Open Letter to Ayn Rand
Posted by helidrvr 10 years, 7 months ago to Philosophy
This one stands on its own merit, so I am not going to engage in an debate about it. Read it and draw your own conclusions.
- Hot
- New
- Categories...
- Producer's Lounge
- Producer's Vault
- The Gulch: Live! (New)
- Ask the Gulch!
- Going Galt
- Books
- Business
- Classifieds
- Culture
- Economics
- Education
- Entertainment
- Government
- History
- Humor
- Legislation
- Movies
- News
- Philosophy
- Pics
- Politics
- Science
- Technology
- Video
- The Gulch: Best of
- The Gulch: Bugs
- The Gulch: Feature Requests
- The Gulch: Featured Producers
- The Gulch: General
- The Gulch: Introductions
- The Gulch: Local
- The Gulch: Promotions
- Marketplace
- Members
- Store
- More...
I wish I had that much faith in my fellow man, but...
Whensoever man has tried to coexist there have been those that would rule, by whatever means necessary. Attilas will rise. Tyranny is the result. Men are not all fit or ready for anarchy.
“The natural liberty of man is to be free from any superior power on earth, and not to be under the will or legislative authority of man, but to have only the law of nature for his rule.”
Locke, John. The Second Treatise of Civil Government. 1690.
“The great end of men's entering into society, being the enjoyment of their properties in peace and safety, and the great instrument and means of that being the laws established in that society; the first and fundamental positive law of all commonwealths is the establishing of the legislative power...”
Locke, John. The Second Treatise of Civil Government. 1690.
This of course implies a need for an enforcement mechanism, i.e., a police force.
Is limited government a floating abstraction? I believe it is concrete, actual enough. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYahVMMx...
Whatever it is, if it can be maintained, it is the best way yet devised for generally peaceful coexistence. It may be that it cannot be maintained without periodic revolution. "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." - Thomas Jefferson
Respectfully,
O.A.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0jReeAe3...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gF-svHxZ...
The problem Mr Childs never acknowledged, what is that certain cities in the United States tried something close to free market anarchism. Chicago in the 1920s was an example. Two rival empires, specializing in the production and distribution of alcoholic beverages, competed not only for distribution but also for the right to protect their respective businesses. The heads of those firms were, of course, Al Capone and Bugs Moran. We all remember how that ended, on February 14th, 1929. After that episode, the People demanded a return of the police to their proper role, which they had effectively abandoned.
Any advocates of free market anarchy must say why it would not be in the rational self-interest either to be an Al Capone, or to tolerate one.
It's not in anyone's rational self-interest to either be an Al Capone or tolerate one because it is immoral and unhealthy to live for another's sake or ask him or her to live for yours. (Threatening and using force, or stealing property, entail a person living for someone else's sake.) I read a psychological study which showed that people who consume more value than they produce end up depressed. Yes, there's an actual karmic aspect to Ayn Rand's philosophy, in case you haven't already experienced it yourself.
To be more specific, Al Capone enjoyed the protection of the Unione Sicilione, more on account of shared Italian heritage than anything else. Moran was Irish. But I take your point: they were organized criminals. But the CPD took those bribes, and effectively ignored the tension between the two gangs, because the people of Chicago wanted it that way. They didn't give a swizzle stick for anyone "not doing his sworn duty." Very likely they were some of the same people saying the passwords at speakeasies all over town every night.
Here's the point: the Saint Valentine's Day Massacre, and the Capone-Moran feud, are what ordinary people are going to think of, whenever they think of privately contracting protection organizations. That's what you're fighting. If possession is nine points of the civil law, perception is nine points of any debate, especially in political philosophy, as opposed to a choice between political candidates.
That said, the most famous documentary on the Capone-Moran feud (with Jason Robards as Capone) did say absolutely everyone who took part in the Massacre came to a sad end. That includes Capone, who died insane from late syphilis. But most people aren't going to make that kind of connection.
It's one thing to present your case here; quite another to take it before the people.
