectively speaking, never supported Hitler’s rise to power. Had Germany been a collection of nation states (the exact opposite of their quest for Nationhood) the Nazis would only have won in the brute semi-slavic peasant regions of the East and hinterland, not in the Big Cities.

You are assuming the US Military would turn on it’s own fellow citizens. I beg to differ.

We evolved from tribalism, to city-states, to nation-states. A return to the city-state as proposed here is regressive and unnecessary.

A City is not very characteristic of Tribalism. Plutocracy and Objectivism deserve a separate thread, but they share some similarities. Plutocracy only arises in City States, like Northern Italy back then, or the South China Sea in the 20c, or the Persian Gulf now.

I’m not advocating for New York to separate from the Union, but for more state and county autonomy in the existing nations, and for the population of the world to spread all around.

Now more than ever there are people from “Third World” countries displacing to “First World” ones, and vice-versa. Eventually there would only be “One World” but God help us, as many countries and autonomous or special territories as possible to chose from, each deciding how permeable their border should be. It is not Feudalism, it is distribution like the internet, applied to geography and politics. It is to set man free from his Greography.

I would like to add a call to prudence when reading Ayn Rand’s view of the USA and its position in world history and world affairs.

Rand’s world was a one of clearcut bipolarity. She lived in a world where the nazis, and then the Soviet Union, incarnated large, nation-States that were clearly antagonic to freedom and which had real chances to take over the world and impose their rule. In such a world, holding fast to the USA as a refuge and backing his government in almost all its international affairs was a matter of life or death.

I am not calling for an immediate and indiscriminate dissintegration of nation-States. That will prove catastrophic. i am just calling for a long term vision, co patible with Objectivist view of an earned loyalty that includes effective freedom for the average citizen to choose the State she wants to support by the simple, peaceful and very effective means of MOVING.

I thoroughly agree with what you said. Prudece and context when regarding America in relation to Objectivism; and advocating the trend of more both-ways migration as a way to force existing governments to behave and then compete.

The idea that nations should compete for loyalty is retarded, really. _ Loyalty to one’s country, if it has a legitimate, rights respecting government should be a given _. Some of you are living in a fantasy world, not the real one that I am living in.

The technical term for “fantasy world” is Argentina, Uruguay, Mexico, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, South Africa, there’s a thread dedicated to where Objectivists come from. I seem to remember that both Ayn Rand and her heir were born in frozen Socialist Tundras, and not even Yaron Brook is American by birth. Should this peculiarities be discarded as accident?

So what if one doesn’t live in a country that “has a legitimate, rights respecting govrnment”? What if one lives in a country that has a government that arrests citizens and throw them into jail for prescribing pain-killers to a dying man, like say, the United States of America?

So Loyalty to one’s country should be a given and countries competing for credibility is a retarded idea?

24

Hotu: Regarding Mexicans having a hard time getting into America, remember how Mexicans give a real hard time allowing Guatemalans getting or passing through Mexico, and furthermore be encouraged to think of Mexicans moving South. Mexicans are the elite in Belize for instance and I wouldn’t be surprised if they became so in other Central American countries. In Argentina for instance they are hired almost exclusively at Starbucks (which is oddly something very luxurious down here) because unlike Argies you have manners.

25

So companies like Haliburton and Lockheed Martin motivate the USA to go to war. So you are saying that in a dark room somewhere these companies prompted the USA to wage war when? WW2? Korea? Vietnam? Grenada? Was it in support of Kuwait during GW1? Afghanistan? Surely GW Bush was nothing more than a patsy when he committed Troops to Iraq.

I am saying that they benefit from war, that they suppourt war. War makes them money, so a long protracted war will make them more money. This isn’t hard to understand.

I just told you that I don’t know if they have the power to cause a war. I do think that many of those people will do what is in their power though to maintian and benefit from situations like Iraq.

26

From “Collectivized Rights”

I need to you to elaborate on why you posted this quote in relation to my post.

I know we aren’t establishing a free system in Iraq. If we wanted to establish a free system we wouldn’t be letthe make their own consitution.

So it sounds like you are saying that we are indeed looting them. I still think that the priamary relationship is between the tax payers in america and the people who get that money.

27

To me it is curious to see how some of you embrace the idea of a State reduced to its proper functions (police, tribunals, defense) but resist the idea of a State reduced to a small number of people that guarantees (or at least facilitates) free and straightfarward competition for loyalties and nationhood.

I would like to add a call to prudence when reading Ayn Rand’s view of the USA and its position in world history and world affairs.

Rand’s world was a one of clearcut bipolarity. She lived in a world where the nazis, and then the Soviet Union, incarnated large, nation-States that were clearly antagonic to freedom and which had real chances to take over the world and impose their rule. In such a world, holding fast to the USA as a refuge and backing his government in almost all its international affairs was a matter of life or death.

The advantages of political union over disunion are many and varied and go far beyond Cold War politics. They predate Ayn Rand by almost two centuries. The arguments can be found enumerated, elaborated and defended in The Federalist.

