RoR: Forum

Perhaps I am misinterpreting this, but it seems like Ayn Rand is advocating ignoring man-made laws whenever feasible (with the obvious exception of not breaking laws where the punishments exacted by the government will harm you), and instead living one's life according to the laws that would prevail in a purely Objectivist society.

That is, she seems to be advocating abandoning the rule of law for the rule of one's conscience.

Am I misunderstanding her point, or the context of this quote? I appreciate your thoughts.

Post 1

Thursday, September 2, 2010 - 10:55pm

Jim,

I think you've read into that quote things that aren't there at all. Rand advocates the rule of law in many places (let me know if need quotes), so if you want to project from what she has written to the next step, that step would be to change or eliminate the bad laws. I know of nowhere that she advocated abandoning the rule of law as the most practical way for man to live and the ideal way to live.

She is saying that those who want to rule others find it easier to rule those who feel guilty. Creating laws that can't be obeyed ensures everyone is in violation. But that doesn't work as well if people know the law is bad - they won't feel guilty when they are in violation. She is saying that making things illegal gives the 'moral' justification for the exercise of power - a way to hide behind a facade of legitimacy. If people grant the premise of the tyranny, and only argue over the details, then rulers have been given moral sanction by the victims. Rand never strayed far from denying that sanction.
-------------

She was asked when one should stop trying to fix the system and instead to withdraw or rebel. She believed that that time didn't come until freedom of speech/press/assembly were being violated to the point that it was no longer possible to work for freedom by advocating ideas.
--------------

If a person grasps the value of rule by objective laws based upon individual rights, then they will struggle to fix a broken system. On the other hand, if they don't believe in government or in a monopoly system of laws, as is the case with anarchists, then there is far less value seen in fixing bad laws. Those who value the rule of law will resist violating that principle until there is no other option. I don't imagine that anarchists feel the same intensity of motivation.

An individual's conscience is always going to take precedence over man-made laws, but respect for the rule of law should be part of the conscience.

Post 2

Friday, September 3, 2010 - 12:12am

Steve -- thank you for such a thoughtful and helpful post. Sanction.

I suppose for someone like you, who has read Ayn Rand's work more extensively, the context and ideas in her body of work inform and modify this quote for you, so it means something other than what the words alone might mean and imply to someone who is more of an Oist noob like me.

So, perhaps you could try, for the sake of grasping my perspective here, to momentarily put aside all those qualifying observations and look at the implications of * just these words of AR *, and nothing else:

"There’s no way to rule innocent men."

Assume for the moment that a person is perfectly in tune with Objectivist philosophy, and consistently and invariably conforms their acts to these beliefs.

For such a theoretical person, ALL laws made by politicians do not apply to them, for all of that person's acts are moral acts.

If a law is based on Oist philosophy, it is not necessary for this person, because they are already voluntarily in compliance.

If a law is based on non-Oist philosophy, it is immoral to apply to this person, as it necessarily violates their rights.

Thus, a perfect Oist should ignore all man-made laws, viewing them as either redundant or immoral, and live entirely by their own moral code.

Such a person might band together with other such like-minded people to prevent others from infringing on their rights under this code of morality, and create their own code of behavior / laws that they insist on others using when interacting with them. This would not, however, be a government, as they would only insist on people conforming to this moral code when interacting with them, and allow others to develop alternate codes for interacting with anyone else.

That is, as I see it, this statement logically implies anarchistic self-government for anyone striving to adhere to Oist principles, and a refusal to accept any other code of law or behavior.

For example, this statement made by John Wayne in the movie "The Shootist":

"I won't be wronged, I won't be insulted, and I won't be laid a hand on. I don't do these things to other people and I expect the same from them."

This is an anarchistic personal code of law. John Wayne's character describes how he chooses to interact with others based on his code of values, insists on others observing that code when interacting with him, and otherwise lets others develop and act on their own code for interacting with others. And, he doesn't rely on a government to enforce it, he personally enforces it with his gun (though in theory he could hire someone else to enforce it for him).

Do you disagree with the notion that in a truly free society, such an anarchistic, personal code of law would be moral and laudable? Or do you think someone like John Wayne's character should conform to man-made laws that conflict with his values and insult his integrity and code of honor? That is, do you think this character is a hero or a villain?

