Open Letter to Ayn Rand
Posted by helidrvr 10 years, 11 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.
- Navigation
- Hot
- New
- Recent Comments
- Activity Feed
- Marketplace
- Members Directory
- 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
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gF-svHxZ...
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.
---------------------------------------------------
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
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Because if that's true it necessitates that government initiates force to maintain that monopoly.
Load more comments...