1) You consider the corruptibility of humans as a condemnation of the corruptibility of an institution of men (government) but negate the possibility of similar corruptibility of other institutions of men (free-market services). How does that make sense?
2) You discount the possibility of a free-market solution to providing security services to be corrupted to provide those services in support of their own client at the detriment of their neighbors.
3) You state seemingly as fact that it is not in anyone's rational self-interest to be AC or BM. I think that both of them, as well as all such criminals would beg to differ. And for some period of time, they achieved significant success and were highly productive regarding their chosen objectives. The fact that they traded short-term benefits for longer-term problems is a matter of choice, not irrationality. You might find that choice irrational, but they certainly did not.
4) If this supposed psychological study is valid, then anyone who takes out a loan must be depressed. You are consuming more in the short term than you are producing. That's the worst sort of psychological pablum.
2) I didn't, and don't, discount anything. People are what they are, and there are good people and bad ones. Do you claim that under our current government system there aren't people who use it unfairly to cause harm to others? Lobbyists for special interests get subsidies from our tax dollars, favorable laws that hurt the competition, lawsuits against companies they don't like, etc. Let's compare the free market: When there's a car accident, someone is at fault, and each company is going to argue against their customer's liability as much as they reasonable can. This is a free-market protection service, and I personally haven't heard that Progressive or Allstate or any of the insurers have become corrupt to the point that they throw truth out the window to avoid coverage. Anything is possible, but again, with the option to boycott a corrupt company by withdrawing financial support, I think the free market approach is certainly no more prone to corruption than forced monopoly, and could easily be less corruptible.
3) Hmmm, I thought you were an Objectivist. Yet, you're arguing that it is rational to steal, destroy others' property, and kill others. My turn to be astonished. Making a profit by harming others is not what I would call "productive." You seem to believe that the moral code and choices of gangsters or psychopaths can never be considered irrational merely because it's what they chose and they received some short-term benefit. I would disagree. Every person out there is an actual or potential trading partner, and intentionally harming them for short-term gain is not in a rational person's self-interest.
4) I don't have the study right in front of me, but I believe the value provided vs. value received was calculated by the individuals themselves. People who felt they were overall not producing enough value, compared to what they were consuming, wound up feeling depressed. I don't think this kind of negative self-judgment would apply to a normal person who took out a loan and had the intent and ability to pay it back, with interest. Taking out a loan is a value-for-value exchange; the lender wouldn't do it if it there was no benefit for him. Is it your position that people can be happy and psychologically healthy while mooching off of others, excluding psychopaths and the like? Again, you're hanging out in an Objectivist forum, but you seem to be rejecting Ayn Rand's basic concept that, by the nature of man, his noblest activity is productive work, and his self-esteem depends on it. I think this concept is truth, and not "psychological pablum."
2. You support private entities, in this case "security" as being superior - but fail to recognize that these same types of actors were what AC and BM were employing to the detriment of their neighbors. Thus, it is not the fact that they are private security that makes them superior/inferior to public police.
3. Why would you think I was an Objectivist? And why would you expect others to behave in accord with some fanciful ideology? I'm a realist and a student of humanity. I have no false or naïve expectations of my fellow man. And I said that they were productive in the pursuit of their objectives - not that I agree with those objectives, but they were very successful.
4. If the study were as you describe, then I could probably introduce those who conducted the study to several thousands here in Milwaukee alone, who are moochers of the public largess who have no such poor view of themselves.
1) I don't doubt the corruptibility of free market intuitions, they are just easier to fight than a government when it turns corrupt.
2) choosing favorites is bad business, when people are looking for a security company, they aren't going to choose the one that doesn't act in a fair way, nor will they pay for one that immediately chooses violent solutions. If they can't get people to pay for the service, how are they going to pay for the weapons to attack others?
3) I agree with you here, and while speculation is hard, I would wager people like AC would be far less dangerous to society under a voluntary system.
4) sad is a perspective, so I would say irrelevant.
