Making competing governments compatible with Objectivism

Political Philosophy
21

Government A: Come live here, we solve crimes 80% of the time, and we charge you USD $2 a day IF you want to receive our protection (if not, you can still live here and protect yourself). Our services do not include ambulance to the nearest hospital.

Government B: Come live here, we solve crimes 95% of the time, and we charge you USD $3 a day IF you want to receive our protection (if not, you can still live here and protect yourself). Our services do include ambulance to the nearest hospital.

First, the purpose of government is the protection of all individual rights, specifically without discrimination of any sort. That means that everyone within its borders (protection of citizens abroad is optional) must receive equal protection, not just those citizens who are paid up.

Second, ambulances are not government business, but let’s say that nation A has an air force and nation B doesn’t, in addition to the difference in conviction rates. However, this would be “competition” between different nations, each with one sovereign government and separate territories. Is this what you mean or are you talking about two or more governments competing in the same geographical area?

22

The only competition between governments should be to obtain the most ideal practice of Capitalism possible, which means the complete enshrinement and protection of individual rights translated into the economic and political (I use the terms to include the efficacy of the police, military, courts, how the system is paid for, the particulars of the laws). In this sense, yes governments should compete against each other to see who can have the best police, the best laws, the best military. These things are what a good or bad government is judged by. Any economic/cultural differences between countries’ citizens are nonessential, because government only deals with using force and protecting freedom. It does not exist for profit, or for the economic/cultural advancement of its citizens but only for political justice. There are no conflicts of interests between Capitalist governments.

Now that doesn’t mean that people can just arbitrarily start a government whenever wherever they want. In my mind it is an act of force to secede from a government, as you are saying their laws are invalid and no longer apply to you, while under their system, while establishing an armed system which forces your laws onto people (as that is a government). It is only justified if the “parent” government is using force against you (a la the American revolution). So if you are already in a Capitalist system, that doesn’t mean you and your neighbor can suddenly ignore the government and create your own state. You must either be sanctioned by the existing state or morally justified.

So, essentially, what I am saying is that governments can and should compete, but only in accordance with their nature. The rest is the voluntary exchanges between individuals.

23

It is, by the way, illogical to bring up historical/ethical analogies such as what the OP began with. The policies of shopping malls, lawyers, IE Private citizens with private property, have nothing to do with the nature or the decisions of the government. They are two whole different areas. Furthermore, as there has been no truly Capitalistic country, it is silly to bring up how the idea of “competing” governments has failed or succeeded historically. All of the past governments were in some way Statist, so no wonder there were problems. I think as long as you follow the method in the second paragraph, it is easy to determine when something should or should not be a state.

24

The only competition between governments should be to obtain the most ideal practice of Capitalism possible, which means the complete enshrinement and protection of individual rights translated into the economic and political (I use the terms to include the efficacy of the police, military, courts, how the system is paid for, the particulars of the laws). In this sense, yes governments should compete against each other to see who can have the best police, the best laws, the best military. These things are what a good or bad government is judged by. Any economic/cultural differences between countries’ citizens are nonessential, because government only deals with using force and protecting freedom. It does not exist for profit, or for the economic/cultural advancement of its citizens but only for political justice. There are no conflicts of interests between Capitalist governments.

Now that doesn’t mean that people can just arbitrarily start a government whenever wherever they want. In my mind it is an act of force to secede from a government, as you are saying their laws are invalid and no longer apply to you, while under their system, while establishing an armed system which forces your laws onto people (as that is a government). It is only justified if the “parent” government is using force against you (a la the American revolution). So if you are already in a Capitalist system, that doesn’t mean you and your neighbor can suddenly ignore the government and create your own state. You must either be sanctioned by the existing state or morally justified.

So, essentially, what I am saying is that governments can and should compete, but only in accordance with their nature. The rest is the voluntary exchanges between individuals.

Well, separatists movements generally do not happen by whim. There are generally a lot of reasons to take the time, resources and risk (includig the risk to lose your life) to get involved in a secesionist movement.

