Anarchism

[samr]

I think I know the real reason I am torn on this issue.

I am happy that others protect me. When I think "Is it good for me? Is it rational? Do I derive a benefit from it", then my answer is yes. And I cannot bring myself to think anything else about it.

I guess I am not really an individualist... Just a collectivist that doesn't want to play his part, when it comes to him.

I just don't see any way around it, any way not to think that it is really good, really rational, and it really benefits me.

I guess I wouldn't free slaves if I had them, I would be held by the idea that it is rational, it is good for me.

(I wouldn't enslave anyone, but if someone was raised in a certain culture, and was indoctrinated (not by me) into believing slavery is good, then - why not? I don't do any harm, and it is not my business to go and I am not sure it is my bussiness to change other person's beliefs. Besides, i get a benefit from it, don't I?)

[john42t]

I guess I wouldn't free slaves if I had them, I would be held by the idea that it is rational, it is good for me.

I would have made them an offer for freedom as soon as I believed I profit more from their independent mind than their mere physical labor.

Anything else would be altruism, the motivation of the (leftist) abolitionist movement.

[john42t]

I am happy that others protect me.

So am I.

I'm also happy that my mother gave birth to me.

Or that trees produce oxygen.

[samr]

Not the same. And you know it. (Slaves - example).

[john42t]

Not the same. And you know it. (Slaves - example).

What's not the same as what?

[samr]

How can you compare your mother giving birth to you with what I wrote about in my post?

For example, the slaves example. Don't you think there is a difference between this and oxygen\being born by a mother? This is really obvious.

I really don't see how you can make the comparison in good faith.

[john42t]

How can you compare your mother giving birth to you with what I wrote about in my post?

My mother had a lot of work with me. She provided for me, etc. I can't see how that's not similar. She pursued her values, I pursue mine.

For example, the slaves example. Don't you think there is a difference between this and oxygen\being born by a mother? This is really obvious.

I really don't see how you can make the comparison in good faith.

Can't see what the slaves issue has to do with this.

[samr]

Alright, I think I understand where you are coming from.

In the case of slaves, they don't work for their values; they have been indoctrinated. The soldiers in the army don't have a choice, they have been forced, implicitly or explicitly.

So the example with your mother is invalid, and the example with the trees not related at all.

(Though I am unable to formulate a rational criteria. If one posits that one should care for the values of the person that gives him something, it is possible to push it to the absurdity that to really know it, you need to read another person's mind. If you posit that one shouldn't - the slave example is an obvious absurdity to me. Something is wrong about having brainwashed slaves. )

[john42t]

The soldiers in the army don't have a choice, they have been forced, implicitly or explicitly.

This is surprising. Aren't you the one feeling guilt about their sacrifice? Now you're saying they are slaves? Okay... I think I totally misunderstood you.

You think soldiers are slaves and you feel you *owe* them? You think you *owe* slaves? Is that it?

In the case of slaves, they don't work for their values; they have been indoctrinated.

I already typed "Is this related to anything discussed earlier?" (I was even kind of angry.)

But now I see how it fits together for you: You make a connection between the private slaves of young America and the soldiers of the IDF, right?

And the corollary you draw is that you ask yourself whether you would have free your (personal) slaves, right?

[samr]

Yes.

[john42t]

Yes.

Ok, then a lot of the misunderstandings are now cleared up.

I would not join the IDF with this picture of it in mind. (I don't know enough about it to judge it myself, but I fear it might be true.)

Owing slaves makes no sense to me and I would not getting anything out of it to fight at their side.

[samr]

Isn't there something rational, in having slaves?

[john42t]

Isn't there something rational, in having slaves?

There can be. As I said, I think the abolitionist movement was irrational.

[EDIT: I said "owing slaves", not "owning", in case there was some misunderstanding again...]

[samr]

owning.

Anyway, I doubt in any legal sense, not protesting X to enlist Y in the army is an analogy to owning slaves.

I admit - it is from the karmic point of view, that this disturbs me. I think it is a bad attitude to have, "bad karma". But I am really being irrational in my attitude towards buddhism, so I can't open a rational discussion here.

Regarding slaves, when Gilad Shalit deal was made, I thought that since I have _some_ responsibility for sending him to the army, I should be in favor of him being released, taking the risk of terror. It was a very selfy feeling, that I do not want to live based upon depriving the rights of another.

Problem is feeling I have this feeling only regarding people I have sympathy towards.

Thanks, by the way.

[Dglgmut]

I guess I wouldn't free slaves if I had them, I would be held by the idea that it is rational, it is good for me.

I would have made them an offer for freedom as soon as I believed I profit more from their independent mind than their mere physical labor.

Anything else would be altruism, the motivation of the (leftist) abolitionist movement.

Wow... I doubt that is the typical Objectivist approach. Owning a slave at all should not be considered rationally selfish for the same reason stealing property should not be considered rationally selfish. You are certainly stealing something from the slaves you own... their freedom. Now, if you consider that they are just as well serving you as they would be out in the real, racist, world, then it's a different situation, but if we're just talking generally, owning a slave is stupid.

[Peter]

Dglgmut replied to the "Anarchism" thread:

Wow... I doubt that is the typical Objectivist approach. Owning a slave at all should not be considered rationally selfish for the same reason stealing property should not be considered rationally selfish.

end quote

I don’t want to lead this thread further astray of the topic of Anarchism, but I do remember that the Ayn Rand Institute’s stance on gay marriage is analogous to the issue of *property rights involving slaves*. Someone in Leonard Peikoff’s inner circle (it may have been Binswanger) said gay marriage would amount to an ex post facto rewriting of millions of wills, trusts, contracts, insurance policies, employee benefits policies and the like. People made these agreements in good faith, and abrogating them is a serious and questionable move. I find that argument invalid.

Peter Reidy once responded to this argument by saying:

. . . the same goes for the abolition of slavery. Presumably wills and pending deals went up in smoke, people lost assets overnight, heirs were left high and dry - yet nobody says this was a reason to stay with slavery . . . You could patch this up with legislation to the effect that if an employee came to work, a will was signed, etc., before the . . . . legislation took effect, the old rules apply . . . .

end quote

A previously owned person, or slave, would not owe his former master for his freedom. In fact a good argument could be made for a civil suit on the ex-slave’s part to recover damages for lost wages and loss of freedom, but the slave-owner's descendents should not be liable for the sins of the father.

And to you guys at ARI, our gay brothers and sisters are not slaves, but they are denied equal protection under the law. Hospital Rights dramatizes this issue in a way that persons who oppose “gay marriage” for moral reasons can empathize. Who can make decisions for you if you are incapacitated? Who can come into your recovery room after an operation when visitors are limited? If an ill person wants the caregiver to be the person with whom they are in a committed relationship, then their partner should be the one first allowed in. This can even affect people who are straight. A woman may be in the hospital and she wants her boyfriend to come into her recovery room after her operation. However, her family only allows “blood relatives” in, not the person who takes care of her.

No Objectivist thinks a *slave* is a valid piece of *property.* No Objectivist should advocate anything less than full protection under the law for all American citizens.

Hmmm? Could a rational person indenture themselves? That answer might be a yes, even under Anarchism, which was kind of the plot of the movie “Avatar.”

Peter