I don’t find it at all curious that non-Americans are unfamiliar with this series. Most Americans are unfamiliar with it.

28

I’m quite familiar with it, as well as the Anti-Federalist Papers. Which is why I feel strongly, as did Rand herself, that the United States and it’s republican system of governance is the best out there.

29

collectively speaking

Heresy! You said the “C” word! The stake for you! :lol:

So what if one doesn’t live in a country that “has a legitimate, rights respecting govrnment”?

Then one goes to one that does.

What if one lives in a country that has a government that arrests citizens and throw them into jail for prescribing pain-killers to a dying man, like say, the United States of America?

What are you on about here?

So Loyalty to one’s country should be a given and countries competing for credibility is a retarded idea?

Loyalty to one’s country of birth is not a vice. Especially when one is born in a country that has the greatest opportunity for individual liberty in the world. If a person wants to move elsewhere, more power to them. Don’t let the doorknob hit you in the crack on the way out.

30

A man does not necessarily constitute a liar. Yet all men lie sooner or later, and keep lying more or less often for the rest of their lives in some respect or at some level. That’s why we take provisions against fraud.

A national government will not necessarily violate property rights. Yet all governments do. All governments have done it. I have no reason to believe that this will change, as I have no reason to believe that men will someday stop lieing. That’s why we take provisions against power-hungry governments.

One of the provisions that volco, me and many others propose,is to keep States small… Also in geographical/demographic sense.

We have here in the United States a document, called the Constitution, which is a limitation on the powers of the federal government. We have three co-equal branches of government, which act as a check on each others powers. The ultimate check on tyranny lies with the people, whose duty (yes, I said it!) is to be ever vigilant as to the preservation of their Liberty.

31

The advantages of political union or disunion should be examined according to the changing reality of world affairs, as well as the grounds and purposes of why such union or disunion is being advocated.

For example, an extraordinary novelty of civilization these days is the rise of cities, specifically megacities.

Mankind was rural for most of its history. A critical mass of specialized producers, traders and teachers could not be found in smaller territories. Size conferred advantages. For example, more land to raise crops or cattle. And, very importantly, more tax payers, as population density was so low.

Cities nowadays comprise universes in themselves. More than 90% of all exchange of information and goods happens within the tiny areas of cities. Armies do not need large number of soldiers as much as high technology, which is created at the cities. All innovation comes from cities, and all risks (included terrorist attacks or natural disasters) are feared inasmuch as cities are involved. It should be no surprise that presidents or presidential candidates in most countries were first majors of their largest cities.

Nowadays, Houstonians cannot decide whether they should send or not their young citizens to fight in Irak. In the future, as I see it, they will be able to do so. But this entails a big cultural change which, by the way, is underway, but need to be put in perspective by Objectivists all over the world: the consideration of patriotism as a byproduct and not a driver of civic action.

Let me use a Gospel story here (gosh! An atheist resorting to a Bible tale!). Jesus was preaching in a house and he was told to stop and take care of his mother and brothers who were outside awaiting. He answered: “My mother and brothers? I’m gonna tell ya who my mother and brothers are. All of those who follow my doctrine are indeed my mother and my brothers.”

One day, when the last government at Washington asks you to assist your fellow American countymen, you will reply: “My American countrymen? I’m gonna tell ya who my American countrymen are: those who live rational lives, wherever they happen to live.”

1 Like
32

The United States military is an all volunteer force, so your analogy is invalid.

33

We have here in the United States a document, called the Constitution, which is a limitation on the powers of the federal government. .

No, it is not.

If it were, individualists living in San Francisco would not be so concerned about Obama’s health care reform, as it would be a problem for The citizens of, say, Chicago. Nowadays, if Obama has a spooky plan in mind, you get the creeps, whether you live in Honolulu or Anchorage.

Do not misunderstand me.

I believe the USA has the best federal system on earth.

But I also believe it is just not good enough. What worked well for 13 young, unexperienced, vulnerable, rural ex-colonies will not necesssarily work well for a constellation of wealthy, sophisticated, investment-hungry cities with a diversity of appetites.

I agree with you that the ultimate check for governments to avoid tyranny is people. But how? How people achieve that?

Let’s examine some methods

  1. Revolution. Mmmm… It has not worked. It is bloody and expensive. it is to be used as a last resort, when a full-fledged dictatorship is already at the corner, or already established.

  2. Voting in the ballots. Mmmmm… It has worked for short period of time, but made no difference in the long term. Democratic elections brought Hitler to power.

  3. Nationwide cultural change. It will take many decades. It had a chance with the Founding Fathers and the impetum did not last mlre than a century, and was never totally embraced. It had a chance with Ayn Rand, but her followers spent more time building a cult around her than helping her, despite herself, in reaching the average man and building alliances with libertarians, rothbardians and individualists outside the USA. Ayn was not fortunate enough or wise enough to find an intellectual companion of her stature, who could stare at her and criticize her bluntly and without remorse. Who knows, maybe she lost her chance to Murray Rothbard. It is my belief that a more tactful Rand and a less touchy Rothbard could have represented a tremendous intellectual force to accelerate change.