To begin with, since there are no perfectly free, capitalist and rational governments out there, you will frequently find moral reasons to separate.

You may be able demostrate that your province/region has been exploited, oppressed, ignored, looted, set aside in important decisions, etc. You may be able to demostrate that your province has a different history, culture, language, ethnic root, religion, mindset, etc. Your people at that province might look themselves as a different people with a different destiny.

If Quebecois people want to secede, isn’t that their right?

If Texan people want to secede, isn’t that their right?

Wasn’t the right of the 13 colonies to secede from the British Empire?

If your wife wants to leave you, will you lock the door to force her in? You may try to persuade her, go to therapy, etc. but in the end, you as a rational husband will not keep her where she doesn’t want to stay anymore.

As far as I understand, Objectivism demands to have a government (any one that is good enough to protect rights), not necessarily that specific national government (the Canadian one, the Irish one, the Swedish one, the American one)

25

…this would be “competition” between different nations, each with one sovereign government and separate territories. Is this what you mean.. ?

Yeah, this what I mean.

I am not talking about two governments competing within the same area (that would be plain anarcho-capitalism, and governments would not be governments anymore, but private police corporations). I am talking aobut two sovereign governments in separate territories, and people able to move from one territory to another looking for the government that better ensures their prosperity.

This is what happens now, but migration is still complex, risky, cumbersome.

If migration, though, were the easiest things to do, then people would move from country to country several times during their lifespan, have four or eight or twenty different citizenships during their lifespan, and governments would strive to become efficient enough to attract the best residents.

One of the ways to make migration the easiest things to do is to have small City States with almost total autonomy, coordinated amonng themselves with treaties or agreements (e.g. keeping joint forces like NATO, and joint police intelligence agencies like Interpol). So during your lifespan you could be Houstonian then Chicagoan then Torontian then Londonian etc… or maybe just stay Hong Kongian the rest of your life, it that is what fits your lifestyle better

This would be a wonderful symbol of freedom: to be free to choose your citizenship, your government, your nationality.

26

Israel only exists because the US is propping it up with tax dollars. In your EU scenario, we know from history what would happen - the Brits and Germans would fight, the French would immediately surrender. Remember the old boxing axiom that a good little man will always get beaten by a good big man. Individual small states, no matter how technologically advanced, will not have the resources to fight a large, well equipped and trained opponent, short of the nuclear option - and would still be outgunned in that respect as well.

The city-states of Greece came close to annihilation from the Persians, if not for the action of brave men at Thermopyle. In modern warfare, there may not be time for such a stop-gap measure while the Polis arms.

Ayn Rand love the US and what it stands for and I do not believe would have entertained the thought that it should be broken up into Balkanized communities, rationally based or not.

I am new to Objectivism, but I think you have misunderstood Israel and Ayn Rand views on Israel.

Rand was in favour, in principle, of the US supporting Israel. Why? Not because Israel was weak and dependant. But because it is strong, technologically advanced and independent.

It is not in the self-interest of anyone to have weak friends that suck your energies out. That is self-sacrifice and silly.

You support friends that are strong and independent; they are the ones that win your simpathy, and the ones that can, in turn, help you back.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2uHSv1asFvU

Ayn Rand love the US and what it stands for and I do not believe would have entertained the thought that it should be broken up into Balkanized communities, rationally based or not.

I think th USA will cease to exist as we know it, either if it is Objectivism or collectivism/mysticism which wins the hearts of the Americans. Look:

