Objectivist society is not an end in itself. The end is prosperity and happiness which could be only achieved in the society of rational people. Ayn Rand observed once that there is no conflict of interests between rational people. Imagine the whole world as such a society-which in fact should be a proper goal of Objectivist movement. A society in which people live in accordance with Objectivts values and virtues. The violent crime will disappear altogether, together with mental illnesses which cause aggression. A very rare cases of dishonest conduct could be easily corrected by means of social and economical ostracism. The cases of honest disagreement would be resolved by the voluntary process of dispute resolution. The question is: What such a society will need a government for?
There will never be any large scale society composed 100% of Objectivists. No matter how dominant a philosophy might become, it will never reach everyone. To the extent that more of the world and your country embraces Objectivism, the size of government needed to protect rights would be reduced, but it would never go away. There will always be criminals. Even in a society akin to Galt’s Gulch, you would need a government to arbitrate disputes caused by one or more honest parties making mistakes in judgment.
Also, philosophy can’t cure mental illness.
There will never be any large scale society composed 100% of Objectivists… There will always be criminals.
Well. this is an arbitrary assertion. With time when the psycho-epistemology will become an applied science , any irrational behavior would detected and corrected in the early stages of mental development of the child.
Also, philosophy can’t cure mental illness.
But very advanced medical science could. As for the honest disagreement-voluntary dispute resolution process is more then sufficient. You don’t need to use retaliation for that.
Yeah I think in 500 years we will all be robots that linked their brains together. There won’t be any government because we will all be part of one cybernetic collective.
… we will all be part of one cybernetic collective.
Oh… you mean like Democrats. 
But very advanced medical science could. As for the honest disagreement-voluntary dispute resolution process is more then sufficient. You don’t need to use retaliation for that.
And how will advanced medical science prevent a person from choosing to do evil?
And how will advanced medical science prevent a person from choosing to do evil?
Not medical science but proper education based on applied psycho-epistemology. That is true, man has free will and always can choose to be irrational. However, in the well developed Objectivist society that would very rare case and I don’t think that it will need the whole government in order to take care on these exceptional cases. There are other means to deal with evil-for example social and economical ostracism.
The truth is that even in very advanced Objectivist society people would need government. The problem with my question is that people usually view government as a coercive mechanism. But this is not an Objectivist position. Ayn Rand gave a descriptive characterization of government as " a monopoly on the legal use of physical force. ". However we know that this is not a case-everybody can legally use physical force for self-defense. People legally own guns for this very purpose. The only function of government is to make sure that people don’t abuse this force, don’t initiate its use or overuse it. In Ayn Rand words " A government is the means of placing the retaliatory use of physical force under objective control—i.e., under objectively defined laws." ( VOS 109, emphasis is mine). Therefore the proper government action is a legislation, that is-creation of the objective rules of conduct. That what Objectivist society will need government for.
Not medical science but proper education based on applied psycho-epistemology.
…and how do you educate someone out of freely choosing to do what they already know is evil?
Imagine the whole world as such a society-which in fact should be a proper goal of Objectivist movement. A society in which people live in accordance with Objectivts values and virtues.
No, it shouldn’t be, and it would be pointless to try to imagine it because it can’t happen. All you have to do to realize it is to look at reality instead of imagining things that have no connection to it.
The violent crime will disappear altogether, together with mental illnesses which cause aggression. A very rare cases of dishonest conduct could be easily corrected by means of social and economical ostracism. The cases of honest disagreement would be resolved by the voluntary process of dispute resolution. The question is: What such a society will need a government for?
The answer is nothing. It also won’t need Oxygen, or space, or food. Or anything else, because such a society is an impossibility outside your head. It’s an arbitrary construct you just made up without drawing from reality in any way. And you’re defending it, through this thread, without any reference to reality. All your “arguments” are references to either a blatantly out of context Rand quotes or, even worse, imaginary science that doesn’t actually exist (like advanced medical science that cures mental illness, and advanced psycho-epistemological education that makes all people rational). Not an actual fact of reality or proven scientific observation to be had.
You might as well start a thread about how Heaven and the Garden of Eden should be governed, next.
