Either I have forgot or I took it as given but I having recently been wondering the Objectivist version of the soical contract theory. In other words, what gives rise to individuals delegating their right to self-defense to governments.
Thanks for any replies
Either I have forgot or I took it as given but I having recently been wondering the Objectivist version of the soical contract theory. In other words, what gives rise to individuals delegating their right to self-defense to governments.
My one word answer is a constitution. As part of a constitutionally limited republic.
Objectivism rejects social contract, as contracts are only intelligible as a voluntary act. Rather, Objectivist politics are cast as a subset of social ethics, which is itself a subset of personal ethics. In order to better one’s self, one must cooperate and produce by mutual agreement. Capitalism is the political system which facilitates mutual cooperation while protecting the freedom to disagree, dissent, and act for one’s own good independently.
Capitalism is the political system which …
So says the philosophy major. 
I think that concept might get lost on someone not already familiar with Objectivism, since capitalism is normally thought of as an economic system. Can you connect the two for us?
what gives rise to individuals delegating their right to self-defense to governments.
It is not man’s nature to survive by force, but it is a fact that use of force may be necessary for man’s survival (because some men will live contrary to man’s nature). The nature of government is to regulate the use of force, and that is possible only if all men delegate their right to use force in self defense and retaliation to a single agency, which will act according to objective principles (objectively stated and objectively justified) for the purpose of properly using force. This decision to delegate that right to the government allows civilization to exist, i.e. a context where man can maximally act qua man, and rational men choose to be mambers of civilized societies because of the benefits that accrue, for instance, you don’t have to spend most of your time fortifying your house against invasions, commerce is possible, indeed crops can rationally be planted because you know that your enemy will not burn or salt your fields, or come along and steal your harvest.
So says the philosophy major.
I think that concept might get lost on someone not already familiar with Objectivism, since capitalism is normally thought of as an economic system. Can you connect the two for us?
Not “So says the philosophy major,” but “Thus spoke the philosophy major.” B)
Capitalism is commonly referred to in economic circles as “the private ownership of the means of production,” or, in worse scenarios, “a means of resource distribution by trade and contract”. Even in reference to the economic system of capitalism, both are wrong–or at least, not what is meant in Objectivist jargon.
The economic system of capitalism, properly understood, is the ownership of any resources 1) discovered, 2) created, or 3) obtained by trade. From this basis, the system becomes increasingly complex with the addition of money, banks, stocks, and millions of other technical economic mechanisms that facilitate exchange.
The political system of capitalism is, simply, the protection of the human right to life, personal freedom, and mutual social interaction. In no coincidence, these are the freedoms necessary for the existence unadulterated economic capitalism, and the protection of these freedoms prevents or punishes non-capitalist behavior (that is to say, prevents or punishes the use of others’ property without consent).