The majority of the world is religious. What does that say about how rationally dominated humanity is?
Aren’t you asking about how things would work in the type of society Ayn Rand promoted? (Specifically in your VoS reading?)
Of course irrationality will exist. Do you think this dog torturer situation IS a likely scenario (even now)? And I don’t think anyone here is arguing that the current state of affairs is dominated by rationality.
Remember in your reading?
3. The Ethics of Emergencies
How Does One Lead a Rational Life in an irrational Society?
Man’s Rights
The Nature of Government
I’m not sure what you’re really asking. In the book she takes on these types of questions very directly. Is there something specific in her answers that you disagree with, and can articulate here?
Or maybe you’re operating on what she called (in the book) the altruist ethics based on a “malevolent universe” metaphysics?
The term “minarchism” isn’t a good term. It’s not an essential and implies anarchy. A proper government is one that respects individuals rights. A rights respecting government or capitalist government works better.
I’ll have second Determinist and ask how you arrived at this conclusion. Is it simply because both terms end with “archism”? Or this there some crucial reason for “minarchism” not being a good term?
“Minarchism” implies a political spectrum in which statism is on one end, anarchy is on the other, with minarchism being on the extreme right, just one step away from anarchy. The logically consistent libertarian view is anarchism. Obviously, Objectivists view libertarianism and anarchy as a form of statism, so they deny this whole “just one step away from anarchy” spectrum and instead view it as collectivism/statism on one side and individualism/capitalism on the other (capitalism by definition requiring a limited government.) Thus, generally speaking, Objectivists do not call themselves “minarchists.”
To paraphrase Sam Harris: Every cell in your body with a nucleus, given the right manipulation, is a potential human being.
I don’t see a likely scenario where every viable cell in my body will become a human being. But if they did, they would need willing host mothers, and they would not have rights until they were able to survive outside of the mothers body.
Ignoring the situation or attempting to verbally persuade a sadist/sociopath seems at least equally doubtful.
All rational means of persuasion should be thoroughly exhausted. Freeing the dog will not keep him from getting another dog.
The majority of the world is religious. What does that say about how rationally dominated humanity is?
Do you believe religious people will abandon god and turn to torturing dogs? B)
“Minarchism” implies a political spectrum in which statism is on one end, anarchy is on the other, with minarchism being on the extreme right, just one step away from anarchy. The logically consistent libertarian view is anarchism. Obviously, Objectivists view libertarianism and anarchy as a form of statism, so they deny this whole “just one step away from anarchy” spectrum and instead view it as collectivism/statism on one side and individualism/capitalism on the other (capitalism by definition requiring a limited government.) Thus, generally speaking, Objectivists do not call themselves “minarchists.”
It doesn’t seem to me that the structure of the word itself implies this. Just looking at the word, I would glean that the person so described supported (what they believe to be) the minimal state. It is true that the common perception of minarchism is that it is adopted by those who think of themselves as less extreme than anarchists. However, that’s not an argument against Objectivists using the word to describe themselves, any more than the fact that the word “selfish” is commonly understood to be someone who sacrifices others is an argument against Objectivists describing their morality as selfish. Rand chose selfish not because of its common connotations, but rather to take the word back from such connotations, because the structure of the word itself portrayed exactly what she intended: someone fundamentally oriented towards themselves. It seems to me that the word “minarchism” is in a similar state; commonly understood as a libertarian holding out against the logic of anarchy, but in actual structure simply conveys the idea that the state should be kept only to its proper minimal duties.
It doesn’t seem to me that the structure of the word itself implies this. Just looking at the word, I would glean that the person so described supported (what they believe to be) the minimal state. It is true that the common perception of minarchism is that it is adopted by those who think of themselves as less extreme than anarchists. However, that’s not an argument against Objectivists using the word to describe themselves, any more than the fact that the word “selfish” is commonly understood to be someone who sacrifices others is an argument against Objectivists describing their morality as selfish. Rand chose selfish not because of its common connotations, but rather to take the word back from such connotations, because the structure of the word itself portrayed exactly what she intended: someone fundamentally oriented towards themselves. It seems to me that the word “minarchism” is in a similar state; commonly understood as a libertarian holding out against the logic of anarchy, but in actual structure simply conveys the idea that the state should be kept only to its proper minimal duties.
Yeah, that’s exactly the reason why it does not adequately describe Objectivism’s political branch. It isn’t about the consensus of the term, but what the term means and term “minimal statism” is an incorrect view of a legitimate government. This does not get rid of the problem presented by the libertarian spectrum of statism-anarchism. Objectivism is not “one step away” from anarchism, niether are they “holding out” against anarchism, or its “logic.” They are poles apart and simply incompatible. Just look at the OP in the thread, which was based on finding out where the limit was, or where he could seek out and discover the boundary line instead of asking more fundamental questions like “do animals have rights” and “what is the moral qualification for legitimate government action.” In other words, it plays into a “quantitative view” of government versus a morality-based view of what is proper and what is not. Objectivism is not worried about “minimal duties,” but with objectivity. Otherwise, if your goal is only the minimal duties necessary, then the obvious response is zero government, because that’s as minimal as you can get, and that is why the more consistent version of libertarianism according to its own tenets is anarchy. Minarchism a confused, contradictory concept that belongs to libertarians, not Objectivists.
Human infants, criminals, and the mentally retarded have the possibility of developing rational faculties.
So do embryos and yet embryos have no rights.
Indeed, a healthy embryo in a healthy mother has more chances to develop rational faculties that many adults with severe irreversible brain damage.
Torturing a dog for fun is immoral because it is irrational. It has nothing to do with anyrights of the victim, but with the effects on the agressor.
It is irrational because it adds no value to my long term survival and flourishing, while destroys a potential or actual source of value.
Furthermore, torturing a pet for fun affects my ability to respect humans, making me, eventually, to be perceived as a threat to people and be treated accordingly. People hate to see animals tortured because it goes against our nature. Going against my nature is a source of inner conflict and dissatisfaction and eventually will affect other aspects of my life. In short, torturing animals goes against my own interest.
Having said that, it should not be illegal to torture a dog. As JMeganSnow clearly stated, immoral does not equal illegal. Ayn Rand suggests economic boycott and social ostracism as powerful weapons to combat evil that do not need retailatory force excercised by a government.
“Minarchism” implies a political spectrum in which statism is on one end, anarchy is on the other, with minarchism being on the extreme right, just one step away from anarchy. The logically consistent libertarian view is anarchism. Obviously, Objectivists view libertarianism and anarchy as a form of statism, so they deny this whole “just one step away from anarchy” spectrum and instead view it as collectivism/statism on one side and individualism/capitalism on the other (capitalism by definition requiring a limited government.) Thus, generally speaking, Objectivists do not call themselves “minarchists.”
If that is the case, then perhaps this page should be updated?
The Objectivist philosophy of Ayn Rand is notable for its support of minarchism, believing that non-voluntary taxes that fund government actions are essentially theft. Objectivists argue that a form of the night watchman state is the only ethical as well as truly practical way of organizing the state.
If that is the case, then perhaps this page should be updated?
Yes, but what would be the point? As soon as you correct Wikipedia, some idiot undoes the change and maybe makes it even worse. Nobody in their right mind take Wikipedia seriously as a source of information about philosophy or politics, so it’s not worth the effort.
B)