4 ms·

Your profile looks like you're an objectivist. But as others pointed out, you can't just dismiss anarchism off-hand. As an objectivist, you're against coercion

Your profile looks like you're an objectivist. But as others pointed out, you can't just dismiss anarchism off-hand. As an objectivist, you're against coercion, but in favour of centralized power? Is that correct? If so, don't you think it's a contradictory idea?

ryanbrunner 13y ago
There's a large body of literature that attempts to justify centralization of power. Social contract theory, to name one. You may not agree with it, but the possibility of a justifiable centralization of power can at least be argued.
- anoncowherd 13y ago
  >> There's a large body of literature that attempts to justify centralization of power Of course there is. We've lived under centralized power for hundreds or thousands of years, after all. Why would The Powers That Be suddenly cease wanting to Be? But centralized power cannot be justified, it can only be rationalized. If you think about the idea of the social contract for a moment, you should realize that it's not a contract at all, but merely a shackle for our minds, to keep us from finding a way out of the maze of our brainwashing. For starters, you were never even asked, you never had a chance not to participate, and you can't just opt out of the system either. You're either inside a country, or you're freezing to death in Antarctica. It's not much of a choice, but a voluntary choice is necessary for any contract to be binding. Read this: http://spot.colorado.edu/~huemer/book3.htm http://spot.colorado.edu/~huemer/book3.htm
  - icebraining 13y ago
    Sounds much like the system of property.
    - anoncowherd 13y ago
      What does?
      - icebraining 13y ago
        "For starters, you were never even asked, you never had a chance not to participate, and you can't just opt out of the system either."
        anoncowherd 13y ago
        That may be, but people are not property. Or, well.. should not be.
        icebraining 13y ago
        You do realize that the system of property doesn't apply to actual objects? My house doesn't become green if I write so in the deed. The system of property is a set of obligations imposed on people, not things. Much like the social contract.
        anoncowherd 13y ago
        Hm. Yeah, I guess that's a good point. The idea of property can be thought of as "obligations between people", but it's not the same as the idea of the social contract. For starters, it's between individual people, not some collective entity and a given individual, and second, it involves no force as long as no one aggresses against anyone. Another difference is that the "system of property" actually works to everyone's favour - quite the opposite of "the social contract", and imposes no other obligations on you than to not aggress against anyone else's property. If "aggress" sounds out of place, let's say "interfere with someone's (exclusive) control of their property". There's lots of room for pointless bickering in moral issues, etc. There are various sensible ways to view the concept of property. One is Murray Rothbard's idea of something becoming your property by "mixing your labour" with it. For example, if you build a house, or plow a corn field, they're your property.
javert 13y ago
> Your profile looks like you're an objectivist I have my own philosophy, induced from reality, which (conveniently enough) corresponds to Objectivism (since they both use a logical methodology). > But as others pointed out, you can't just dismiss anarchism off-hand. Correct, and I can make a number of arguments against anarchy. That is just the simplest and most clever I have run up against other than "It's contradictory." > As an objectivist, you're against coercion, but in favour of centralized power? Is that correct? If so, don't you think it's a contradictory idea? That is a good question that people often have. I think the government should use retaliatory force, never initiatory force. Preventing alternate defense agencies (the anarcho-capitalist idea) and levying taxes for the proper functions of government (police, courts, and military) actually are retaliatory exercises of force, not initiated force. The threat of initiated force is tantamount to initiated force. So, retaliatory force to stop a threat is legitimate. Moreover, consider the case of a just war against a country that threatens the US; there may be civilian casualties among non-participants in the country of the enemy. The proximate cause of such casualties would be the US military, but the fundamental cause is the enemy government; they died to retaliatory force. A similar case is occuring when an ideal government uses force to collect minimal taxes to establish police, courts, and military. The fundamental cause is the natural threat of those that would violate rights. It would be ideal if all funding for government could be levied voluntarily, via donations, but if not, my argument here provides a solution. This is not an Objectivist view, because it was not part of anything Ayn Rand wrote. I think many Objectivists would consider it to be compatible with Objectivism, while some no doubt wouldn't.
- anoncowherd 13y ago
  >> I think the government should use retaliatory force, never initiatory force Therein lies the problem. Governments are based on initiatory force - extortion, to be accurate. We all pay taxes because we know we'll be forcibly hauled to jail if we don't, and our property will be seized from us. Taxation itself is immoral, and since all governments are based on taxation, all governments are immoral. >> The fundamental cause is the natural threat of those that would violate rights So I guess I'm allowed to initiate erm.. retaliatory force against you, because you might want to violate my rights, or.. how does this work? :P There is no threat before someone threatens you. Otherwise everyone is a threat all the time, and that's just not a rational idea, is it? You're aware that taxation is based on (initiatory) force, and thus immoral. But you rationalize it with that neat little trick that actually falls on its face right away, upon closer inspection.