  1. If Objectivism wins (not meaning that everyone becomes Objectivist, but that Objectivist ideas and principles become the dominant influence) the USA will become a formidable power. A peaceful nation, yet bold enough to eliminate totatlitarian regimens (e.g. Islamic fundamentalist regimens). The USA will become so immensely rich and successful, that it will influence other countries, many of them, most of them, to follow suit. You can’t compete against a sucessful philosophy. If the USA citizens become far wealthier than French ones, I don’t see why the French, sooner or later, would not want to take the appropriate steps that their American counterparts took. All countries would eventually become free, capitalist and prosperous. Then, with free trade flourishing, and people moving in and out across the borders, in few decades there will be no important distinction between being in the USA or being in a foreign country. Depending on your particular business, you may find attractive to move to Thailand or Brazil or South Africa.And Thais, Brazilians and South Africans may feel attracted to move to USA. The ethnic composition and cultural composition of the USA will change in such a way that an “American lifestyle” (baseball, pizzas, Thanksgiving) would not be recognizable anymore. It would be a victory for human civilization, but the USA as such would fade away. Its historical mission, to say so, would have been fulfilled. The world would end up having a single government, as Megan has said.
  2. If Objectivism loses and Collectivism/mysticism wins, free rational Americans will either secede into a free City State (Seattle? New York?) or province (Texas?) or flee to another country (Netherlands? Dubai? Canada?) where they would set the foundations of a new rational free country which could coexist with big totalitarian states (i.e. by not posing a direct military threat to collectivist states). Americans would end up saluting another new flag, playing new sports, speaking with a different accent or adopting a new language from their new homeland.
27

Proper governments have nothing to compete with.

Government A: Come live here, we do not initiate force against our citizens!

Government B: No, come live here, we do not initiate force against our citizens even harder!

Enough said.

Government A: Come live here, we solve crimes 80% of the time, and we charge you USD $2 a day IF you want to receive our protection (if not, you can still live here and protect yourself). Our services do not include ambulance to the nearest hospital.

Government B: Come live here, we solve crimes 95% of the time, and we charge you USD $3 a day IF you want to receive our protection (if not, you can still live here and protect yourself). Our services do include ambulance to the nearest hospital.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_racket

If Quebecois people want to secede, isn’t that their right?

If Texan people want to secede, isn’t that their right?

Wasn’t the right of the 13 colonies to secede from the British Empire?

There are no collective rights. There is no such “right to secede” just because you want your ethnic tribe to be seperate from some other ethnic tribe. There are only rights not to have force initiated against you. If people want to secede, it solely depends on the context. What kind of government are they seceding from? What kind of government are they seceding into? Why are they seceding?

This would be a wonderful symbol of freedom: to be free to choose your citizenship, your government, your nationality.

We have that already in most civilized countries.

migration, though, were the easiest things to do, then people would move from country to country several times during their lifespan, have four or eight or twenty different citizenships during their lifespan

Why would I want to have to migrate twenty times in my life because my individual rights are subject to the whims of competing gangs? How about I just not have my rights violated?

28

There are no collective rights. There is no such “right to secede” just because you want your ethnic tribe to be seperate from some other ethnic tribe. There are only rights not to have force initiated against you. If people want to secede, it solely depends on the context. What kind of government are they seceding from? What kind of government are they seceding into? Why are they seceding?

You are right. There are no collective rights.

But free individuals have the right to cooperate, associate, to lay the foundations of a society they want to live in. In short, to pursuit happiness, and happiness cannot be pursuit in solitude.

So, talking about the context of a secession, as I said, having imperfect, partially collectivist and immoral governments everywhere, it is easy to think in a myriad reasons to secede.

Take my example.

I am Mexican and live in Mexico.

I happen to be in Nuevo Leon, the only region in Mexico that has a culture that historically has valued individualism and capitalism over collectivism and mysticism. Consequently, we are the wealthiest state in the country. Our wealth, though, is being systematically looted by the central government to subsidize poorer regions. Currently, 91% of taxes all across the country go directly to the central government, while the remaining 9% goes to the states and counties. The central government, plagued by statism and socialism (and now, Catholicism), is going down the drain. It is more corrupt than ever. The current president (who is supposed to be right wing) fights the entrepenurial men and raises taxes. It has started a war against drug traffickers that, of course, will never be won. This war has brought suffering to my people in Monterrey (Nuevo Leon’s capital), a city that was considered the safest one in Latin America only second to San Juan (Puerto Rico).

Nuevo Leon would be better off as an independent country than drawn to chaos by the rest of the country, infested by Christian and Communist ideology.

