Galt’s Gulch, being hypothetically the most Objectivist society possible, didn’t have a government. There didn’t seem to be any need for one. Granted, it was newly-developed and only a small number of people lived there. Still, if nobody in the world ever did or ever would violate anybody else’s rights, the only government function needed would be a Supreme Court- to oversee private arbitrators.
Ayn Rand made clear that Galt’s Gulch was not an organized society, but more like a private club.
Galt’s Gulch comes to mind when I read this thread.
Galt’s Gulch, being hypothetically the most Objectivist society possible, didn’t have a government.
Sure it did.
Midas Mulligan, as owner of the place, was the legislator and chief executive and Judge Narraganset was the judiciary. They even had an air force that went to rescue Galt.
if nobody in the world ever did or ever would violate anybody else’s rights
What an arbitrary claim. What possible use could there be for it?
Sure it did.
Midas Mulligan, as owner of the place, was the legislator and chief executive and Judge Narraganset was the judiciary. They even had an air force that went to rescue Galt.
Point taken. Thanks for clearing that up.
What an arbitrary claim. What possible use could there be for it?
Don’t ask me, ask the person who started the thread. I merely outlined the hypothetical situation asked about in the original question so that I could answer that question.
In addition to the excellent points already made, I’d like to add the fact that Objectivism cannot repeal the Law of Identity. An important fact about the identity of human beings is that each one has a volitional consciousness and free will.
Even if he knows why it is not to his self-interest to initiate force, every individual is capable of evading that knowledge – and some men will. You need a government to deal with that if and when it happens, even if it happens very rarely.
Well said. This discussion seems like a new version of the perfect world discussion. If everybody would be nice to everybody, nobody would be mean to nobody and there would be peace. If there where no robbers there wouldn’t be any need for cops etc. There’s ethics, the way I as a person choose to lead my life and deal with others and there’s politics, the way society should be organized.
I can choose to live according to Objectivist principles. I can’t make others do the same without using force. To cooperate with others in numbers that go beyond that what I can manage using person to person communication, rules need to be made.
Concerning the poor helpless people. Seems to me people who cannot take care of the self should be taken care of by others. I’m talking here about Down-syndrome, orphans, people with a heavy physical handicap etc. In normal circonstances, i.e peacetime, no major epidemics and no famine, this number is very small. Even if we should decide to let government take care of the helpless, the financial burden would be very small and wouldn’t affect economy. Still I believe even the “helpless” have some value they can trade.
Concerning the poor helpless people. Seems to me people who cannot take care of the self should be taken care of by others. I’m talking here about Down-syndrome, orphans, people with a heavy physical handicap etc. In normal circonstances, i.e peacetime, no major epidemics and no famine, this number is very small. Even if we should decide to let government take care of the helpless, the financial burden would be very small and wouldn’t affect economy. Still I believe even the “helpless” have some value they can trade.
I’m all for private charity to help the helpless, but I am also a strong believer in insurance. People can and should purchase health and disability insurance to provide for their care if they should need it. In addition, parents should be able to purchase “birth insurance” to cover the costs of lifetime care in the unlikely case that their child is born retarded or with other serious birth defects.
What an arbitrary claim. What possible use could there be for it?
Artificial intelligence. An area that I am very interested in, despite the bad name. I was wondering if robots programmed with Objectivist principles would need governing.
Evolution. Evolution “weeds out” those species too weak to survive. Since Objectivism equips man with the necessary philosophy for survival, who is to say (at some time in the future) people who adhere to Objectivism will not be the only ones to survive?
Most everyone agrees that history teaches us valuable lessons to use in the present. So does the future, if one can predict it properly.
(The evolution discussion has been split into a separate thread.. SoftwareNerd)
Programing a robot to think for itself is a contradiction in terms, just as programing a human to think for itself is a contradiction in terms.
Are we not minimally “programmed” before birth? To say that we are not, is to say that we have no ability to learn or think.
By Objectivist principles, I mean the very basics of Reality and Reason.
Please don’t start sentences this way. We don’t care about what most people agree on; if we did, we wouldn’t be Objectivists, we’d be Subjectivists.
You’re right. Sorry about that.