Objectivism and Supporting Government

[nickcoons]

I hold that political principles have to apply to human beings to be valid, i.e., they must be based on human nature--which in MSK-speak includes (among other things) the tendency of individuals to periodically bully others when they can get away with it.

Of course, and this is something that the existence of a state makes far more common than in free-market anarchism, soooo... :-)

[nickcoons]

After being beaten to a pulp a few times by bullies, who somehow were always immune to my stunning intellect and impeccable arguments from principle, I decided to start looking out for them and finding ways to restrain them before the beating.

And that's great. But by turning to the state as a solution, you're not preventing beatings, you're just advocating that others carry out the beatings, and not only pre-emptively on the ones who may beat you, but on everyone else as well.

Let's say that we have 26 people, A-Z. A wants to attack B, so B attacks A pre-emptively in order to prevent the attack. This itself may not be a bad thing, so long as B has reasonable evidence that A was planning to attack him. However, this is not what the state does. The state will first attack all of A-Z through taxation in order to fund it's ability to pre-emptively attack A and protect B. This means that C-Z, innocent bystanders, now become victims of an attack the would not have happened without the state.

[nickcoons]

I partly agree with MSK and partly dissent from this argument. I think that human nature does have, UNFORTUNATELY, some evolutionary remnants of pack-animalism (See E.S. Raymond's "The Myth of Man The Killer" for more on this). I accept that rationality CAN override these remnants, but rationality is not automatic.

Whether these remnants exist is not really relevant to the free-market anarchist position, since if they do exist, they will exist just as much within the state (and arguably more, since the state tends to attract certain people). Or, if these remnants exist, it further supports the free-market anarchist position since it's probably bad for people with these characteristics to have the legal ability to forcefully control other people through the power of the state.

[nickcoons]

If there is consent to the initiation of force it is not initiation of force respecting the consentor. It's a contradiction. That's why Dominique wasn't raped by you know who. Never mind they were both stupid about what happened, but her character was so badly written apropos real human psychology she needed to get it that way to begin to get real.

You seem to want to deal with the consent of the governed-existence of government issue. It can't be dealt with, ultimately, because government will always be violating rights to some extent and people will always be fighting for their freedom, if they deserve freedom. You cannot make government self destruct by saying you're violating human rights so evaporate! However, let's take a hypothetical government with no rights' violating at all. 100% pure. Goodness! Then when you say you didn't consent to being governed by that government it doesn't mean anything at all, but if you violate someone's rights and the cops come you cannot say you can't arrest me for I never consented to the government that employs you. That's because you are claiming the right to violate rights by virtue of getting away with it through your personal anarchy. Contradiction!

This looks like it was a response to me, but it doesn't seem to address anything I've said, so I'm somewhat confused.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Nick,

You appear to think according to a dichotomy and throw everything into it.

I don't.

We can disagree on this and that's cool. But the bad part is you misrepresented what I wrote several times. Here is a good example:

After being beaten to a pulp a few times by bullies, who somehow were always immune to my stunning intellect and impeccable arguments from principle, I decided to start looking out for them and finding ways to restrain them before the beating.

And that's great. But by turning to the state as a solution, you're not preventing beatings, you're just advocating that others carry out the beatings, and not only pre-emptively on the ones who may beat you, but on everyone else as well.

No, I'm not "advocating that others carry out the beatings, and not only pre-emptively on the ones who may beat you, but on everyone else as well."

I specifically said, in the very post you quoted (italics included): "... finding ways to restrain them before the beating."

Understanding words that clear ain't rocket science. So I'm not going to carry on a discussion of constantly correcting your misrepresentations. It's a waste of my time to do that.

Michael

[studiodekadent]

More context. The trouble is saying "government" and lumping it all together, so a constitutional republic becomes equal to a bloody dictatorship.

In principle, yes, they are the same. The principle being that one group of people can legitimately initiate force against other people is shared in both cases. A constitutional republic simply has a bit more red tape before it can legally occur.

Nick,

You're treating a complex set of interacting institutions as if they're all reducible down to one thing (The State). To borrow some ideas from Chris Sciabarra, you're reifying a single component of a system and treating it as the whole.