Other similar situations are present in Latin America. Zulia province wants to separate from Chavez’s socialist tyranny in Venezuela. Santa Cruz wants to secede from socialist Evo Morales Bolivia. And Southern Brazil wants to secede from collectivist federal government in Brazil.

Aren’t free enterpenurial men entitled to fight against collectivism/mysticism and defend their freedom and property?

If the USA really gets socialist, wouldn’t Texan free men have the right to associate and fight for their freedom (and bby fighting I don’t mean necessarily war, but diplomacy) , even if that entails seceding from the USA?

29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_racket

Why would I want to have to migrate twenty times in my life because my individual rights are subject to the whims of competing gangs? How about I just not have my rights violated?

You have not understood my point.

Please read my messages and examples carefully.

I am talking about real sovereign governments providing real services to citizens. Not extortion or “proetction rackets”. No competing gangs.

And yes, you would want to migrate as many times as necessary to get the best advantages for your personal development, meaning the best government services for the cheapest price.

30

You have not understood my point.

Please read my messages and examples carefully.

I am talking about real sovereign governments providing real services to citizens. Not extortion or “proetction rackets”. No competing gangs.

And yes, you would want to migrate as many times as necessary to get the best advantages for your personal development, meaning the best government services for the cheapest price.

No, you haven’t understood the point from the beginning. Governments don’t provide “services.” The nature of all that government does is coercive action. All government action is force. A government that forces you to pay money in exchange for “services” is running a protection racket and is no different than the mob or a gang. Your individual rights aren’t up for barter. It either ALL of the rights of ALL of the people within its border, on principle, which means the government looks like this; or it doesn’t, in which case you have competing gangs using force at the whim of whoever can get away with whatever, which looks like any statist sewer. No matter what legal fiction you can come up with about how the government is good because it “does things” for you, or that it’s definitely not extortion because “it’s sovereign,” or that its okay because “services” it makes you pay for are cheaper, or its “solutions” to various “problems” are better, is of no consequence.

So, talking about the context of a secession, as I said, having imperfect, partially collectivist and immoral governments everywhere, it is easy to think in a myriad reasons to secede.

That was a rhetorical question, by the way. I can think of a myriad of reasons not to secede. There is no “right to secede” as such, there are only individual rights.

Why didn’t you list the Confederate States of America? Was it right for that slave-state to secede?

Succession depends entirely on the context. A “right to secede” depends on dropping all of that context. So you can stop asking “is it right for X to secede from Y” because the answer is “it depends.”

31

No, you haven’t understood the point from the beginning. Governments don’t provide “services.” The nature of all that government does is coercive action. All government action is force. A government that forces you to pay money in exchange for “services” is running a protection racket and is no different than the mob or a gang. Your individual rights aren’t up for barter. It either ALL of the rights of ALL of the people within its border, on principle, which means the government looks like this; or it doesn’t, in which case you have competing gangs using force at the whim of whoever can get away with whatever, which looks like any statist sewer. No matter what legal fiction you can come up with about how the government is good because it “does things” for you, or that it’s definitely not extortion because “it’s sovereign,” or that its okay because “services” it makes you pay for are cheaper, or its “solutions” to various “problems” are better, is of no consequence.

Bear with me, please.

I don’t get it yet.

I don’t understand in which respect government legitimate use of force is not a “service” for which it is being paid. The use of force entails physical resources, supplies, salaries.

Has a policeman the obligation to use force to protect my rights even if he is not paid a salary, or if he is not given the tools or weapons to perform his job?

Why would a policeman do it?

And if the policeman is paid by a citizen to perform a specific job for that citizen (namely, use of retailatory force in an efficient and effective manner), aren’t we talking here about a “contract” to lend a “service”?

FROM THE CITIZEN END: I pay you a salary, so you must protect my rights using retailatory force.If you fail to do your job properly, I won’t pay you anymore (and maybe look for another place to live where I can be sure an effective police exists).

FROM THE POLICEMAN END: You pay me a salary, so I must protect your rights using retailatory force. If you don’t pay me a salary, I am sorry to say this, but I won’t be able to protect your rights. I have a family to feed. I have guns to buy. I have to put gas on my patrol’s tank. If you fail to pay me, I will move somewhere else where more sensible residents exist.