Post 3

Friday, September 3, 2010 - 1:21am

Jim,

"There’s no way to rule innocent men." You read things into that that aren't there. What could those words mean? It could mean that morally innocent men don't feel guilty which makes it harder to get them to comply. Or, on a another level, it could mean that until a law is passed that makes them legally guilty, they are legally innocent. Without a violation of law, how can government exert power over them.

Tyrants need laws that make innocent men guilty so they can more easily rule them. In no way does that statement imply throwing out the very concept of the rule of law - only bad laws.
------------------------

You said that a person who is perfectly in tune with Objectivist philosophy that invariably and consistently acts in conformance with their beliefs doesn't need law. That is wrong because the laws will protect their property rights from others who are not perfectly in tune with Objectivist philosophy.

And even if everyone was perfectly in tune with Objectivist philosophy there would still be disagreements that would need to be settled by reference to the law as adjudged by a court or mediator.
------------------------

You said, "If a law is based on Oist philosophy, it is not necessary for this person, because they are already voluntarily in compliance."

Philosophy defines moral principles but it doesn't tell you how they are applied. Reasonable men can disagree on the meaning and application of moral principle. And law is needed to define the application of the moral principles. Two reasonable people can agree on a moral principle yet disagree on whether or not a specific act is moral under that principle - that's what the law should give us.
------------------------

You said, "Thus, a perfect Oist should ignore all man-made laws, viewing them as either redundant or immoral, and live entirely by their own moral code."

Jim, if you really believe this makes sense in any significant way, then you need to know that you are no longer tethered to reality. You have drifted off on a cloud of floating abstractions. The same exact 'reasoning' could be used by any follower of any philosophy. But then they would all still disagree and it would be a state of anarchy... oh, yeah, that's where you already are, isn't it?
-------------------------

You said, "Such a person might band together with other such like-minded people to prevent others from infringing on their rights under this code of morality, and create their own code of behavior / laws that they insist on others using when interacting with them. This would not, however, be a government, as they would only insist on people conforming to this moral code when interacting with them, and allow others to develop alternate codes for interacting with anyone else."

The founding fathers banded together with other like-minded people to prevent others from infringing on their rights. They created a government for just that reason. If you don't create a government, then your insistence that others interact with you according to those rules will have no teeth. They tried that for decades and King George and his parliment keep 'interacting' with them. Now, if the government only has and enforces laws compatible with individual rights, then there is nothing to complain about and if the laws are only partly right, fixing them is the only workable solution.
---------------------------

You quoted John Wayne's character as saying, ""I won't be wronged, I won't be insulted, and I won't be laid a hand on. I don't do these things to other people and I expect the same from them."

You said, "This is an anarchistic personal code of law. "

No, it is what he would like to have the laws, ethics, and ettiquette conform to. You make a giant and unwarranted leap to say that wishing others had the same beliefs I have is a reason for throwing out the rule of law.

Continuing to discuss this gunfighter character, you say, "And, he doesn't rely on a government to enforce it, he personally enforces it with his gun (though in theory he could hire someone else to enforce it for him)."

Don't you have any part of you that says, "Whoops, I just went too far. I advocated people shoot each other over insults." Why would you think that people making up their own rules and shooting each other to get their way would be better than having laws? Doesn't any part of that make you think of Somalia or rabid gang shootings?
-----------------------------

You said, "Do you disagree with the notion that in a truly free society, such an anarchistic, personal code of law would be moral and laudable? Or do you think someone like John Wayne's character should conform to man-made laws that conflict with his values and insult his integrity and code of honor? That is, do you think this character is a hero or a villain?"

All moral codes are personal at the level of action, they must be. That code isn't anarchistic in the sense that it means there should be no laws. Because a person acts on what they believe, even if it puts them in opposition with a law, does not make them an anarchist. Would you consider a member of the crips gang who shoots someone that disrespects them to be a hero or a villain?

Post 4

Friday, September 3, 2010 - 8:49am

Jim, consider the source. The quote is from Part Two, Chapter 3 of Atlas Shrugged. The speaker is Dr. Floyd Ferris, a villian or looter. So the advocate is Ferris, not Ayn Rand.

Post 5

Friday, September 3, 2010 - 9:43am

Steve -- thanks for your thoughts in post #3. I agree with some of what you said, though I do have what I would characterize as subtle, minor disagreements and which you would likely regard as huge irreconciliable differences. ;)

I don't know if I'll have time later to write down my thoughts about this post -- perhaps in the meantime others will shape the debate such that my participation would be redundant. Oh, and a sanction.