You are correct that both a Totalitarian State and a Minimal State are both States, and being States they are based on the principle that there are circumstances where one group of people is legitimately allowed to get away with initiating force against others (in the case of the Minimal State, that circumstance is any threat to said State's monopoly on legitimate coercion).

But there are enormous differences of degree here. And matters of degree are not irrelevant to good and evil. I know you aren't an Objectivist, but one of the issues in the Piekoff/Kelley split is the relevance of matters of degree in the field of ethics.

Let me give you an example; a single person is intelligent, lives by his own judgment, sustains themself through trade and voluntary means (insofar as much as their society's institutional context allows them to do so), advocates 'live and let live' politics and believes its good for people to act to further their own lives and happiness. Said person is also absolutely intellectually honest.

With one exception; they believe, on faith, in some sort of deity similar to the Deistic god (non-interventionist, not an eternal punisher figure, not a thinly-veiled excuse to impose one's morality on other people, etc etc.). This belief doesn't challenge or invalidate said person's other beliefs.

So, is that person immoral? Clearly, by Objectivist standards, they have performed the vilest act of self-defilement a human being can perform.

I don't wish to reverse Plato's Republic and treat a person as a metaphor for a State. But the point I'm making is that these matters of degree are important. If there is no 'in principle' difference between the USA and North Korea there should be no 'in principle' reason to prefer living in the USA.

This brings me back to my point about various components of the system. The USA still has, to varying extents, a culture that accepts the Enlightenment classical liberal foundations that the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were based on. North Korea, on the other hand, lacks such a culture.

A State does not exist in a vacuum. Cultural factors matter; these factors manifest themselves at the level of individual human actions and thus, to varying degrees, influence the operations and extent of the State. The US would not be the same nation were it not for Locke and the Enlightenment.

I'm not saying the US is perfect (far from it). I'm not saying that the State is not a dangerous institution and I'm not trying to say that the State is a good thing. What I am saying is that one cannot simply measure the extent of the State and simply invert it and have a pure measure of liberty. To take an Anarchist example, lets say you had an area where various warlords were waging bloody battles with each other to control the area. This is a Stateless area, but not an Anarchy (Anarchy requires voluntary order). This is a situation where the lack of a State doesn't correspond to increased liberty.

As both Rand and Hayek demonstrated, liberty requires cultural and intellectual foundations. You won't be able to sustain a classically liberal society in a society where everyone is racist/sexist (methodological collectivism is NOT good for liberty), intolerant, tribalistic, superstitious etc.

I should add, none of this should be construed as somehow arguing that the State is wonderful or anything like that. I'm simply making a critique of your method of argument.

Whether these remnants exist is not really relevant to the free-market anarchist position, since if they do exist, they will exist just as much within the state (and arguably more, since the state tends to attract certain people). Or, if these remnants exist, it further supports the free-market anarchist position since it's probably bad for people with these characteristics to have the legal ability to forcefully control other people through the power of the state.

You make a very valid point. The State quite clearly is dangerous and politics does seem to have a built in 'adverse selection' issue where the power-lusters are disproportionately drawn into the State's institutions (politicians, prison guards, police etc.). I've had several experiences which back up this observation.

But again, you look at the State in isolation. There are plenty of other institutions and factors that pander to/exacerbate these remnants, and plenty of others that can restrain these remnants. Its not as if abolishing the State will suddenly have people realize that lust for power over others is a pathological legacy of obsolete evolutionary drives.

Again, this isn't intended to justify the State or to justify these evolutionary remnants. This is primarily a criticism of your methodology, which does indeed demonstrate an acontextual, rationalist, reductionist bent (note, I'm not trying to accuse you of being a bad person!).

Edited July 24, 2011 by studiodekadent

[syrakusos]

... there are circumstances where one group of people is legitimately allowed to get away with initiating force against others (in the case of the Minimal State, that circumstance is any threat to said State's monopoly on legitimate coercion).

You are wrong. A state predicated on objective morality does not engage in coercion. You have every right to hire private security guards (or install your own security devices); and you have a right to contract for private arbitration as a clause in all of your business contracts. According to Ayn Rand's classic scenario, the point at which the two guard companies confront each other over the missing wallet is the moment when they must stand down and turn the matter over to the public police, prosecutor, and courts. If, instead, they begin shooting each other, they are breaking the law and the police will intervene in retaliation to protect rights, not coercively to maintain their monopoly.