2. You assume that a private security company might be seeking multiple clients. I would say that the "private security" that was employed by Al Capone or Bugs Moran were happy enough with their one "client." While these thugs weren't a distinct company, you could think of them as independent contractors. But they served only one client and they did so to the detriment of all other neighbors. In so doing, they were fairly well compensated, so I would say that negates your statement - in fact, it was very good business (if you didn't end up getting shot in a garage on Valentine's Day, that is). I do agree that private market solutions to security services are possible, just that the original statement that this makes them beyond corruption is not valid.
3) Why?
4) My response was to the points from the Kittyhawk post, which made a reference to a psychological study, not to the post by Temlakos about the "sad" end. If you have some comment about the Kittyhawk reference and my response, please elaborate.
Other nations, cyber hackers and terrorists will attack.
Therefore force, National military, police, legal system for victim compensation are all necessary.
Those who advocate anarchy without enforcement are denying reality (which Ayn said is the root of evil)
Perhaps that wit was me. The only references to it that I can find in a brief search are my own, viz.: https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index...
Then there are other anarchists like Stefan Molyneux, who wrote in his book "Practical Anarchy," that government isn't necessary, and all we really need is a Dispute Resolution Organization, or DRO. I don't know why he doesn't just use the term "court system," because that's really all he's describing. Maybe inventing new terminology to refer to existing institutions makes him feel smarter or something.
But Molyneux never explained how a DRO would be able to ensure that its resolutions would be followed and adhered to in the absence of a government body to enforce those resolutions.
Under anarchy there are no rules, only a voluntarily agreed to code of conduct, adhered to but not enforced - you can opt out anytime and suffer the consequences, if any. A voluntary code of conduct in winter time may be to remove your shoes at the entrance to a home. You can choose not to, but will likely not be on the guest list next week. This is not force, just non-aggressive ostracism.
The non-aggression principle is a lazy attempt to short cut philosophy and fails miserably. For instance, it does not explain how to deal with the DDT issue or AGW.
Libertarians have been intellectually lazy and attempted to short cut philosophy. The result has been a disaster where some Libertarians think it is okay to have sex with minors, others talk about marxist libertarianism.
Libertarians are trying to build a skyscraper without a foundation.
DDT and AGW are not issues, they are a blend of opinions and facts. If you are an objectivist you promote man's ability to reason for himself what is beneficial to him. If someone thinks DDT or AGW is a problem they can feel free to persuade others to join them in their cause, having a government does nothing but tell people they are too dumb to decide for themselves on such issues.
I do understand that simply stating "I won't hurt you if you don't hurt me," isn't a solid foundation, but the book universally preferable behavior does a good job of expanding a philosophical foundation that originated with NAP.
The NAP is a poor substitute for Locke's natural rights. It does not explain property, or if you have property, or why you have legitimate property rights, it does not explain how contracts are created, why they can be created, how they will be interpreted. The NAP says nothing about reason. It is a intellectually lazy short cut argument for freedom and as a result will only result in disaster.
How many psychopaths do you think there are out there to justify this level of inefficiency?
How about we privatize security forces to actually show up when a crime is in progress to stop it, instead of showing up afterwards to file a report and clean up the mess. If you have any knowledge about how a free market works you know that if one security force starts abusing its customers they are going to hire someone else.
How about an arbitration company that knows if they don't do their best to judge fairly you will subscribe to a different company, and in the process give them negative reviews for any other patrons to judge fairly?
If a man's mind is his method of survival, stop trying to take that away. If you want a government, subscribe to one and leave me out of it.
I agree about the police of today, but they were not always that way. This is result of philosophy, which is then reflected in culture. Changing the procedural systems will not create or save freedom, only winning the philosophical battle will do that. The NAP is an attempt to shortcut the process. It uses the results of a complex philosophical system for freedom and attempts to ignore the foundation, with the same disastrous results of trying to build a skyscraper without a foundation.