Post 6

Friday, September 3, 2010 - 9:59am

OK, I'll take a swing at this one:

You said, "Thus, a perfect Oist should ignore all man-made laws, viewing them as either redundant or immoral, and live entirely by their own moral code."

Jim, if you really believe this makes sense in any significant way, then you need to know that you are no longer tethered to reality. You have drifted off on a cloud of floating abstractions. The same exact 'reasoning' could be used by any follower of any philosophy. But then they would all still disagree and it would be a state of anarchy... oh, yeah, that's where you already are, isn't it?

While I am anything but a "perfect Oist", this statement in fact describes my actual behavior.

I do not regard any of the governments whose rule I am subjected to be legitimate organizations that I have consented to be subjected to.

I consider them to all be criminal organizations primarily devoted to taking away my freedom.

I do not have the power to overthrow any of these organizations.

Therefore, I comply with those laws that coincide with my moral code. I further comply with those laws and edicts that conflict with my moral code, but where non-compliance would leave me worse off than grudgingly knuckling under.

I disobey those laws I disagree with where the perceived costs of evasion are less than the perceived costs of compliance.

How is any of this in any way being "untethered from reality" or "a cloud of floating abstractions"? It seems like a pragmatic approach to dealing with coercion by statists.

Post 7

Friday, September 3, 2010 - 5:42pm

Jim,

I'm not going to get into this argument again. You can go back and read any one of the dozens (maybe hundreds) of posts I've already made that explain why anarchism doesn't work, isn't rational, and isn't moral.

With all due respect, you are not only not a perfect O'ist (whatever that might be) but you aren't an Objectivist - not until you drop your advocacy of anarchy.
-------------

"Anarchy, as a political concept, is a naive floating abstraction: . . . a society without an organized government would be at the mercy of the first criminal who came along and who would precipitate it into the chaos of gang warfare. But the possibility of human immorality is not the only objection to anarchy: even a society whose every member were fully rational and faultlessly moral, could not function in a state of anarchy; it is the need of objective laws and of an arbiter for honest disagreements among men that necessitates the establishment of a government."

“The Nature of Government,” The Virtue of Selfishness, 112

Post 8

Saturday, September 4, 2010 - 7:00pm

Steve -- We shall have to respectfully agree to disagree about your implied assertion that Objectivism is the collection of sayings by Ayn Rand, including your AR quote saying anarcho-libertarianism is not possible and that a government is always and invariably necessary.

We shall have to agree to disagree with your assertion that I am not an Objectivist because I think Ayn Rand was wrong about this particular assertion, with the implication that anyone who disagrees with any statement made by her is not an Objectivist. Ayn Rand tried to enforce that rule, and wound up shoving nearly everyone out of her life.

To say that her words on this subject are The Truth TM, no dissent brooked, is to establish a religion. I assert this: the true spirit of Objectivism is to skeptically examine every assertion, measure it against one's experiences and the data one has accumulated, filter it through one's reason, and see what survives.

Perhaps I am wrong about anarcho-libertarianism. I don't think that is the case, but I am open to the possibly of an error in my logic, I admit to this possibility. If I understand what you wrote in the previous post, you assert that you are absolutely, incontrovertibly right about the necessity for government, and that nothing could possibly change your mind. That isn't philosophy. That is dogma, and dogmatic thinking is the antithesis of Objectivist thinking.

Post 9

Saturday, September 4, 2010 - 7:57pm

Jim,

I did NOT imply that Objectivism is the collected saying of Ayn Rand - don't claim that I did.

That should have been made clear by the dashed-line I used to separate Ayn Rand's wisdom regarding anarchy being a floating abstraction and her quite accurate observation that even perfectly rational and fully moral individuals would still need a government. Her quote was the perfect answer to your previous posts faulty assertions.
-----------------------

An Objectivist advocates for a limited government. Let me know if you decide to give up anarchy... until then you are an anarchist not an Objectivist. You can claim that you agree with all of the basic tenets of Objectivism (in metaphysics, epistemology and ethics) except for politics. You can claim that you support capitalism, but since it won't work under anarchy you only claim to support it.
------------------------

You said, "To say that her words on this subject are The Truth TM, no dissent brooked, is to establish a religion. I assert this: the true spirit of Objectivism is to skeptically examine every assertion, measure it against one's experiences and the data one has accumulated, filter it through one's reason, and see what survives."