Example of coercion to enforce state monopolies are in the licensing laws that control private security (as well as barbers, funeral homes, etc.)

[syrakusos]

I always liked the scene in the original Star Wars (The New Hope) where R2D2 and C3PO jettison to Dantooine. They are in a tractless desert. Which way is civilization? C3POS starts off, but R2D2 has detected something in the other direction. "Don't get technical on me!" says the Protocol Droid. "I'm going this way." R2D2 calls him a mindless philosopher.

[basimpson22]

I've talked to quite a few Objectivists, and have gotten about as many different answers as people I've spoken with. So far, none of them satisfying, but I press on.

I believe this explains well what I've come to conclude about you. I believe that you are simply looking for someone who shares this opinion with you. That supporting the government as an Objectivist is contradictory. Well, I agree with you. It is a contradiction. I think some Objectivists shy away from this issue because it seems quite radical. Rand saw tax as a form coercion. If an Objectivist held this non-contradictory view they might consider refusing to pay taxes. I personally believe it would be marvelous if the nation participated in a collective act of civil disobedience by refusing to pay their taxes.

[basimpson22]

Nick,

According to Rand, you are making an equivalence between politics and economics here. Thus the contradiction is yours, not hers (that is, if you are thinking in conceptual terms--i.e., hierarchical--according to the Objectivist system of concept formation). See the following quote from "The Nature of Government":

Perhaps this was intentional on Nick's part. It appears that politics and economics are highly intertwined (if not one in the same)(haven't they always been?). Federal Reserve, political or economic? IRS, Political or economic? SEC, political or economic? Bailout, political or economic? And 'pragmatically'/realistically speaking, I mean come on lets be real, the government is only concerned with money and power. Our foreign policy has much more to do with economics than it does human rights. So I would say that the contradiction is not his. I would say he presents his argument well.

Edited July 25, 2011 by Aristocrates

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Perhaps this was intentional on Nick's part. It appears that politics and economics are highly intertwined (if not one in the same)(haven't they always been?). Federal Reserve, political or economic? IRS, Political or economic? SEC, political or economic? Bailout, political or economic? And 'pragmatically'/realistically speaking, I mean come on lets be real, the government is only concerned with money and power. Our foreign policy has much more to do with economics than it does human rights. So I would say that the contradiction is not his. I would say he presents his argument well.

Aristocrates,

Once upon a time, it was inconceivable to have a formal separation of church and state.

But it happened.

It's the economy's turn.

I have no doubt it will happen.

These things move slowly, though. In our remote control culture, we want it now. And if we don't get instant gratification, we'll show them. We'll change the channel.

But social reality doesn't work that way. Only technology does.

Notice how mainstream people get irritated when they talk about a war that is underway. I fully believe that their irritation is partially due to the fact that the show doesn't change. It's still there the next day and changing the channel doesn't work in making it go away.

As to Nick, I can't tell what his intentions are. I'm not too impressed with any subtlety on his part. I think it's far better to get the obvious stuff right first, but that's my manner of thinking...

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

I'm posting because I've browsed through here a bit and find that there appear to be some bright people in these forums, and I have a question that I've had difficulty locating a satisfactory answer to. Specifically, the question is about the contradiction between the non-aggression principle ("No man may initiate the use of physical force against another"), and the support of government (which Rand defined as an institution that claims a monopoly on the use of retaliatory force). That is, any group of people that claim a monopoly (and intend to enforce that monopoly) must do so through the initiation of force. Roy Childs Jr. explained it well in his Open Letter to Ayn Rand:

http://www.isil.org/...pen-letter.html

My question involves specifically the logical contradiction in this position, not the argument from apocalypse justifications for holding a contradictory position (i.e. without a government, there would be chaos!).

I look forward to some illuminating responses.. thank you!

The government is. What are you going to do about it?

The government should be. What are you going to do about it?

It ain't what kinda gov'tm't we should have; we got a gov'tm't!

--Brant

it'sa the STATE!