P.S. That’s not what Ayn Rand does, when she proposes a LFC government. A LFC government is a tangible idea, that could be implemented at any time if actual, living people wanted it. It doesn’t take any miraculous curing of the mentally ill, or a magic wand that turns everyone rational, or a science fiction premise about a society without conflict. All it takes is a government that rejects the initiation of force on principle, and a group of people who support it on principle. It’s something that came very close to happening before, and can happen again.
Government must always, even now when Statism is celebrated and glorified, be seen as a practical means to an end, never
an "end in itself’ as Leonid rightly says.
The hall mark of an advanced civilization will be how much the government is under-utilized - to the point of redundancy.
But no government? This supposes a fully rational citizenry - all the time: ie, perfect men.
The most rational of men must make errors of innocence (as they’re not omniscient) and occasionally perhaps, errors of evasion.
The over-riding distinction that sets them apart is the taking of responsibility for each error, and their constant self-
correcting and self-directing. If perfection were possible, volitional choice would become automatic, if not superfluous, and
morality would die out. Then mankind would also fade away, I think.
Among a small group of men and women who are highly rational most of the time - ones who have a common purpose for a
limited period, as with the Gulch - rational egoism supersedes individual rights, which are not required to be protected, therefore no governance is required.
In a full society, with its uncountable and complex inter-actions, a minimal government will always be necessary.
…and how do you educate someone out of freely choosing to do what they already know is evil?
You mean psychopaths who do evil for evil sake? You don’t educate them, but lock them in asylum. This is a job for psychiatrists, not for government.
Nicky, you basically say that full Objectivist society is an Utopia. This is sad.
Hi, Tony
I didn’t say that we don’t need a government. I asked-what we need government for? And my answer is: for legislation of objective laws. My point is that such a government will be needed even in the most advanced Utopian Objectivist society. See post #8.
Nicky, you basically say that full Objectivist society is an Utopia. This is sad.
Why would a fact of reality be sad?
It’s not happy or sad, it’s just the truth. Ayn Rand was the first to say it. She was asked about it many times, always pointed out that Objectivism advocates for Laissez-faire Capitalism (a political system in which everyone is free to believe what they want, and in which people will, as always, undoubtedly have diverse opinions and philosophies), not an Objectivist society comprised of only Objectivists.
Not only has she never claimed that this ideal, LFC society would have to be all Objectivists, she never even claimed that it would have to be majority Objectivist.
The truth is that even in very advanced Objectivist society people would need government. The problem with my question is that people usually view government as a coercive mechanism. But this is not an Objectivist position. Ayn Rand gave a descriptive characterization of government as " a monopoly on the legal use of physical force. ". However we know that this is not a case-everybody can legally use physical force for self-defense. People legally own guns for this very purpose. The only function of government is to make sure that people don’t abuse this force, don’t initiate its use or overuse it. In Ayn Rand words " A government is the means of placing the retaliatory use of physical force under objective control—i.e., under objectively defined laws." ( VOS 109, emphasis is mine). Therefore the proper government action is a legislation, that is-creation of the objective rules of conduct. That what Objectivist society will need government for.
The truth is that even in very advanced Objectivist society people would need government. The problem with my question is that people usually view government as a coercive mechanism. But this is not an Objectivist position. Ayn Rand gave a descriptive characterization of government as " a monopoly on the legal use of physical force. ". However we know that this is not a case-everybody can legally use physical force for self-defense. People legally own guns for this very purpose. The only function of government is to make sure that people don’t abuse this force, don’t initiate its use or overuse it. In Ayn Rand words " A government is the means of placing the retaliatory use of physical force under objective control—i.e., under objectively defined laws." ( VOS 109, emphasis is mine). Therefore the proper government action is a legislation, that is-creation of the objective rules of conduct. That what Objectivist society will need government for.
Ah, okay - I see this now Leon: you pretty much asked and answered, I think.
Two important points you make - the key difference between defensive force and retaliatory force.
Also, objective law: as in, consistent, predictable and inevitable punishment to fit the crime.
You do that, you get this - always, with little leeway for subjective circumstances.
Our views of governance, dependent largely on what we have known, would need a radical shift.
Some imagination too, probably…
If I may, I believe I have a rapprochement of both sides. First, it is important to pay attention to the fact that Leonid never claimed an objectivist society wouldn’t need a government, he just asked what its role would be. To this he answered, to make objective laws. But this doesn’t follow. Why is objective law something only the government can create, do men gain some kind of special abiliy to be objective only when they join a government? This is a non sequitur that has to be addressed by the person making the claim.