Discussing things like this is fun for me, and I hope you derive at least some enjoyment out of it, but I just want to be clear that I'm in full support of an objectivist style government and will do what I can to bring that about.
Belief in simple answers and short cuts, for something as complex as belief and pride in oneself and one's accomplishments, have to a large extent led us into the type of system we all have to live in today. The task ahead is indeed daunting, but until faced and as db says, a foundation sufficient for a working Objectivist life is laid, everything else is just pie in the sky dreaming.
Beware of those that promise simple and shortcut answers. Such usually derive from shallow thinking and wishes, not reason and recognitions of reality.
Lets say you purchase 1000 acres of land out in Wyoming. You have all the resources on that property that you need to survive without interacting with the rest of society, so you seemingly have no need for "government." Everything goes along just fine for some time - you have no income so no taxes, you don't require fire or police services, you are seemingly fully self sufficient and devoid of government (yes, I'm conveniently leaving out the issue of property taxes, let's just assume no such thing exists). A new neighbor moves in next door and likes your property that is adjacent to his. So much so, that he begins to use it for his own needs. You now have a dispute about who gets to use those resources.
You can -
1) Utilize retaliatory force to evict the invading neighbor, at which time the neighbor may escalate and use even greater force to retain his violation of your property, such escalation could continue to the point of loss of life, the ultimate loss of liberty.
2) You could discuss the violation with the neighbor and reason with him to stop the violation, at which point the neighbor may or may not agree or even care about your property rights and revert to scenario 1.
3) You may employ some outside agency to act on your behalf, which will only result in either scenario 1 or 2.
4) You can bring the violation to an external entity to mediate, but if that external agent doesn't have the ability to enforce the decision you end up with scenario 1 or 2.
5) You can bring the violation to an external entity to mediate that does have the inherent power - which is a government.
I dunno, I'll think about it.
Maybe instead of buying land in Wyoming I'll just have you guys bill me for anything I use that was payed for by taxes and I'll pay it as long as you don't infringe on my ability to make contracts with others. How does that sound?
To whit, from Merriam-Webster:
Government
1: the act or process of governing; specifically : authoritative direction or control
2 obsolete : moral conduct or behavior : discretion
3 a : the office, authority, or function of governing
b obsolete : the term during which a governing official holds office
4: the continuous exercise of authority over and the performance of functions for a political unit : rule
5 a : the organization, machinery, or agency through which a political unit exercises authority and performs functions and which is usually classified according to the distribution of power within it
b : the complex of political institutions, laws, and customs through which the function of governing is carried out
6: the body of persons that constitutes the governing authority of a political unit or organization
None of these definitions prevents a free-market solution to performing the governing functions. Thus, in fact, the free-market solution is itself a "government." As such, to argue that "government" is immoral but to advocate for a free-market method of achieving the same ends, thus creating a different form of "government" is circular reasoning that disproves the thesis.
Anarchy requires no authority, by definition. To argue that the authority could be created via a free-market method is counter to the fundamental premise of anarchy, thus, it is not anarchy.
I think that the methods prescribed are worthy of examination, and even implementation. To call them non-government is foolish and violates basic definitions. It is merely a different method of governing - one that vests the power in a more distributed form.
The question of monopoly is a canard. For those who choose one governing entity over another, in a free-market system, is choosing a self-imposed monopoly. The fact that you can choose another provider if you don't like this provider is merely a matter of who performs the services - but the rules would need to be the same regardless of service provider, thus we are not discussing the act of governing, nor the governing itself, merely the specific entity of who provides the services. This already happens today in various locations. Security services are provided by private contractors in many situations. Police organizations contract with private firms to augment security, to investigate crimes and perform forensic analysis. Does this disqualify them from being termed "government?" Of course not.
I would agree to a consumption tax (sales tax) as that is essentially voluntary as the individual does not have to consume (and that goes for food and clothing as theoretically one can provide either without having to purchase, albeit at a much less convenient process).