  4. Local cultural change + Migration. That is the method I propose. Evolve to city-States, win some of them over for laissez-faire capitalism, and let them overperform semi-free neighbouring cities.

1 Like
34

The United States military is an all volunteer force, so your analogy is invalid.

Thanks for the correcting my mistake.

My analogy is invalid.

The essence of my message is not…at least, it has not been invalidated.

Remember, I am not making a proposal for the USA, but for the world.

How a large nation-State evolves into City-States will be different in China than in the USA, but the principle is the same: the size of a State, in geographical terms, should be the size that allows its average citizens to move quickly in and out and change loyalties as befits their self-interest.

35

I have heard this argument before, that the principle of individual rights that The US was founded on and the constitution itself are quaint, old ideas that were more suited for the era of powdered wigs and snuff boxes. Usually, it is a progressive who utters such nonsense, shortly before they declare that the constitution is a “living, breathing document (translation: it means what we say it means).”

On the contrary, the principles outlined in the founding documents are as valid now as they were then. Fundamental principles do not become invalid over time.

Only fundamental principles, rationally validated, clearly understood and voluntarily accepted, can create a desirable kind of unity among men.

“Credibility and Polarization,” The Ayn Rand Letter, I, 1, 4.

36

No. Bur Government’s do seem to be intrinsic in Tyranny. Don’t look to deeply into it, it is what it is.

37

The ultimate check on tyranny lies with the people, whose duty (yes, I said it!) is to be ever vigilant as to the preservation of their Liberty.

The few excerpts from her essay “Causality Versus Duty” (Philosophy: Who Needs It, 95.; originally published in the “The Objectivist,” July, 1970) which are available in the Lexicon entry on “Duty” should be sufficient in showing why Miss Rand held that, "One of the most destructive anti-concepts in the history of moral philosophy is the term “duty.”

This is a forum for Objectivism; I think it’s important to point this out.

I am curious, why do you use the term with emphasis ("yes, I said it!)?

38

I am saying that they benefit from war, that they suppourt war. War makes them money, so a long protracted war will make them more money. This isn’t hard to understand.

I just told you that I don’t know if they have the power to cause a war. I do think that many of those people will do what is in their power though to maintian and benefit from situations like Iraq.

What you said was that these companies motivate the US to go to war. That is a long way from saying that they profit from it.

Do they profit from war? Of course they do. Do they have any say in the process that leads to war? No. Can they once there is a war do anything to actively prolong the war? No. If you have proof otherwise I’d like to see it. As a matter of fact the development of new weapons often shortens wars.

War is a horrible thing, necessary at times but horrible none the less. Does that mean that every company or person that ensures that our troops can fight our nations enemies as effectively as possible while making a profit is part of some super-national evil cabal of warmongering money grubbing sociopaths? Please… It sounds like you are crossing into the line of thought that claims profit on some things is just wrong.

39

The few excerpts from her essay “Causality Versus Duty” (Philosophy: Who Needs It, 95.; originally published in the “The Objectivist,” July, 1970) which are available in the Lexicon entry on “Duty” should be sufficient in showing why Miss Rand held that, "One of the most destructive anti-concepts in the history of moral philosophy is the term “duty.”

This is a forum for Objectivism; I think it’s important to point this out.

I am curious, why do you use the term with emphasis ("yes, I said it!)?

I happen to disagree with Rand on this. Coming from a military background, I find the concepts of duty and honor to be noble virtues, for which I make no apology. Hence the emphasis on “yes, I said it.” That was for the fundamentalist O’ists out there, of whom there are many.

I think for myself - which is what this entire exercise is about.

40

What you said was that these companies motivate the US to go to war. That is a long way from saying that they profit from it.

Do they profit from war? Of course they do. Do they have any say in the process that leads to war? No. Can they once there is a war do anything to actively prolong the war? No. If you have proof otherwise I’d like to see it. As a matter of fact the development of new weapons often shortens wars.

War is a horrible thing, necessary at times but horrible none the less. Does that mean that every company or person that ensures that our troops can fight our nations enemies as effectively as possible while making a profit is part of some super-national evil cabal of warmongering money grubbing sociopaths? Please… It sounds like you are crossing into the line of thought that claims profit on some things is just wrong.

Firstly, you are just re-wording the straw man that you are applying to me. This is the third time that I have explained that I don’t know if the military-industrial complex is a causal agent. Your straw man is extremely irritating. I never said that the profit motive was evil in any case , nor did I say anything about sociopaths. In fact I think the blame falls more squarely on the majority of people’s ethical systems. You are just reading stuff into my posts.

Secondly, They do have a say in the process that leads to war and they do have a say in whether or not a war continues. Anyone with enough money to make giant campaign contributions or who has factories in a politicians district has the ability to inflence votes. The military industrial complex is not at all special in this. You can find the ability of big business to influence the democratic process in any industry.