But to the main point, Leonid seems to be asking what the role of government would be in a totally objectivist society, and Nicky seems to be interpreting him as saying that a laissez-fare system could only work in a totally objectivist society. He didn’t really say that, but nonetheless Nicky then claims that one does not need to have such a narrow cultural value set in order for a laissez-faire system to work.
Whist I agree with that statement strictly speaking, I do also think there is a certain interpretation of Rand, one popular among objectivists, which seems to claim that in order for a free society to come about and sustain itself, the populace has to hold a very strict value set, even down to minute aesthetic preferences (such as Rachmaninoff over Beethoven.) One of Rand’s main criticisms of the libertarian movement was precisely that libertarians focus on certain political results without incorporating them into a broader philosophical context.
So I think this is a perfectly valid thing to consider, whether a successful free society requires widespread acceptance of certain cultural values. This is a question that has long divided libertarians from objectivists. On one side, a lot of libertarians submit that no specific values have to be accepted, as long as the non-aggression principle is accepted, then any cultural value set can support a free society (Nazism even, according to some libertarians, as long as they are non-aggressive Nazis.) While most objectivists, on the other hand, seem to believe that you have to have widespread aggreement on a very specific set of cultural values (“rational” this and “rational” that, movies that promote a heroic sense of life, schools that teach proper psycho-epistemology, or Leonid’s suggestion of the eradication of mental illness.)
This very question came up not too long ago on the Cato Unbound symposium on Rand, and I think the thesis defended by philosophers Roderick Long and Charles Johnson of “generic universalism and specific pluralism,” and “thickness” and “thinness” represents a great middle ground between the two views that avoids both pitfalls.
there is a certain interpretation of Rand, one popular among objectivists, which seems to claim that in order for a free society to come about and sustain itself, the populace has to hold a very strict value set, even down to minute aesthetic preferences (such as Rachmaninoff over Beethoven.)
I know of no Objectivist who thinks that. I sincerely doubt that you can produce a single quote or link that would suggest that. That claim is outrageous.
One of Rand’s main criticisms of the libertarian movement was precisely that libertarians focus on certain political results without incorporating them into a broader philosophical context.
No, one of Rand’s main criticisms of the Libertarian movement was that they have the wrong or no philosophy, and that their politics consists of out of context ideas plagiarized from Objectivism without understanding their meaning, and misused as axioms to promote horrific goals like anarchy and “anarcho-capitalism”.
That’s not the same as understanding and advocating for the political system Objectivism advocates for (Laissez-faire Capitalism) without agreeing with Objectivist Aesthetics. Had the Libertarian movement ever stood for Laissez-faire Capitalism (with all the essentials that entails: property rights, reproductive rights, secularism, justice, strong government - including strong police and military, full freedom of contract and association), instead of going off on every crazy tangent from all out religious fanticism and conspiracy theories, to isolationism and cultural relativism, to anarchy and anti-corporate propaganda, she would’ve had nothing but support for their political activities.
Nicky, you basically say that full Objectivist society is an Utopia. This is sad.
A full Objectivist society is a Utopia, but it isn’t sad…
…because each of us can set the moral tone within their own personal sphere of direct influence just as John Galt set the moral tone in Galt’s Gulch.
I regard the world in which I live and for which I am personally responsible as being everything and everyone with whom I come into actual direct contact. Everything else belongs to the worlds of others for which they are personally responsible. This is because I have absolutely no control or responsibility for the actions of those who are outside my direct personal sphere of influence. So instead of being fixated on some impossible imaginary global Utopia, I focus on that over which I do have control, and for which I do have responsibility.
So it is indeed possible to create a moral Utopia in the world in which you are living right now… simply by beginning with yourself and your own behavior.
Excellently said, moralist. Of course you do distinguish between an abstract Utopia - and a “vision”, as was Rand’s,
of how men should and can live together. In the latter sense, it seems you extol a personal, individualist “utopia” which is well
within one’s reach, and so, rational, and worthy.
In the accepted sense of the word, I believe Utopia to be ‘top-down’, rationalistic, collectivist and necessarily coerced.
It presupposes that an ideal system - as such - can make man moral. But each has to make his or her own commitment
to reality and reason, which is why I think it is an O’ist anti-concept.