You can assert anything you want... but it doesn't make it so. "Objectivism" is a word that has a specific meaning. That meaning isn't the strawman that you threw up (the collected sayings of Ayn Rand). And it most certainly isn't your self-proclaimed skeptism which advocates reason. Boil your sentence down. All it says is that you advocate using reason. Period. That's fine, but it isn't enough to separate 'Objectivism' from a great many other philosophies that also advocate using reason. Bad definition.

She explained what Objectivism was in The Objectivist Newsletter.

1.Reality exists as an objective absolute—facts are facts, independent of man’s feelings, wishes, hopes or fears.

2.Reason (the faculty which identifies and integrates the material provided by man’s senses) is man's only means of perceiving reality, his only source of knowledge, his only guide to action, and his basic means of survival.

3.Man — every man — is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life.

4.The ideal political-economic system is laissez-faire capitalism. It is a system where men deal with one another, not as victims and executioners, nor as masters and slaves, but as traders, by free, voluntary exchange to mutual benefit. It is a system where no man may obtain any values from others by resorting to physical force, and no man may initiate the use of physical force against others. The government acts only as a policeman that protects man’s rights; it uses physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use, such as criminals or foreign invaders. In a system of full capitalism, there should be (but, historically, has not yet been) a complete separation of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of state and church.
[emphasis mine]

Anarchy versus government is not a minor difference. This is an essential and primary principle. For Ayn Rand, government was a required component in the protection of individual rights and this was the heart of her political implementation.
-----------------

You wrote (referring to me), "...you assert that you are absolutely, incontrovertibly right about the necessity for government, and that nothing could possibly change your mind. That isn't philosophy. That is dogma, and dogmatic thinking is the antithesis of Objectivist thinking."

Jim, you claim to value reason but don't appear to be using it in that last bit. No, I didn't "assert" that I was right. My words might be said to "imply" that I was right. Do you look for people to 'assert' that they are wrong when they state a conclusion they believe in? Should I state a conclusion but append a clause denying that my conclusion is correct? Certainty refers to either a feeling, or a calculated probability or both and possessing certainty in a given conclusion is NOT the same as saying that nothing could change ones mind and it is NOT the same as dogma. If you take certainty as an identifying characteristic of dogma and believe certainty is always the antithesis of Objectivist thinking you have a lot of rethinking to do! (take a look at Joe Rowland's little article on certainty)
-----------------------

I have seen you be open to having an error in logic pointed out in the past on different issues and that is to your credit. But I haven't seen you apply that kind of open, critical reasoning in the anarchy arguments. Nor have I seen you willing to admit that the difference that you have with Rand in this area is critical enough, and fundamental enough that you should not call yourself an Objectivist. You are a libertarian and an anarchist who agrees with the positions Objectivism takes in epistemology, metaphysics, and ethics but not in politics.

Post 10

Saturday, September 4, 2010 - 9:19pm

Steve: You asserted, "I did NOT imply that Objectivism is the collected saying of Ayn Rand - don't claim that I did."

Then you said, " 'Objectivism' is a word that has a specific meaning. That meaning isn't the strawman that you threw up (the collected sayings of Ayn Rand).

Then you said, [Ayn Rand] explained what Objectivism was in The Objectivist Newsletter.

1.Reality exists as an objective absolute—facts are facts, independent of man’s feelings, wishes, hopes or fears.

2.Reason (the faculty which identifies and integrates the material provided by man’s senses) is man's only means of perceiving reality, his only source of knowledge, his only guide to action, and his basic means of survival.

3.Man — every man — is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life.

4.The ideal political-economic system is laissez-faire capitalism. It is a system where men deal with one another, not as victims and executioners, nor as masters and slaves, but as traders, by free, voluntary exchange to mutual benefit. It is a system where no man may obtain any values from others by resorting to physical force, and no man may initiate the use of physical force against others. The government acts only as a policeman that protects man’s rights; it uses physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use, such as criminals or foreign invaders. In a system of full capitalism, there should be (but, historically, has not yet been) a complete separation of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of state and church.

That is, you asserted that Ayn Rand defined what Objectivism is, and you implied that that definition is the final word, no dissent allowed, and anyone who disagreed with any portion of that definition is not an Objectivist.

That conflicts with your first statement above in italics.

As to this assertion by Ayn Rand about what she feels ought to be the definition of Objectivist beliefs, here are my comments:

Part 1: Totally agree with every word of that.

Part 2: Totally agree with every word of that.