[basimpson22]

Perhaps this was intentional on Nick's part. It appears that politics and economics are highly intertwined (if not one in the same)(haven't they always been?). Federal Reserve, political or economic? IRS, Political or economic? SEC, political or economic? Bailout, political or economic? And 'pragmatically'/realistically speaking, I mean come on lets be real, the government is only concerned with money and power. Our foreign policy has much more to do with economics than it does human rights. So I would say that the contradiction is not his. I would say he presents his argument well.

Aristocrates,

Once upon a time, it was inconceivable to have a formal separation of church and state.

But it happened.

It's the economy's turn.

I have no doubt it will happen.

These things move slowly, though. In our remote control culture, we want it now. And if we don't get instant gratification, we'll show them. We'll change the channel.

But social reality doesn't work that way. Only technology does.

Notice how mainstream people get irritated when they talk about a war that is underway. I fully believe that their irritation is partially due to the fact that the show doesn't change. It's still there the next day and changing the channel doesn't work in making it go away.

As to Nick, I can't tell what his intentions are. I'm not too impressed with any subtlety on his part. I think it's far better to get the obvious stuff right first, but that's my manner of thinking...

Michael

I was reading up on Neil Schulman and then it led me to reading on Agorism. To me this seems to be the best solution to our coercive gov't. Instead of separating economics and politics you are eliminating politics altogether. What else is so great about this method is that a non-coercive tactic(holding true to libertarian form) is used to defeat a coercive system.

The two big parties approval ratings are at an historic low. Why should we pay taxes when neither party is satisfying their constituents?

Edited July 28, 2011 by Aristocrates

[Selene]

The two big parties approval ratings are at an historic low. Why should we pay taxes when neither party is satisfying their constituents?

Because they have the guns and the will to use them. As our ole buddy Aristotle opined, when you have the will and the power, the deed is done.

[basimpson22]

they're not the only ones with guns. besides, that's a speculative answer. Lol, if they shoot us how will they collect their taxes.

[Selene]

they're not the only ones with guns. besides, that's a speculative answer. Lol, if they shoot us how will they collect their taxes.

Young man, they only have to shoot one or two per neighborhood and the rest will get in line.

Arresting a few examples and putting them in jail for five (5) years also works ...ask Wesley Snipes.

[basimpson22]

shoot?! you seriously think people will be executed for refusing to pay taxes? That's ridiculous. Of course, you may simply be employing hyperbole. So from your comment may I assume that Objectivists are opposed to the idea of Agorism?

Edited July 28, 2011 by Aristocrates

[Selene]

shoot?! you seriously think people will be executed for refusing to pay taxes? That's ridiculous. Of course, you may simply be employing hyperbole. So from your comment may I assume that Objectivists are opposed to the idea of Agorism?

Firstly, I do not speak for "O"bjectivists. Although I attended NBI in the mid 60's before "the break," I refuse to be associated with where the post Randians like Peikoff imprisoned Ayn's philosophy.

Second, if there was a sufficiently organized group that refused to pay taxes and was willing to resist being arrested, yes they would be shot. See the American Indian Movement, Randy Weaver and numerous other resistance movements or individuals and how the state dealt with them. You can count the bodies.

However, Agorism, as defined in Anarchopedia here is a completely legitimate model. We had a number of Anarchist conferences at Columbia University, City College and Brooklyn College during the 60's and early 70's as anarcho-capitalism, left anarchism, libertarianism and mini-anarchism battled issues and definitions and tried to come to a cohesive place where we could all unify. Jerome Tucille and others were wonderful thinkers to be involved with.

One of the key areas of battle was the different views on property:

By preferring the term "free market" Agorists are not bound by the implications of the term

capitalism

. While some Anarcho-Capitalists may believe in replacing all public property with private property, Agorists argue that non-state common property can be legitimate and should be respected. Like Anarcho-Capitalists, and unlike Libertarian Socialists, they believe that private property extends beyond current possession. Private property, particularly in land would not continue infinitely, but must actually be used in some regular capacity to avoid being considered abandoned. Whereas some more extreme Anarcho-Capitalists believe that

all

property should be private (neo-

Lockean

) property (hard propertarianism), Agorists are soft propertarian and believe that collective property is permissible.

So, to answer your question, I think big "O" bjectivists have huge problems with Agorism, but they are not running this forum, or I would not be here.