32

Bear with me, please.

I don’t get it yet.

I don’t understand in which respect government legitimate use of force is not a “service” for which it is being paid. The use of force entails physical resources, supplies, salaries.

Try to grasp the basic nature of government and why it exists.

When you say “service” you are thinking about it in terms of a product offered on a market. That is not the kind of action that a government performs. The government is not an economic agent of trade, it’s an institution that is charged with forcible restraint of men who initiate force.

“Remember that forcible restraint of men is the only service a government has to offer. Ask yourself what a competition in forcible restraint would have to mean.”

That is why Randroid’s comment is so succinct. There is no competition a proper government has to offer. It just protects rights, all rights of everyone within its borders. It doesn’t give you percentages, or send you a bill, or give you a menu, or offer you ambulances, or education, or healthcare, or ham sandwiches, or cracker jacks and lollipops. How could you think any of that is compatible with laissez-faire capitalism?

Has a policeman the obligation to use force to protect my rights even if he is not paid a salary, or if he is not given the tools or weapons to perform his job?

Why would a policeman do it?

It depends on what you mean by “obligation.” They have an obligation in the sense that a proper government would require them to by the terms of their contracts, and by the statutes and legal framework that they operate in. Just as a theoretical matter, in principle there is no obligation on anyone to provide you with the unearned, but as a practical matter, a government has to regard all uses of force not specifically sanctioned by its objective law as a threat and must act against it. (Leonard Peikoff answered that question here http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.p…mp;#entry224829 ) Harry Binswanger also pontificated on his essay about anarchism: “Private force is force not authorized by the government, not validated by its procedural safeguards, and not subject to its supervision. The government has to regard such private force as a threat—i.e., as a potential violation of individual rights. In barring such private force, the government is retaliating against that threat.”

FROM THE POLICEMAN END: You pay me a salary, so I must protect your rights using retailatory force. If you don’t pay me a salary, I am sorry to say this, but I won’t be able to protect your rights. I have a family to feed. I have guns to buy. I have to put gas on my patrol’s tank. If you fail to pay me, I will move somewhere else where more sensible residents exist

Again, this is a protection racket.

CITIZEN: Hello police? My husband’s been murdered.

“POLICEMAN:” What’s that? You didn’t pay us your dues? Well isn’t that a shame. I guess you’d better give the boss his money, or else something bad might happen to you, eh? Wouldn’t want that to happen would we? And don’t think of trying to move away, cause we don’t take too kindly to traitors.

33

In a very limited sense, the US and Canada are competing governments.

No, they are not, and if they truly were “competing” to get the best citizens (with the implication that the government has a vested interest in acquisition of talent the way a company does), the result would eventually be war. A proper government has NO vested interest in the nature/quality/number of the citizens it governs and NOTHING to do with other countries (whether competition or cooperation) aside from keeping them from invading.

34

It doesn’t give you percentages, or send you a bill, or give you a menu, or offer you ambulances, or education, or healthcare, or ham sandwiches, or cracker jacks and lollipops.

What about an e-mail with a report on their performance over the last year, comparing themselves with the police in other counties/states/countries?

I could summarize my view like this:

  1. Governments are not private agencies and do not offer services. That’s clear.
  2. Whatever the noble principles governments claim to endorse (say, freedom, reason and capitalism) governments are organizations made up by human beings that can perform better or worse than other similar organizations holding the same principles.
  3. By moving freely and easily from place to place, citizens could test different skills and levels of commitment and make a choice of the government under whose monopoly they want to live.
  4. Since governments are made by men and women who receive salaries and get indirect benefits from living around talented people, they are generally interested in keeping citizens within their borders: at least the best ones. I don’t see how policemen, officers, judges and attorneys would find life interesting seeing how their best dentists, the best schoolteachers of their children and their best entertainers cross the borders and leave. It has nothing to do with profitability, but with self-interest as parents, colleagues, customers and owners of properties (the value of their houses would drop)
  5. If people working in governments are interested in keeping talented neighbours within its borders, then a competition is in place, notwithstanding the non-private, non-profitable and monopolistic nature of the State. What makes competition existent is the possibility of citizens to choose their place of residence, and the interest of governments to keep its citizens from moving away.