Part 3: Totally agree with every word of that.

Part 4: Totally agree with sentences 1, 2, 3, and 5.

I disagree with sentence #4, if "government" is defined in the standard manner, because that form of government by definition conflicts with sentence #2. For a "government" to be "a system where men deal with one another, not as victims and executioners, nor as masters and slaves, but as traders, by free, voluntary exchange to mutual benefit" is a contradiction in terms, since such a "government" would have to obtain consent from everyone who is a subject of it -- it would have to obtain their "free, voluntary exchange", which of necessity means that the "traders" would have to be able to decline to do business with one "government" and obtain their "government" services with a competitor -- and if that is permitted, the "government" is no longer a government.

That one sentence is the difference between Objectivists who are minarchists, and Objectivists who hold that a fully voluntary, fully non-coerced means of securing each individual's rights is in fact possible, desirable, and moral -- in a word, "anarcho-libertarians" or "anarcho-capitalists."

I do not expect you to agree with this assertion. I don't even expect you to back off from your assertion that those whose reason leads them to spot the contradiction between sentences 2 and 4 aren't really Objectivists.

I am merely trying to have you understand (without agreeing to) my principled objection to your definition of what is and isn't Objectivism, and my principled objection to the notion that arranging for the securing of one's rights inevitably and invariably means resorting to a "government" as that term is currently defined.

Post 11

Saturday, September 4, 2010 - 10:26pm

Jim,

You said, "...you implied that that definition is the final word, no dissent allowed..."

No, I did NOT. You are free to dissent... obviously - I have never said otherwise. Everyone is free to offer a better definition (or one that is worse). Why the hell do you keep putting these words in my mouth?

What Rand has to say will continue to have more value to most of us as input on the question "What is Objectivism?" than what Jim Henshaw says on that question. Do you really think otherwise? I've never said that this value is final and beyond questioning. That would be absurd.

You continue to make this very illogical form of argument where you accuse me of implying something. Then you ride all about the landscape on the statement I never made nor implied. So, here we are. I have made arguments as to why Objectivism includes advocacy of limited government. I have made the arguments at a logical level and I have quoted Rand who is afterall an acknowledged expert on what Objectivism is. You on the other hand, make up things, claiming that I implied them, and use them to argue against.

You state that Rand's definition of Objectivism contains a contradiction-in-terms. It doesn't. You claim that government, as she means it, must have everyone's consent since she used the phrase, "free, voluntary exchange to mutual benefit." Jim, I've said it many times before - I'll say it again. You must have a government based upon individual rights BEFORE you can have "free, voluntary exchange to mutual benefit" - that word "free" means an absence of initiated coercive force. Anarchy can not, will not, could never eliminate the initiation of coercive force and therefore would never attain freedom, therefore would never allow for "free, voluntary exchange to mutual benefit." Rand was quite clear about the purpose of government being the attaining of that state of freedom. Further, no one is required to consent to observing individual rights. Consent is only required for an act that would, without consent, be a violation of rights (like agreeing to let someone else use their property.) Rand has always argued for government based upon individual rights.

I understand what you have written. Notice that I have not put words in your mouth. I have pointed out specific errors. You get to have as many opinons (right or wrong) as you want, and you don't have to acknowledge errors. But the facts are facts. The fact is that I didn't imply the things you said I did. The fact is that Rand did not create a contradiction-in-terms.

Post 12

Monday, September 6, 2010 - 4:03pm

Steve -- peace. I didn't say that people are not allowed to dissent from Ayn Rand's views, which is pretty obvious, since 99.9% or so of the populace does so dissent.

Rather, I was pointing out that you were implying that, in your opinion, anyone who disagrees with any part of the following is not an Objectivist:

1.Reality exists as an objective absolute—facts are facts, independent of man’s feelings, wishes, hopes or fears.

2.Reason (the faculty which identifies and integrates the material provided by man’s senses) is man's only means of perceiving reality, his only source of knowledge, his only guide to action, and his basic means of survival.

3.Man — every man — is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life.

4.The ideal political-economic system is laissez-faire capitalism. It is a system where men deal with one another, not as victims and executioners, nor as masters and slaves, but as traders, by free, voluntary exchange to mutual benefit. It is a system where no man may obtain any values from others by resorting to physical force, and no man may initiate the use of physical force against others. The government acts only as a policeman that protects man’s rights; it uses physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use, such as criminals or foreign invaders. In a system of full capitalism, there should be (but, historically, has not yet been) a complete separation of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of state and church.