ryanbrunner 13y ago

There's a large body of literature that attempts to justify centralization of power. Social contract theory, to name one. You may not agree with it, but the possibility of a justifiable centralization of power can at least be argued.

anoncowherd 13y ago
>> There's a large body of literature that attempts to justify centralization of power Of course there is. We've lived under centralized power for hundreds or thousands of years, after all. Why would The Powers That Be suddenly cease wanting to Be? But centralized power cannot be justified, it can only be rationalized. If you think about the idea of the social contract for a moment, you should realize that it's not a contract at all, but merely a shackle for our minds, to keep us from finding a way out of the maze of our brainwashing. For starters, you were never even asked, you never had a chance not to participate, and you can't just opt out of the system either. You're either inside a country, or you're freezing to death in Antarctica. It's not much of a choice, but a voluntary choice is necessary for any contract to be binding. Read this: http://spot.colorado.edu/~huemer/book3.htm http://spot.colorado.edu/~huemer/book3.htm
- icebraining 13y ago
  Sounds much like the system of property.
  - anoncowherd 13y ago
    What does?
    - icebraining 13y ago
      "For starters, you were never even asked, you never had a chance not to participate, and you can't just opt out of the system either."
      - anoncowherd 13y ago
        That may be, but people are not property. Or, well.. should not be.
        icebraining 13y ago
        You do realize that the system of property doesn't apply to actual objects? My house doesn't become green if I write so in the deed. The system of property is a set of obligations imposed on people, not things. Much like the social contract.
        anoncowherd 13y ago
        Hm. Yeah, I guess that's a good point. The idea of property can be thought of as "obligations between people", but it's not the same as the idea of the social contract. For starters, it's between individual people, not some collective entity and a given individual, and second, it involves no force as long as no one aggresses against anyone. Another difference is that the "system of property" actually works to everyone's favour - quite the opposite of "the social contract", and imposes no other obligations on you than to not aggress against anyone else's property. If "aggress" sounds out of place, let's say "interfere with someone's (exclusive) control of their property". There's lots of room for pointless bickering in moral issues, etc. There are various sensible ways to view the concept of property. One is Murray Rothbard's idea of something becoming your property by "mixing your labour" with it. For example, if you build a house, or plow a corn field, they're your property.

javert 13y ago

> Your profile looks like you're an objectivist I have my own philosophy, induced from reality, which (conveniently enough) corresponds to Objectivism (since they both use a logical methodology). > But as others pointed out, you can't just dismiss anarchism off-hand. Correct, and I can make a number of arguments against anarchy. That is just the simplest and most clever I have run up against other than "It's contradictory." > As an objectivist, you're against coercion, but in favour of centralized power? Is that correct? If so, don't you think it's a contradictory idea? That is a good question that people often have. I think the government should use retaliatory force, never initiatory force. Preventing alternate defense agencies (the anarcho-capitalist idea) and levying taxes for the proper functions of government (police, courts, and military) actually are retaliatory exercises of force, not initiated force. The threat of initiated force is tantamount to initiated force. So, retaliatory force to stop a threat is legitimate. Moreover, consider the case of a just war against a country that threatens the US; there may be civilian casualties among non-participants in the country of the enemy. The proximate cause of such casualties would be the US military, but the fundamental cause is the enemy government; they died to retaliatory force. A similar case is occuring when an ideal government uses force to collect minimal taxes to establish police, courts, and military. The fundamental cause is the natural threat of those that would violate rights. It would be ideal if all funding for government could be levied voluntarily, via donations, but if not, my argument here provides a solution. This is not an Objectivist view, because it was not part of anything Ayn Rand wrote. I think many Objectivists would consider it to be compatible with Objectivism, while some no doubt wouldn't.

anoncowherd 13y ago
>> I think the government should use retaliatory force, never initiatory force Therein lies the problem. Governments are based on initiatory force - extortion, to be accurate. We all pay taxes because we know we'll be forcibly hauled to jail if we don't, and our property will be seized from us. Taxation itself is immoral, and since all governments are based on taxation, all governments are immoral. >> The fundamental cause is the natural threat of those that would violate rights So I guess I'm allowed to initiate erm.. retaliatory force against you, because you might want to violate my rights, or.. how does this work? :P There is no threat before someone threatens you. Otherwise everyone is a threat all the time, and that's just not a rational idea, is it? You're aware that taxation is based on (initiatory) force, and thus immoral. But you rationalize it with that neat little trick that actually falls on its face right away, upon closer inspection.