Let’s remember we have competition in many realms of life, even those not related to profit.

For example, competition between religions (even if we put fraud and profit aside), amateur sport teams, rock groups and philosophies.

If two different groups of people are interested in keeping you as a fan or follower and you can choose between them, then we have a competition going on.

35

A proper government has NO vested interest in the nature/quality/number of the citizens it governs

Could you elaborate on this, Megan?

I can’t imagine any group of people without a vested interest in keeping its fans, followers, customers, clients, disciples or members and losing them to other group.

Let alone a government, which needs citizens to pay their checks (and provide them with weapons, uniforms, cutting-edge aircraft, marble courthouses and the like).

36

Since governments are made by men and women who receive salaries and get indirect benefits from living around talented people, they are generally interested in keeping citizens within their borders: at least the best ones. I don’t see how policemen, officers, judges and attorneys would find life interesting seeing how their best dentists, the best schoolteachers of their children and their best entertainers cross the borders and leave. It has nothing to do with profitability, but with self-interest as parents, colleagues, customers and owners of properties (the value of their houses would drop)

That is an interest that everyone has, not just people who work for the government. Therefore, it is not rational to pack up and move somewhere else if the police in your country sucks. You would just replace them with more competent officers.

Let’s remember we have competition in many realms of life, even those not related to profit.

For example, competition between religions (even if we put fraud and profit aside), amateur sport teams, rock groups and philosophies.

If two different groups of people are interested in keeping you as a fan or follower and you can choose between them, then we have a competition going on.

The difference is that neither religions nor sport teams have any legitimate claim on a monopoly in their area. They don’t want you to follow rival religions or sport teams, but there is nothing they could do about it. They can only decide that they don’t want to be your friend any more.

37

JMeganSnow pretty much said it. The government of a free nation has NO say in the free movement of people in or out of the country, aside from keeping rights-violators under control. It has no interest, no opinion, no strategy, no declarations, and can take no action regarding where people freely decide to live, and it doesn’t spread propaganda advertisements telling people how good it is to live there.

What’s with the concern for what other people do with their lives? If people rather want to live under the various brands of statism out there then that begs the question of how you formed this government in the first place, since that kind of presupposes you had a rational society already who has already adopted the ideas capitalism is based on. But really, if no one wants to live there, then you have no country anyway. If a few people want to live there, then you have a free country of a few people for as long as others leave them alone. If a lot of people decide to live there, then you’ll have a lot of people living there. I don’t see how this is a problem or why this suddenly requires variations of anarchism or nationalized ambulance services?

38

I can’t imagine any group of people without a vested interest in keeping its fans, followers, customers, clients, disciples or members and losing them to other group.

Because the government is not an entity that should act in it’s own interest beyond the extent to which that interest serves the people it governs. The purpose of the government is to govern the people who choose for it to exist, not to pick and choose the people it wants to govern. That is putting the cart before the horse so to speak.

39

Just to clarify your original premise, are you saying that you think Objectivism would be compatible with “competing” governments within the SAME jurisdiction, or governments of separate jurisdictions?

40

Just to clarify your original premise, are you saying that you think Objectivism would be compatible with “competing” governments within the SAME jurisdiction, or governments of separate jurisdictions?

We know that Objectivism is not compatible with competing governments within the same jurisdiction. That would be a contradiction of terms, governments would not be governments but gangs. Ayn Rand was clear in that respect.

I am talking about governments in separate jurisdictions, and how the fact of people moving from one jurisdiction to another, and the fact of governments being interested in people to stay (an aspect we are still debating ), create a natural competition between governments.

This competition nowadays is relatively scarce, although real.

But with jurisdictions becoming small enough, and with people increasingly able to move anywhere and work from home, this natural competition would be more and more evident.

And, in my opinion, it would be healthy, and compatible with Objectivism.