Adam

[basimpson22]

shoot?! you seriously think people will be executed for refusing to pay taxes? That's ridiculous. Of course, you may simply be employing hyperbole. So from your comment may I assume that Objectivists are opposed to the idea of Agorism?

Firstly, I do not speak for "O"bjectivists. Although I attended NBI in the mid 60's before "the break," I refuse to be associated with where the post Randians like Peikoff imprisoned Ayn's philosophy.

Second, if there was a sufficiently organized group that refused to pay taxes and was willing to resist being arrested, yes they would be shot. See the American Indian Movement, Randy Weaver and numerous other resistance movements or individuals and how the state dealt with them. You can count the bodies.

However, Agorism, as defined in Anarchopedia here is a completely legitimate model. We had a number of Anarchist conferences at Columbia University, City College and Brooklyn College during the 60's and early 70's as anarcho-capitalism, left anarchism, libertarianism and mini-anarchism battled issues and definitions and tried to come to a cohesive place where we could all unify. Jerome Tucille and others were wonderful thinkers to be involved with.

One of the key areas of battle was the different views on property:

By preferring the term "free market" Agorists are not bound by the implications of the term

capitalism

. While some Anarcho-Capitalists may believe in replacing all public property with private property, Agorists argue that non-state common property can be legitimate and should be respected. Like Anarcho-Capitalists, and unlike Libertarian Socialists, they believe that private property extends beyond current possession. Private property, particularly in land would not continue infinitely, but must actually be used in some regular capacity to avoid being considered abandoned. Whereas some more extreme Anarcho-Capitalists believe that

all

property should be private (neo-

Lockean

) property (hard propertarianism), Agorists are soft propertarian and believe that collective property is permissible.

So, to answer your question, I think big "O" bjectivists have huge problems with Agorism, but they are not running this forum, or I would not be here.

Adam

I see your point. Refusing to pay taxes is probably too brash as well as blatantly self-incriminating, lol.

[nickcoons]

After being beaten to a pulp a few times by bullies, who somehow were always immune to my stunning intellect and impeccable arguments from principle, I decided to start looking out for them and finding ways to restrain them before the beating.

And that's great. But by turning to the state as a solution, you're not preventing beatings, you're just advocating that others carry out the beatings, and not only pre-emptively on the ones who may beat you, but on everyone else as well.

No, I'm not "advocating that others carry out the beatings, and not only pre-emptively on the ones who may beat you, but on everyone else as well."

I specifically said, in the very post you quoted (italics included): "... finding ways to restrain them before the beating."

In my messages to you, I'm operating under the assumption that you support a state of some sort. A state of some sort (even a Randian minimal state) requires the initiation of force in order to collect taxes to fund its operations (if it was funded through voluntary transactions like a business, then it would be a business, not a state). Those that don't pay their taxes will have violence thrust upon them -- If you support a state, then you support taxation; if you support taxation, then you support this, which is the reason for my prior statement.

If you tell me that you are a mammal, then I can conclude that you are warm-blooded. You don't have to use the words "I am warm-blooded", it's a logical conclusion of something else you've said.

Now, if you say that you support a state and you simultaneously do not support the initiation of force (like taxation), then you're holding two contradictory ideas at the same time, which is the crux of my original post that started this thread.

[nickcoons]

You are correct that both a Totalitarian State and a Minimal State are both States, and being States they are based on the principle that there are circumstances where one group of people is legitimately allowed to get away with initiating force against others (in the case of the Minimal State, that circumstance is any threat to said State's monopoly on legitimate coercion).

This is the crux of my original post. My understanding of Rand's philosophy is that she was absolutely opposed to the initiation of force, yet you and I seem to agree that a state of any size is based on the legitimacy for some people to initiate force, and this is the contradiction that I'm trying to understand.

But there are enormous differences of degree here. And matters of degree are not irrelevant to good and evil. I know you aren't an Objectivist, but one of the issues in the Piekoff/Kelley split is the relevance of matters of degree in the field of ethics.

I understand the differences about degrees, that's why I stated in the post to which you replied that in principle there is no difference. Certainly there is a difference in degrees.

If I poke you lightly with a needle, or I stab you in the chest, the principle I may be operating on could be "it's okay to stick you with something sharp," so they are the same in principle, but I don't mean to discount the degree between the two.