Schooling is the one area where I haven't seen a good free-market solution. It is to the benefit of society in general to educate the populace, and that is best done in childhood through young adulthood. Most children are also created by parents that are younger and with a lower level of income. There are also many parents who do not have any means to pay for education (we can set aside the discussion as to whether it is moral for them to have children if they cannot pay for them, as in our society, that is not a requirement). Would it be rational to create a system whereby the student themselves pays for their education, in the form of a loan that they are saddled with that must be paid back after they have reached an age of productivity? But what of those who never are productive, or are merely productive to a level of subsistence? I don't believe that education is a natural right, but I do believe that educated people are less of a burden on society than the costs of that education (assuming that they are actually educated, and again, let's leave aside whether the money spent in the education system today is actually educating). So that one I'm certainly open to ideas on.
How about the military (and I assume that a military is a necessity for our world as it is today)? Since the military essentially provides an equal service for all residents, a per capita tax would seem appropriate.
I'm sure that you will respond that a tax is an initiated force, and that may be true. However, I do not subscribe to the faux arguments as to the moral catastrophe that such actions create. If one lives in a society and benefits from the aggregate, then one owes to pay for the costs of creating that benefit. Perhaps the proper way of handling such is to have a "swearing in" at the age of majority - you are offered the opportunity to willingly agree to that payment for the remainder of your tenure in the nation, or you are offered an escort out of the nation.
We need to keep any "necessary evil" as small as possible. Then it's overall cost is very little.
It seems to me that once financial contributions are voluntary (which Ayn Rand wanted), every person has the option of not funding the government, and has the option of paying a different service provider. The end result seems to be what both Objectivists and Anarchists/Voluntaryists want. Meanwhile, our current system of forced tribute is what neither of us want. So isn't forced vs. voluntary financing a key choice, rather than a false choice?
Do you think you should be taxed for these kinds of services government provides, or should you pay for these services voluntarily?
There is no other choice. Either way, you get these “services.”
The other problem is the nature of modern or unlimited government. Taxation is voluntary or just part of a social contract everyone has agreed to, according to many statists out there . If you own property you can voluntarily pay for all their mandatory protection services or go to jail or worse, until you do pay with time, interest and penalties.
Do you think you should be taxed for these kinds of services government provides, or should you pay for these services voluntarily?
Either way, you will pay.
Without defining the services, you might as well ask,
“If you are raped, do you think you should pay for this service involuntarily, or voluntarily?”
Wrong question and false choice.
Because if that's true it necessitates that government initiates force to maintain that monopoly.
Debate ended.
If I don't "agree" with this government, what are my options? Not many, as I'm still subject to the laws and must pay taxes. I can't even leave the country without jumping through numerous hoops and paying large sums of money to get the state's permission.
The reality of this alleged implied "agreement" to whatever government we happen to be born under is nothing more than slavery; we are state property. Under this system, we never have the option to meaningfully consent or not consent, and we certainly don't have the option (once we attain the age of reason) to withdraw our consent as free, self-owning beings.
While it never hurts to have discussions of this sort, it is way too far ahead of its time. If the Obama regime and its ilk continue to make the sort of progress it has in the last 50 years, it may well be many hundreds of years of struggle before we crawl out of a new Dark Ages and make this discussion relevant. If the regime falters, and we can contribute to the trend toward freedom, then we must do so.
I'm betting on the latter.
The states police internally and each community hires it's own police force. So what is this guy talking about?
Our current President has already tried to create his own police force. Since that was an overt try that got immediately shot down, he has been doing it covertly through the various bureaucracies. Why else is the IRS buying weapons and ammo to outfit itself (proven, btw - not a conspiracy theory). What about the BLM - who showed up on the Bundy Ranch with its own military SWAT team, snipers, and armored vehicles? What about the DHS' purchase of more .45 hollow-point ammo than the Army uses in target practice in 5 years (also NOT a conspiracy theory).
In a government that actually respects its Constitutional restrictions, we don't have to worry. But then, neither did the Germans of the late 1920's - or so they thought. Neither did the Russians of the 1940's - or so they thought. Neither did the Chinese of the 1940's - or so they thought.