I disagree with your implied assertion that this is settled dogma, and that anyone who questions even a single sentence of this is by definition not an Objectivist.

But, tell you what: let's see if other people who claim to be Objectivists agree with your assertion. Make a poll that asks something like this:

If someone questions any sentence or word of the following statement by Ayn Rand, they are not Objectivists:

[insert quote]

1) Yes, anyone who questions any part of this assertion is not (yet) an Objectivist.

2) No, an Objectivist can disagree with, or at least question, some aspect of this assertion and remain an Objectivist.

3) Maybe / not sure.

4) Answer number 1, plus anyone who checks answer 3 is also not an Objectivist. This is settled dogma, dammit. No impertinent questions or waffling allowed. ;)

I vote for answer #2.
(Edited by Jim Henshaw on 9/06, 4:18pm)

Post 13

Monday, September 6, 2010 - 5:10pm

Jim,

In post #10, you said, "no dissent allowed"
Then in post #12, you said, "I didn't say that people are not allowed to dissent from Ayn Rand's views."

I can't be responsible if you don't mean what you write, or write in ways that easily lead to misunderstanding.
----------------

You wrote, "I disagree with your implied assertion that this is settled dogma, and that anyone who questions even a single sentence of this is by definition not an Objectivist."

I need to get picky again because of the style you choose to use in writing your posts.
1.) I would never imply or assert that those quotes of Ayn Rand's were "dogma." That insult is from your mouth, not mine.
2.) I would never say that people had to agree with the specific words or the specific sentences. I do assert that to be an Objectivist you need to agree with the basic premises - the basic ideas that are described in those sentences. Everyone that recognizes that a government is needed to establish freedom has recognized that support of minarchy is a basic Objectivist premise. Those who don't recognize that government is needed to establish freedom doesn't understand freedom.
----------------

I'm not interested in a poll on who believes which ideas are required for one to be an Objectivist. (And if I was going to put up that poll I'd never use the wording you suggested.)

There could not be a Christian Objectivist. Someone could be a Christian who believe in most, but clearly not all of the basic premises of Objectivism. And, it is also not possible for someone to be an Anarchist Objectivist. The closest they could come would be an Anarchist who believes in most of the principles of Objectivism.

Post 14

Monday, September 6, 2010 - 6:32pm

Jim,

In post #10, you said, "no dissent allowed"
Then in post #12, you said, "I didn't say that people are not allowed to dissent from Ayn Rand's views."

I can't be responsible if you don't mean what you write, or write in ways that easily lead to misunderstanding.

Steve -- I didn't just write the words "no dissent allowed", I wrote a bunch of words before and after that phrase in the same sentence explaining the meaning and context:

That is, you asserted that Ayn Rand defined what Objectivism is, and you implied that that definition is the final word, no dissent allowed, and anyone who disagreed with any portion of that definition is not an Objectivist.

Taking words out of context like that can certainly lead to misunderstanding, but blaming the misunderstanding on the writer seems ... misplaced.

Yes, I understand that you think a government with a monopoly of force in a given geographic area is essential to securing the rights valued by Objectivists. You seem to think that if only we can get the right people in charge of that government, and keep them in charge, a minarchy can exist and continue to exist, despite the evidence before our eyes: no such government exists anywhere on the earth, and arguably hasn't existed for roughly a century. I understand that you think that anyone who thinks otherwise, who questions the notion of a viable lasting minarchy, and suggests that perhaps a government-run monopoly isn't the best way to guarantee our inalienable rights, isn't an Objectivist.

I would suggest that applying reason and logic to the abundance of available facts might lead one to lose faith in the goodness of a monopoly of force exerted by the kinds of sociopaths who seem to proliferate in political office, and instead realize the wisdom of individuals being able to fire said sociopaths and replace them with alternate arrangements for securing rights. I would suggest that such a view is, in fact, compatible with Objectivist philosophy.
(Edited by Jim Henshaw on 9/06, 6:50pm)

Post 15

Monday, September 6, 2010 - 9:56pm

Jim,

I didn't drop context. The thought, "no dissent allowed" was not modified or limited by the context. Your argument was about trying to paint me as dogmatic - and that was one of the brush strokes you used, accusing me of implying that no dissent was allowed.