If there is no 'in principle' difference between the USA and North Korea there should be no 'in principle' reason to prefer living in the USA.

That may be, but reasons people choose to live in certain areas are not necessarily principle-based. I choose chocolate over vanilla not out of any principle, but because its preferable. The difference between the US and North Korea is much larger than chocolate and vanilla, so let's say chocolate and dirt. Again, no real principle that I know of behind that choice, I just don't care for the taste of dirt.

Neither choosing where to live nor what to eat is a moral issue.

You make a very valid point. The State quite clearly is dangerous and politics does seem to have a built in 'adverse selection' issue where the power-lusters are disproportionately drawn into the State's institutions (politicians, prison guards, police etc.). I've had several experiences which back up this observation.

But again, you look at the State in isolation. There are plenty of other institutions and factors that pander to/exacerbate these remnants, and plenty of others that can restrain these remnants. Its not as if abolishing the State will suddenly have people realize that lust for power over others is a pathological legacy of obsolete evolutionary drives.

Completely agreed.. I don't advocate abolishing the state in order to increase liberty. The state goes away, as an effect, as people have a rational grasp on reality. But in this thread I'm not trying to make an argument for abolishing the state, just trying to resolve the "support of a state" and "non-initiation of force" contradiction.

[nickcoons]

I've talked to quite a few Objectivists, and have gotten about as many different answers as people I've spoken with. So far, none of them satisfying, but I press on.

I believe this explains well what I've come to conclude about you. I believe that you are simply looking for someone who shares this opinion with you. That supporting the government as an Objectivist is contradictory.

I'm not looking for people to agree with me for the sake of finding like opinions. All of my close friends already agree with me. I'm trying to understand how a philosophy like Objectivism, populated with very intelligent people that have a huge amount to offer, can go on for decades with this core contradiction slipping by seemingly unnoticed. What I've generally gotten in response are generally evasions (i.e. that I'm taking things out of context, that I'm rationalizing, etc) which don't actually address the question but instead criticize the way I'm asking the question. I'm not sure what the intention is behind these sorts of responses, other than perhaps what you alluded to, that people go to great lengths to not go through process of working out contradictions because they don't like where it takes them.

[nickcoons]

As to Nick, I can't tell what his intentions are. I'm not too impressed with any subtlety on his part. I think it's far better to get the obvious stuff right first, but that's my manner of thinking...

I think I've been pretty clear about my intentions.

[nickcoons]

The government is. What are you going to do about it?

The government should be. What are you going to do about it?

It ain't what kinda gov'tm't we should have; we got a gov'tm't!

I already know what I'm going to do about it, that's really outside the scope of this thread though. My purpose here is to make sure that I'm not missing something that might indicate that my anarchist position is incorrect.

[Mike Renzulli]

Allow me to introduce my good friend, Nick Coons everyone. He is an entrepreneur extraordinaire and one helluva great guy! Nick also happens to be one of the board members of the up-and-coming Rational Mind Institute and as you all can see he is a very inqusitive, intelligent and thoughtful individual.

To address your point about trying to find out if your anarchist position being wrong according to Objectivism, (speaking for myself) I don't think its necessarily that you are wrong, Nick. I just think deep down you just prefer to use private alternatives to government services (i.e. police, courts, etc.) which I am sympathetic to myself and have no problem with if you choose that route in order to conduct business.

However, like I explained to you before I think we need government in order to settle cases of disputes as well as to protect people from force and fraud. If people prefer an arbitration company to settle a dispute they have and are willing to agree to let the decision the arbiters come to as being the result of their case, go for it. However, if one party is not satisified with the outcome or would rather litigate in a government provided court of law a judge can settle it once and for all in which doing so avoid the dispute becoming hostile to the point where armed conflict becomes the result of who wins the dispute.

The government is. What are you going to do about it?

The government should be. What are you going to do about it?

It ain't what kinda gov'tm't we should have; we got a gov'tm't!

I already know what I'm going to do about it, that's really outside the scope of this thread though. My purpose here is to make sure that I'm not missing something that might indicate that my anarchist position is incorrect.

Edited August 5, 2011 by Mike Renzulli