4 ms·

Ayn Rand makes some salient points, but they were hardly original, even in her time. Rand took classic liberalism to its extreme, not realizing that all politi

Ayn Rand makes some salient points, but they were hardly original, even in her time. Rand took classic liberalism to its extreme, not realizing that all political systems are compromises between liberty and social power (or collectivism, or democracy, or mob rule or whatever you want to call it). Modern libertarianism is not too popular for good reason: most libertarians assume that if you get rid of government everything will be better, ignoring the fact that human societies have never gone without governments for long. Almost everyone wants to give up some measure of their freedom for safety, otherwise we would all think Somalia was a great place to live. The argument is over how much. Both anarcho-capitalism and utilitarians represent the extreme ranges of the political scale and are clearly unworkable: no one wants unlimited freedom with no safety, no one wants unlimited safety with no freedom.

byrneseyeview 18y ago
most libertarians assume that if you get rid of government everything will be better, ignoring the fact that human societies have never gone without governments for long. Wait, really? You think it just never occurred to libertarians to wonder what would happen if their philosophy were implemented? Almost everyone wants to give up some measure of their freedom for safety, otherwise we would all think Somalia was a great place to live. Why are you assuming that there should be a single monopolistic provider of these freedom-for-safety exchanges? And are you deliberately confusing anarcho-capitalism (which Rand abhored) with Objectivism (which calls for governments to maintain police and the military)? no one wants unlimited freedom with no safety, no one wants unlimited safety with no freedom. You're still acting as if it is obvious and intuitive that if someone wants something, they want the government to provide it. I think it might be illuminating to replace the government with some other entity, like, say, IBM or the local library, e.g. "Everyone knows we need to provide for people in their old age. That's why I think IBM should take some of my money every time I get paid, and give it to old people." This sounds absurd, of course, but it does bring up the question of why one should automatically assume that a monopolistic government is the only entity that can do certain tasks -- that we should give that stuff up in a no-bid contract without question.
- nazgulnarsil 18y ago
  You think it just never occurred to libertarians to wonder what would happen if their philosophy were implemented? I'm not talking about reason, I'm talking about historical precedent. Many theories about how a anarchistic system can maintain stasis but none of them have real life examples. Why are you assuming that there should be a single monopolistic provider of these freedom-for-safety exchanges? the problem is that when it comes to the application of force, competition isn't as efficient as a monopoly is. And I think you're confusing my definition of government. The government is whatever entity has a legal right to exercise force over some population. If that is the library, then the library is the government. In a real life capitalist republic, government competition turns into the two party system we have now, where each side is nominally for pushing the social contract farther left or right. And are you deliberately confusing anarcho-capitalism (which Rand abhored) with Objectivism (which calls for governments to maintain police and the military)? I agree with this aspect of Objectivism, the government's role is to provide for the security of economic exchange (enforcement of contracts, military security, courts). that we should give that stuff up in a no-bid contract without question. The question to me is not a moral one but an engineering one. Is there any reasonable path from where we are now to a responsible, efficient and effective government?
  - byrneseyeview 18y ago
    I'm talking about historical precedent If you're talking about history, are you talking about how powerful central governments are worth all those millions of brutal murders? So far, corporations have killed far fewer people than governments have, and when corporations do kill, it's generally with the help of the state. Not an indictment of the moral character of statists, just how things work when you monopolize force. the problem is that when it comes to the application of force, competition isn't as efficient as a monopoly is. That sounds wildly unlikely. What is special about force that makes it different? And even if force is different, is it worth the cost -- the government that starts out by providing defense and law enforcement relentlessly expands into moralistic regulation, redistributive taxation, and intrusive snooping into citizens' lives. The most successful non-revolutionary conservative movements succeed in slowing this down, temporarily. The question to me is not a moral one but an engineering one. Is there any reasonable path from where we are now to a responsible, efficient and effective government? Likewise. But if we're talking about engineering good outcomes, the thing to look at his how to engineer the state away, not how to engineer around the problems that afflict all states.
gaius 18y ago
most libertarians assume that if you get rid of government everything will be better Except that that's not what Rand advocated. The role of government is to resolve contractual disputes and to prevent the initiation of use of force. She was quite clear that government is necessary.

byrneseyeview 18y ago

most libertarians assume that if you get rid of government everything will be better, ignoring the fact that human societies have never gone without governments for long. Wait, really? You think it just never occurred to libertarians to wonder what would happen if their philosophy were implemented? Almost everyone wants to give up some measure of their freedom for safety, otherwise we would all think Somalia was a great place to live. Why are you assuming that there should be a single monopolistic provider of these freedom-for-safety exchanges? And are you deliberately confusing anarcho-capitalism (which Rand abhored) with Objectivism (which calls for governments to maintain police and the military)? no one wants unlimited freedom with no safety, no one wants unlimited safety with no freedom. You're still acting as if it is obvious and intuitive that if someone wants something, they want the government to provide it. I think it might be illuminating to replace the government with some other entity, like, say, IBM or the local library, e.g. "Everyone knows we need to provide for people in their old age. That's why I think IBM should take some of my money every time I get paid, and give it to old people." This sounds absurd, of course, but it does bring up the question of why one should automatically assume that a monopolistic government is the only entity that can do certain tasks -- that we should give that stuff up in a no-bid contract without question.

nazgulnarsil 18y ago
You think it just never occurred to libertarians to wonder what would happen if their philosophy were implemented? I'm not talking about reason, I'm talking about historical precedent. Many theories about how a anarchistic system can maintain stasis but none of them have real life examples. Why are you assuming that there should be a single monopolistic provider of these freedom-for-safety exchanges? the problem is that when it comes to the application of force, competition isn't as efficient as a monopoly is. And I think you're confusing my definition of government. The government is whatever entity has a legal right to exercise force over some population. If that is the library, then the library is the government. In a real life capitalist republic, government competition turns into the two party system we have now, where each side is nominally for pushing the social contract farther left or right. And are you deliberately confusing anarcho-capitalism (which Rand abhored) with Objectivism (which calls for governments to maintain police and the military)? I agree with this aspect of Objectivism, the government's role is to provide for the security of economic exchange (enforcement of contracts, military security, courts). that we should give that stuff up in a no-bid contract without question. The question to me is not a moral one but an engineering one. Is there any reasonable path from where we are now to a responsible, efficient and effective government?
- byrneseyeview 18y ago
  I'm talking about historical precedent If you're talking about history, are you talking about how powerful central governments are worth all those millions of brutal murders? So far, corporations have killed far fewer people than governments have, and when corporations do kill, it's generally with the help of the state. Not an indictment of the moral character of statists, just how things work when you monopolize force. the problem is that when it comes to the application of force, competition isn't as efficient as a monopoly is. That sounds wildly unlikely. What is special about force that makes it different? And even if force is different, is it worth the cost -- the government that starts out by providing defense and law enforcement relentlessly expands into moralistic regulation, redistributive taxation, and intrusive snooping into citizens' lives. The most successful non-revolutionary conservative movements succeed in slowing this down, temporarily. The question to me is not a moral one but an engineering one. Is there any reasonable path from where we are now to a responsible, efficient and effective government? Likewise. But if we're talking about engineering good outcomes, the thing to look at his how to engineer the state away, not how to engineer around the problems that afflict all states.

gaius 18y ago

most libertarians assume that if you get rid of government everything will be better Except that that's not what Rand advocated. The role of government is to resolve contractual disputes and to prevent the initiation of use of force. She was quite clear that government is necessary.