Post 16

Wednesday, September 8, 2010 - 12:55pm

Steve, not saying you're dogmatic about everything. But, for this particular narrow topic, you are. Here are your words in this thread, trying to saying all sorts of dissenting POVs disqualify someone from being an Objectivist. In these statements, you take on the self-appointed gatekeeper role of arbiter of who is or is not an Objectivist, and assert that unless someone narrowly conforms in precise detail to your purist vision of who can be an Objectivist, you refuse to recognize them as such.:

"Those who don't recognize that government is needed to establish freedom doesn't understand freedom."

"There could not be a Christian Objectivist."

"An Objectivist advocates for a limited government. Let me know if you decide to give up anarchy... until then you are an anarchist not an Objectivist."

" "Objectivism" is a word that has a specific meaning."

"With all due respect, you are not only not a perfect O'ist (whatever that might be) but you aren't an Objectivist - not until you drop your advocacy of anarchy."

With respect, let me dissent from this notion that you know precisely what is an Objectivist, and have the authority to "read people out" of that movement.

Objectivism is a subset of libertarianism / individualism, grounded on a few fundamental principles, mainly the eschewing of coercion and the assertion that reality IS, that reality is a fundamental concrete thing the nature of which can be deduced using the senses and reason.

From these fundamental principles, Ayn Rand derived some theories, one of which is that minarchism is the perfect form of governance and that anarchism absolutely can't work, another of which is that atheism is the only acceptable form of religious belief.

These derived theories are not set-in-stone, unquestionable facts. They are what is known in scientific jargon as falsifiable theories, not fundamental core principles, however strongly the available evidence might seem to be in their favor.

If, for example, an actual real sentient being akin to an advanced computer, whose matter is composed of the black hole at the center of our galaxy, is discovered, and turns out to be the deity-like being that religions so crudely describe, would that invalidate Objectivism?

If a breakaway state, say Texas, separates from the union and creates an anarchic hodge-podge of something similar to Homeowners Associations or private protective services that allow residents to purchase their services or opt out, would that invalidate Objectivism?

I say no. If something resembling either of those (wildly speculative) scenarios occurred, they would modify the derived theories Ayn Rand postulated, while leaving the core principles intact.

What you are doing is similar to those people who said that Newton's laws of gravity are the final, unalterable word on that aspect of physics, uttering that declaration prior to Einstein's slight modification of that theory with his theories of relativity, thus replacing a very good approximation of reality with a slightly better approximation.

Post 17

Wednesday, September 8, 2010 - 5:31pm

Jim,

I'm not going to give the reply that your post should receive. There are too, too many things that you don't grasp and I don't find myself motivated to explain. You don't understand that 'certainty' isn't precluded by the unevidenced possibility of being proved wrong in some imaginable future.

You don't understand the nature of a definition as it applies to Objectivism and how I and everyone or anyone has the same "authority" to make these statements. (Out of curiosity, who are you looking for to be the "authority"? How will you recognize them when they show up? - or do you take the position that there can never be an "authoritative" conclusion made on anything? If it is that last, then how do you get away with stating that as an absolute?)

You seem to take an epistemological position that people can't really know anything absolutely - you need to look into that, because it is an absolute itself.

You seem to think that atheism is a religion - peculiar.

You seem to think that all beliefs are equal in their capacity to be not right under some possible future conditions... Like your imagined possibility of a black-hole resident computer deity in the center of the universe which is not a sound argument for discarding atheism. More serious epistemology problems you need to deal with.
------------------

You said, "If a breakaway state, say Texas, separates from the union and creates an anarchic hodge-podge of something similar to Homeowners Associations or private protective services that allow residents to purchase their services or opt out, would that invalidate Objectivism?"

You have to add one more condition to your hypothetical - that this new anarchy-based state of Texas must become a place that somehow supports individual rights better than anything else we've seen - it has to succeed. If that happens, then Objectivism would be proved wrong in its understanding of the relationship between a minarchy and individual rights.

But that argument sucks. It is simply sticking your conclusion that anarchy works into a hypothetical and then saying, "See, anarchy works and that disproves the Objectivist minarchy position." It is begging the question.
--------------------

Post 18

Friday, September 10, 2010 - 4:00pm

Jim,

You seem to think that if only we can get the right people in charge of that government, and keep them in charge, a minarchy can exist and continue to exist ...

I see something wrong with the above (a fallacy). Do you have an idea of what it is? I will answer if you don't.

Ed

Post 19

Sunday, September 12, 2010 - 1:03pm