Objectivism And Wise Government

Political Philosophy
1

Ok, as a First Time Poster, Ayn Rand-Fan and student of philosophy and economics, I have a question I want to pose that has been bothering me for sometime. Its one of those big, meaning of life style doosies, and I wanted to get some opinions on it. I don’t claim to know everything, but this is what I have worked out so far.

Ok, lets begin with the premise. The only way a government functions through the use of force. Laws, Taxes, Police, Military, Tariffs, all more or less legitimate tools of government are force. I believe that Ayn Rand made this point herself. I don’t believe that any overly compansionate or irrational government can stand the test of time.

Now, here is non-Randian part of my argument, which I believe that I can support. Actions to not take place in vacuum, and must have an object to act upon. But not all actions have just one object of action. Probably the best example here is pollution. Joe’s Factory Poison’s Bob’s Farm, or in a less cliched example Bob’s Farm (through pesticides and fertizilers) posions the water supply of a center of population. Although the product of the action (food, cars, whatever) maybe desirable, the affects of the action harm the neighbors of the actor through no ill-will, malice, or even sanctiion on the part of actor. Can something be done about these negative externalities?

Wheras blowing up, or buying out the offensive actor maybe a wise individual action, but it may be immoral or impossbile. How is offensive actor’s wants taken into consideration, and how can the actor’s actions mediated so the other individuals are not harmed? Clearly some action must be taken. The Wise Action would be to insure individual’s rights are protected without undo harm to either side. When somebody’s actions are limited force is being used against them. So would the solution to this problem be the action of a Wise User of Force?

So can Government (“good” government) be defined as the wise use of force? I believe this argument can be extended to law and foreign policy, the main arenas of traditional government. Wise Force can be used to protect the citizenery from their threats both public and private, and it would be in the best interests of the citizenary to yield to that Force?

The main argument I can see is that Absolute Power (and governments do wield considerable power, both offically and unoffically) REVEALS Corruption (instead of breeds it) absolutely. Is the failing of government that there is too small an available supply of Wise Actors and “Force Users” to staff such an apparatus? Can no government be practically wise because of this, and just succum to second-handers and despots? No crucible of virtue exists for the use of governmental power (if you consider the trickery and falsehoods used in elections) can any moral government really exist?

I know most talks of power, force, and government will bring up the Nazis of Germany, but they are an example of this failing, they were EXTREMELY immoral and unwise uses of governmental force, therefore directly causing the destruction of their country.

The only available solution I see the training of governors in the use of force as prerequite for their appointments to power. The most redeally available example of this would be Heinlein’s Starship Troopers, a timocracy only run by soliders, by definition trained in the use of force. Would this be the only government recificable with Rand’s Private Ethics? Government could then be described as “The Business of the People,” (I see the socialist overtones but bear with me) creating the “product” of the state, maximizing the net gain of the society. And it would then be accountable for its actions, and able to use objectivity and reason, by realizing what its actions really are, not any touchy-feely we are all in this together, but knowing force and using it wisely.

I am guessing that most people here are in favor of minimum government but I would like your opinions on my observations.

Thanks

2

Ok, lets begin with the premise. The only way a government functions through the use of force. Laws, Taxes, Police, Military, Tariffs, all more or less legitimate tools of government are force. I believe that Ayn Rand made this point herself. I don’t believe that any overly compansionate or irrational government can stand the test of time.

Rand did not regard coercive taxation and tariffs as legitimate uses of force. They are initiations of physical force; the proper government is restricted to the use of retaliatory force–it is the individual’s agent of self-defense.

Now, here is non-Randian part of my argument, which I believe that I can support. Actions to not take place in vacuum, and must have an object to act upon. But not all actions have just one object of action. Probably the best example here is pollution. Joe’s Factory Poison’s Bob’s Farm, or in a less cliched example Bob’s Farm (through pesticides and fertizilers) posions the water supply of a center of population. Although the product of the action (food, cars, whatever) maybe desirable, the affects of the action harm the neighbors of the actor through no ill-will, malice, or even sanctiion on the part of actor. Can something be done about these negative externalities?

Of course. If one individual can legitimately prove that he and/or his property were harmed by the actions of another person, he has reason to file a civil suit.

So can Government (“good” government) be defined as the wise use of force? I believe this argument can be extended to law and foreign policy, the main arenas of traditional government. Wise Force can be used to protect the citizenery from their threats both public and private, and it would be in the best interests of the citizenary to yield to that Force?

Only if “wise,” in this context, is synonomous with “retaliatory.”

The main argument I can see is that Absolute Power (and governments do wield considerable power, both offically and unoffically) REVEALS Corruption (instead of breeds it) absolutely…No crucible of virtue exists for the use of governmental power (if you consider the trickery and falsehoods used in elections) can any moral government really exist?

The first half of this paragraph is the reason it is so crucial that a government’s use of force be constitutionally restricted to retaliation. A completely moral government can exist, although it hasn’t yet.

I know most talks of power, force, and government will bring up the Nazis of Germany, but they are an example of this failing, they were EXTREMELY immoral and unwise uses of governmental force, therefore directly causing the destruction of their country.

They were one example of what happens when a government has legal sanction to the unlimited use of force. Their evils are not a result of force itself, but a result of initiating force, which is itself a result of rejecting reason as the only means of gaining knowledge. For a full discussion of the philosophical base of Nazi Germany (and it’s comparison to present day America), I will refer you to Leonard Peikoff’s fantastic book, The Ominous Parallels.

The only available solution I see the training of governors in the use of force as prerequite for their appointments to power.

The only available solution I see is a strong constitution, which restricts the government from initiating force for any reason whatsoever.

Edit: I recommend Ayn Rand’s book Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal first and foremost for a discussion of the specific issues you raised. Reading that book will no doubt, raise many other questions for you, most of which can probably be answered by reading Andrew Bernstein’s brilliant new book, The Capitalist Manifesto. Both are readily available at both the Ayn Rand bookstore and Amazon.com

3

I am guessing that most people here are in favor of minimum government but […]

Dondigitalia’s analysis is clear, concise, and comprehensive. I would like to add a point about your last comment, above.

If “minimum government” means a government limited to its proper function, as a monopoly on the normal use of retaliatory force for the purpose of justice, then, yes, I support “minimum government.” However, that phrase is sometimes designed to indicate the size of a government rather than its function. My position is that the size of a government is a nonessential characteristic of a proper government. This means that a proper government should be as big as it needs to be to nullify foreign and domestic threats.

For example, if a wave of immigrants from an uncivilized country includes some criminals, then a proper government may need to expand temporarily: More police, more courts, and more prisons (or administrators of bonding-out and restitution activities). Likewise, in time of war, a proper government may grow enormously to meet a great threat.

In summary, my point is that the term “minimum” (or, usually, “minimal”) government can be misleading because it implies that there is some sort of continuum in propriety. There isn’t. In principle, a proper government that is small does the same things done by a proper government that is large. Ayn Rand’s usual phrasing, “a proper government,” is better than “minimum government” because “proper government” points to the principles behind a government.

4

Dondigitalia’s analysis is clear, concise, and comprehensive.

Coming from someone whose own analyses consistently excel in all three of the above areas, that’s quite a compliment. :slight_smile: