clarkems

Thanks for all the great feedback. As I continue my journey into Objectivism I can see that much more work needs to be done by me to have a full understanding of how it can be specifically applied in society. What I feel I need to do is to drill into existing government programs and dismantle them and reassemble, if required, replace, etc. according to Objectivist principles. One disturbing thing that I see when I do drill down to the application, legislation, staffing, budgeting, etc. issues of real life is that some of the strict objectivist principles seem to break down at this level. Perhaps some minds greater than mine can create or point out demonstrable working models to replace or update current policies, legislation and institutions that exist in society today. I have a feeling though that I may have to read up on some of the latest thinking from more scholarly experts and look for real life success stories. This could take a while but "I'll be back" ;)

Kat, Thanks for your comment. I agree with the concept of minimal government and also am very impressed by the work of many not for profit organizations. I can see that some forms of minimal government are required such as democratic electoral process, judicial system, military, and others. I am wondering, and attempting to push the boundaries of my understanding, as to how organized government might work under Objectivist principles and which institutions should be left alone and which need to be modified or eliminated to achive it. Would you agree with this sort of law or policy in a town for instance? Instead of just raising taxes to increase the water service level in a town, which implies coercion, the town might ask residents of the town to volunarily participate in the project with time and money. However that assumes those that opt out do not participate in the service? That still raises a question for me. What happens if someone opts out and does not receive services (water, sewer) from the town. Do they then set up an outhouse and well on their property? If that does meet the sanitary codes of the town are they forced to sell and move out of town? Is that also a form of coercion? This is a simple example but one that, I'm sure has been wrestled with before. Here's another thought. In Canada there is a child support guideline formula that calculates child support based on the income of the supporting non-residential parent (ability to pay). This is set up and required though a history of a lack of realistic expectations of folks getting married (imho). What about putting that sort of issue right up front in a marriage contract and then disputes would be quickly settled as contract law rather than family courts. This sort of thing would force people to take resposibility for their actions since they would know what they were getting into up front. Are there any examples out there that folks have heard of that work?

The absence of government is what I had suspected from previous readings. I suspect that would work if the whole population were Objectivist. In a mixed population I suspect it becomes more complex. In the quote "A government’s only proper function is to protect individual rights. " one would assume laws, correct? This also assumes some sort of enforcement agency or institution such as courts, enforcement, prisons, etc. Would you agree? In the question: Question: You seem to use concepts such as “collective” as it being “organized” and “freedom” as being a “state of anarchy.” Is their any truth to what I’m picking up? I feel that I may have chosen some "loaded" terminology in "collective", organized and anarchy. Essentially I am exploring how individual objectivists would interact. By collective I mean to work as a community or a group as opposed to an individual. A very generic use of the word. Actually I am not associating freedom with anarchy. I suppose there is a scale with absolute freedom at one end, but, from what I observe, freedom needs to be taken in a social context when considering living in high population density areas. In other words when a group of individuals become close enought to interect and affect each other then freedoms begin to be restricted since one person's actions may affect another's rights? You agree? In the questions: Some public programs? Which ones? And why? Programs are far more complex than individual laws and I was avoiding them in my earlier questions, but as an example, one insitution or program would be a government department such as Children's Services. They, in Canada - on a provincial basis, act to facilitate adoption, remove children from abusive situations, etc. They don't specifically protect individual rights. There was obviously a need to protect children and it evolved over the past few decades. Removal of such an institution, in the general sense of the word, would create serious hardship for many individuals. Given that over the previous centuries (17th, 18th) groups of interested individuals and religious orders may have contributed to such causes, but it really took a concerted effort of professionals organized into institutions, which happen to be funded by the government, to effectively(arguably) manage it. In order for the individuals working in the institutions to have any effective power there had to be legislation, etc. Dare I mention Health Care in Canada?, or perhaps the CSIS, or DND for armed forces? These are very complex and highly charged issues and the debate could fill volumes I'm sure. I'll reiterate that I am not defending these institutions but am trying to get my head around how humans could live in highly congested urban areas without laws and at least some semblance of some of these institutions. The definition or line drawing I earlier referred to is some sort of philospohical framework to apply the Objectivist principles to working in the larger social/political/governmental construct. Question: It strikes me that the Objectivist opinion is that there be no government, essentially. Is this true? Should it be true? For example if some were to leave the Objectivist enclave founded by John Galt in "Atlas Shrugged" would they go out into the world with the object of reforming laws or removing them? Your thoughts?

I tend to worry more about drugs crossing the border than illegal immigrants who will end up building houses, washing dishes, etc. Yup and we do need to keep an eye on nutballs trying to sneak in with an eye to driving their political agenda. Tightening the borders seems like an inevitable thing these days. Mexico seems particularly vulnerable due to their lack of infrastructure and vulnerability to bribes, etc. Canada, I would think, is not such a worry since it is not easy to get into, despite the ravings of uninformed senators who seem to have a fear mongering agenda, and very unsusceptible to bribes ( just try it sometime... - well don't - you'll end up in jail). In almost all cases of those types trying to get across the border into the US they were either fingered to the US officials by CSIS like the guy on the ferry coming from BC into Washington State, or busted in Canada by CSIS before they had the chance like the most recent attempt. The ones that were supposed to come on a ferry from NS never did, but came directly into the US. Big bro is watching rather carefully up here... As I said, I am more concerned with criminals importing drugs and weapons than the others. Although if the terrorist threat is what puts the border inspection facilities in place to monitor the drug and crime probelm, power to it.

I agree. There has to be a better way. How a bout a "rational" party? The problem is that voters tend to be rather irrational.... I choose the lessor of two weevils. Or, I could choose a third weevil!

What wonderful and thoughtful responses to my earlier question! Thanks to everyone who responded. Here's is what I have gathered (please forgive the crude and targeted summarization) Human rights to freedom are inalienable and cannot be broken, otherwise tyranny and coercion are inevitable. - I agree with this point. Charitable works from voluntary rather than socially coerced means is how an Objectivist society would deal with persons who cannot help themselves. - This one I agree with this to a point. Voluntary charitable work has made enourmous contributions over time but I am troubled when I think of the removal of some public programs that exist today. The reason for posing this question is not to drive a point toward social programs, etc. That is not my point and I would like to re-iterate my motivation for asking at this time. What I would like to explore is how Objectivist philosophy would cope with current social issues were it able to exist at that level. I truly believe that rational thought can produce workable solutions without morality and sentimentality coming into play. This is not to say I would put forward a sci fi scenario like the "Borg" society, but to force my mind to reason out the issues according to an Objectivist "structure". When I refer to "we" in my question above it was an accidental or subconscious slip that shows insight into where I was coming from. If I was to refer to it as "I" then I am very comfortable with Objectivist living. I will take responsibility for my actions and take my lumps when things go bad and take charity when I need it and when it is offered. The "we" can be split into two perspectives. One "we" would be a collective "I" of Objectivists, acting in rational terms and assuming a realtive degree of mental health and sanity. That is to say that narcissists, even thought they may be self interested, and others who would harm others through some sort of delusion or lack of social or self-regulation are left out of the equation. Another "we" would be laws of society, passed by some socially accepted institution such as our legal system, consitution and regulations. To explore the example of the use of "we" as a law or institution I would go for something more simple than a social program at this point but just a law. If "we" as a social institution pass a law prohibiting dumping heavy metals in waterways, then Environmentalists rejoice, but in general the people living in that area have a higher standard of living. Perhaps it is a community of Objectivists who collectively banded together to lobby for the law since a company was manufacturing batteries nearby and had in the past contaminated the water supply. The owners of the company, now having to dispose of the metals somewhere else may feel that this is interfering with their right to freely produce the best battery in the world. This goal is highly respectable and they do have a point, but, they were not taking into consideration the impact of their process on their neighbours. So, "we" as Objectivists, need to live in a world of non-objectivists and also realize that some others are unable to respect the rights of others. Also in some cases there needs to be some form of conflict resolution other than clubs and guns for situations where two competing, well intended, even Objectivist enterprises are in conflict over something like land use, resources, etc. This gives rise to the notion of courts, laws etc. Correct me if I am wrong, but it would seem that to apply Objectivist principles to social issues it would come into play as the creation of laws and institutions as collective Objectist individual's behaviours. It may also include individual, non-organized actions. Otherwise you would have a society relying on the ability of its individuals to act soley on free will which may be defined as, well for a lack of better words, anarchy? ( I say this in a very neutral non judgemental way - just trying to put words to thoughts) Perhaps I should ask another question at this point. Is Objectivism generally perceived or defined as un-coordinated, non-collective invidual actions, which in society would manifest itself as an anarchy-like state or could it also be Objectist directed or principled collective actions which would manifest themselves in laws and institutions? Would human nature inevitably drive it to an institutional state and would that negate the effect of Ojectivism?

All, While I am a newbie to the site I have been mulling over Objectivist philospohy and its application in day to day living for a number of years now. I am considering the impact of being an objectivist living in a population of non-objectivists. In fact most of the public are not even aware of its existence. Of course a big screen production of "Atlas Shrugged" could go a long way to changing that. Even then I suppose the population will be far more polarized than apathetic on the issue after the release of the movie. (Expect unionist knee jerk reaction at least and perhaps left wing condemnation.) I see Objectivist philosophy being intrinsically tied in with self esteem and rational living from an individual point of view. However I expect others I meet to be anywhere on the self-responsibility spectrum when I first meet them. So, in general in day to day living one needs to be able to deal with issues of others who do not live rationally. I have seen writing where it is described that one can defend yourself if others, who are not living rationally, violate your rights. I agree, with the proviso of using rational thought to determine the degree of response. However the reverse situation is one that prevents me from making the jump from individual application to social application of the philospohy. What about those who, for the reasons of : mental illness, physicall illness, lack of education, poor attitude development, cultural values, etc. cannot take responsibility for themselves, therefor being unable to live rationally? What if they are not even aware that they are not self-responsible? One could take the extreme position that if they are not living rationally ( by whose definition and standards?) they lose their rights as an individual. That sets up some ugly "Big Brother" scenarios possible on grand scales where individual rights can be trampelled. So, if individual rights are to be maintained, even for those who are not capable of taking care of themselves or being "self-responsible" how do we determine who we must take care of? In other words, if a state or society was "Objectivist", then what would we do with the drug addicts on the streets? By setting up clinics, providing free health care, re-education and rehab programs, etc. we are supposedly taking responsibility for them to varying degrees, depending on the individual case. So, where do we draw the line on social welfare programs? How do we think this through using Objectivist, rational thinking without taking radical or even typical right or left wing views into the discussion?

Dubai is one of the most interesting places on earth right now. It really is rapidly becoming one of the most prosperous places on earth and the laws regarding taxes, etc. are true. It is a good place to do business in the Gulf region (with some limitations). I recently spent a year in Bahrain, which is very similiar in laws and perspective, but much smaller with about 400, 000 inhabitants mainly in the city of Manama. The inherent problem is that the rulers have absolute power. In many cases these powers can be used to the public good. While I was there I was told that the soldiers with machine guns and blockades we saw one day were the result of the government throwing mobsters from one particular nation out of the country. It seemed to work. I was impressed. That could never have happened in the West. However we lived in a compound where many expat writers and editors working for the state funded newspaper lived. We used to share poolside and barbeque pit resources there and swap stories. Reporting on the government was heavily censured with serious consequences for violations. The end result was a generally held opinion that the newspaper was good for household cleaning purposes, and this opinion was relayed to me by locals, not the newpaper staff. Other stories of absolute power are more serious. I have heard of members of ruling families living beyond the laws they have themselves put in place and abusing other non-royals in business practices. It is not a safe place for a small expat businessman without serious connections or resources. There is no common protection under the law from the ruling family members. One could argue that the concept of "Entitlement" historically comes from the powers of absolute monarchs and the legacy of English occupation prior to The American Revolution in the "colonies" and in other countries such as Canada, Australia, India and South Africa teach us that despite the high moral, ethical, political ground reputed to the current day monarchs the day to day reality was one of the abuse of power and entitlement from lesser royals. There is talk of reform in the region which is very encouraging and democracy in the form of elected Parliaments have been experimented with but caution is a word I would use in relation to individual rights and freedoms in that region for North Americans.

I find the theory partially plausible but it does not explain the serious imbalances of serotonin, dopamine, etc. and many other chemicals that are present when patients exhibit schizophenia, etc. The plausibility comes from the studies of the effects of LSD, which in some cases induces a 6 hour simulated form of schizophrenia. LSD was first derived from ergot, a fungus that typically is known to grow on grains such as rye. Some think that it contributed to social events such as mass hysteria in witch burning in the early US and even the French revolution. I'm sure that there may be some merit to this theory and may be the cause or a contributing element of such symptoms in some cases but I think it is peripheral to the root causes (imho).

Hi all, My name is Michael (Mike) Clarke from Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Like many others posting here I came across Ayn Rand as a teenager. While exploring science fiction titles like "The Fountainhead" I found a philosophy that came as easily to me as breathing. Ironically, during my travels after university I married someone that turned out to be, what I can only guess to be, a borderline personality disorder sufferer which comes with a huge dose of entitlement and almost complete lack of self-responsibility. After struggling with the increasingly persistent symptoms of that disorder in my mate for 13 years I left the marriage. Interestingly, I met my current soulmate and now wife because of an Ayn Rand reference in my online profile. After re-reading "Atlas Shrugged" Ayn Rand's philosophy became an integral part of our perspective on life and has led in many ways to a number of our successes. While, in general, I tend to avoid rigid adherence to any particular train of thought or philosophy and rather pick and choose nuggets from various perspectives, I find very few parts of Objectivism that are not a natural fit. One quest or journey I now have is trying to reconcile Objectivism to the art of living in the real world with others who are not Objectivist. Many different philosophies picture a perfect world as one where all people live by a certain set of rules in perfect harmony. However, the reality of the world is inherently diverse with many perspectives, healthy, righteous and prosperous and others which are unhealthy, self-centered and fear based. For example in northern Canada, and many other northern parts of the world, the winters can be extreme. In Edmonton, Alberta, which is roughly the same latitude as Moscow, temperatures can fall to -40 c at night. Street people are regularly found frozen to death on the streets despite the fact that hospices and shelters are available for them for free. So, what would an objectivist do with all of the alienated, drug addicts and mentally ill who are free to walk the streets? Surely they could find work and take care of themselves, if they were mentally able to. But they apparently are not capable of taking care of themselves. So, do we now take responsibility for them? How do we manage this without stripping them of their basic human rights? Why should I worry about this as an objectivist, even? I am exploring the thought process regarding how Objectivism could be applied to living in the real world, not in an isolated enclave, but the world with unions, mentally ill, poorly educated, tyrants, sycophants and billions of downtrodden and starving. I am not a negative thinker though. In fact I see the glass as half full and being an entreprenuer need to be self-interested and celebrate success and prosperity. But my personal philosophy, which works on a personal scale as I see it, is conflicted with its application in the larger scene. So, I continue to read and explore this train of thought. I look forward to reading what others are posting here about Objectivism and staying in touch with this community.