With all that was said in the article, I cannot see how any of the arguments could hinge on the fact that "the US military is not allowed domestically." Semantics aside, have you seen the ammo and weapon purchases by the various domestic government departments? The armored vehicles on the streets? These are not for foreign use.
Anyone have an answer to my question, not just looking to vent against the government?.
Government is nothing more than people getting together to agree to common rules for interaction. Whether they appoint a king, elect a mayor, or even establish a security force, etc. they are simply agreeing to a certain set of base tenets and setting up an authority for mediating disputes, are they not?
Anarchy is at its very heart a repudiation of common goals, so the idea of a "free market anarchism" is inherently contradictory. Every business transaction is in fact a contract between buyer and seller - an agreement with certain claims and certain liabilities undertaken on both sides. What the author completely fails to account for is that in any contract, there must be a method for appeal to a third party to arbitrate contract disputes! Thus inherent in any business dealing is the notion of government!
I also love the nonsense he introduces with competing governments in overwatch on the same subjects! Another inherent contradiction. A person can only owe allegiance to one government at a time, i.e. for any contractual matter, there may be only one agreed-upon arbiter in a dispute!
As to the rest of his points, his logic is quite shaky. He really should spend more time on his logic and less on elocution lessons, as the confuses substance with theory.
1. With respect to a police force, as alluded to prior and based on the principle that we can only owe allegiance to a single governing body at a time, the notion of competing entities for providing self-protection is similarly nonsensical. To boot, from a practical perspective, ask Ike how practical it was to place him as Commander-in-Chief of the Allied armies when Montgomery went off and did his own thing, Patton did his own, and Stalin did his own!
2. In this one, he misunderstand's Rand's basic argument entirely. They are actually in agreement, whether he knows it or not.
3. This argument again is based on the inherently contradictory position that one can have government and no government at the same time.
4. I have a problem with both arguments here, because each presumes the supposition of knowledge when ignorance is more than often the case.
5. This one again is based on the false separation of "government" from "competing agencies of protection" in addition to the fallacy that one can have more than one governing body overseeing a single person, group, community, or society.
While I give him a B- for effort, I give him a solid D for efficacy. I couldn't find a single one of his arguments that wasn't severely and fatally flawed. What was more egregious was that the flaws were not that difficult to identify.
---------------------------------------------------
Roy Childs' position:
Is it possible for government to preform its essential functions without initiating force?
[_] Yes
[X] No
Should we prohibit the initiation of force?
[X] Yes
[_] No
Should we have a government?
[_] Yes
[X] No
---------------------------------------------------
Ayn Rand's position:
Is it possible for government to preform its essential functions without initiating force?
[X] Yes
[_] No
Should we prohibit the initiation of force?
[X] Yes
[_] No
Should we have a government?
[X] Yes
[_] No
---------------------------------------------------
My own position:
Is it possible for government to preform its essential functions without initiating force?
[_] Yes
[X] No
Should we prohibit the initiation of force?
[_] Yes
[X] No
Should we have a government?
[X] Yes
[_] No
"Rand never grew up. Although she relinquished God, she still believed in Government. Read the finest book written to demonstrate her adolescence: The Market for Liberty by Morris and Linda Tannehill (https://mises.org/books/marketforliberty......) and listen to Roy Child’s gentle chiding and deserved hiding of Rand in his “An Open Letter to Ayn Rand” (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Se0VmSaJD...... and http://www.dailypaul.com/54196/objectivi...... ). Then come and view me at: www.ResourceForYourSource.com and perhaps you will be interested in joining with me to create a “Galt’s Gulch” of the Mind, in which case, email me at: themesofjack@gmail.com and I will respond.
CHeers, FreeEach/Jack, in CHarming and CHaotic CHina where Responsible Freedom is CHurning a CHange."
Let's see who takes the bait now!
You are only as free as you take the responsibility to be.