He's missing the point that a voluntary society is NOT criminal by definition. You don't need to monopolize them. If people in a neighborhood or town get together and make rational arrangements for self-government, how can any local monopoly state claim to own them and prevent them from the voluntary arrangement? Criminalizing peaceful secession is what most clearly reveals the violent, coercive and insane nature of the state. It's a shame that this man hasn't given the issue more thought.
These anarchists are totally detached from reality. What do they think that people are? They don't seem to understand what violent and tribal apes we are when there is a lack of law enforcement. Anyone here remember the L.A. riots? No, it probably happened before most of you were born.
@RolandStGermain so you are basically endorsing the "malevolent universe premise", that people are lowly apes and only an enlightened but ironed fist of government can keep us in line. Neat.
If people had had the right to bear arms and form defence covenants or hire specialized firms and subscribe to dispute resolution agencies, then such L.A. riots would be supressed in no time. But no - we have government to protect us, so the riots last for days or weeks. Give me a break.
@Arjozof how is anyone going to follow what are presumably the "laws" of a DRO on private land, when there is a riot? a riot is by definition chaotic and lawless.
@centerrightpunk how is anyone going to follow what are presumably the "laws" of a government on private land, when there is a riot?
but, a private DRO at least has incentives to quell a riot, or face insurmountable damages to pay. Government does not have such incentives. Government always fails.
@Arjozof Malevolent, benevolent.....According to who's definition?
I am simply stating fact. It is up to the individual to determine the morality of the fact.
I am not against liberty, on the contrary, I am all for it as most intelligent people are.
The problem is the rest of humanity who are incorrigibly stupid and will always be. They are nothing more than savage apes and most be kept in line for the benefit of the rest of us. This is done in a much more sublime way than force. Trust me.
@RolandStGermain and it ends up as a nanny state, where the liberty-loving people are actually INSIDE the government, protected from the lowly apes by a government wall of subsidies, welfare and benefits taken from the same lowly apes. Is that what you meant by the "sublime" way?
I think the idea was to establish a system in which irrational behavior is not subsidized. It is a system based on the morality (gasp!) of reason (Locke) but which does not point a gun at you to make you act morally (rationally); rather, it leaves people free to live or die by their own action. The sweat of your own brow.
Sure, you could whine about being "forced" to be rational if you couldn't be protected from not thinking. But that's like being "forced" to have to eat food. Or work.
@TheCapitalistdog I think Rand was aware of the moral superiority of voluntarism, her ideal society was basically an anarcho-capitalist society: Galt's Gulch. She never really won the grappling match with the contradictions in her ethics, and she never really resolved the problems of having a police force that is involuntary while the rest of us have to associate in strictly voluntary means. But, I have to say we still owe her at least a nod for advancing capitalist ideas.
@1rstbreath No it wasn't. If someone in Galt's Gulch broke a contract, the victim had no right to go and use retaliatory force against the violator. It would be up to the government.
@LordVigeous666999 Sally will be protected as a "free rider". Sure. She won't get raped, but she will get dirty looks for not paying taxes. She will get her business boycotted by responsible taxpayers. That's enough incentive for enough people to make the system work.
Objectivism does not support the initiation of force. He is saying is a society's political system is based on its moral ideas, which is why he keeps saying we have to educate and spread the right morality before any political change will be effected. He is not saying "we have to force freedom/Objectivism/Ayn Rand onto people with a gun," notice when he said "force and reason are opposites." In Objectivism, you cannot force someone to be good, the moral is the chosen.
@Koutetsu That is a well thought out comment. Rand seemed to struggle with the Initiation of Force and I believe she left some contradictions on the table. For example, the government/police are allowed to use the IoF on private citizens, as part of their practice. This seems to mean that Rand supports the IoF in the case of police. Now I agree with her, but I have to notice the contradiction here: I can't point a gun at a thief, but a man in uniform can.
@1rstbreath Objectivism does not make it illegal to point a gun at a thief, per se. A proper government does not prohibit self-defense. There is a difference between providing your own private justice and retaliation against who you deem to be a thief, and acting in self-defense in an emergency. You are not permitted to engage in lynchings and vigilantism, the purpose of the police and courts is to make sure the use of retaliatory force is regulated under a rationally-derived legal code.
If you must create that then what is the point of the pieces of paper? What about it being imposed on us? Is that a requirement for objectivists, that everybody be a part of their thing? Are they just advocating another form of tyranny as long as it's their team doing the terrorizing? I don't get them.
@rockstarofredondo It would seem so. I have a friend who was a member of the Ayn Rand Institute or some area Objectivist group in his area and when he began to get into anarchism/voluntaryism and started confronting members on their contradictions and they eventually told him that he wasn't welcome anymore.
@3rdear It's just another contradictory form of politicism, I think. If it weren't he wouldn't have to do all of the confusing twisting with the words and frustration & what not. He'd just answer the guys' questions & stay calm.
He's missing the point that a voluntary society is NOT criminal by definition. You don't need to monopolize them. If people in a neighborhood or town get together and make rational arrangements for self-government, how can any local monopoly state claim to own them and prevent them from the voluntary arrangement? Criminalizing peaceful secession is what most clearly reveals the violent, coercive and insane nature of the state. It's a shame that this man hasn't given the issue more thought.
MillionthUsername 3 months ago
These anarchists are totally detached from reality. What do they think that people are? They don't seem to understand what violent and tribal apes we are when there is a lack of law enforcement. Anyone here remember the L.A. riots? No, it probably happened before most of you were born.
RolandStGermain 8 months ago
@RolandStGermain so you are basically endorsing the "malevolent universe premise", that people are lowly apes and only an enlightened but ironed fist of government can keep us in line. Neat.
If people had had the right to bear arms and form defence covenants or hire specialized firms and subscribe to dispute resolution agencies, then such L.A. riots would be supressed in no time. But no - we have government to protect us, so the riots last for days or weeks. Give me a break.
Arjozof 5 months ago
@Arjozof how is anyone going to follow what are presumably the "laws" of a DRO on private land, when there is a riot? a riot is by definition chaotic and lawless.
centerrightpunk 5 months ago
@centerrightpunk how is anyone going to follow what are presumably the "laws" of a government on private land, when there is a riot?
but, a private DRO at least has incentives to quell a riot, or face insurmountable damages to pay. Government does not have such incentives. Government always fails.
Arjozof 5 months ago
@Arjozof Malevolent, benevolent.....According to who's definition?
I am simply stating fact. It is up to the individual to determine the morality of the fact.
I am not against liberty, on the contrary, I am all for it as most intelligent people are.
The problem is the rest of humanity who are incorrigibly stupid and will always be. They are nothing more than savage apes and most be kept in line for the benefit of the rest of us. This is done in a much more sublime way than force. Trust me.
RolandStGermain 5 months ago
@RolandStGermain and it ends up as a nanny state, where the liberty-loving people are actually INSIDE the government, protected from the lowly apes by a government wall of subsidies, welfare and benefits taken from the same lowly apes. Is that what you meant by the "sublime" way?
Arjozof 5 months ago
I think the idea was to establish a system in which irrational behavior is not subsidized. It is a system based on the morality (gasp!) of reason (Locke) but which does not point a gun at you to make you act morally (rationally); rather, it leaves people free to live or die by their own action. The sweat of your own brow.
Sure, you could whine about being "forced" to be rational if you couldn't be protected from not thinking. But that's like being "forced" to have to eat food. Or work.
lucentenor 1 year ago
Voluntaryism > Objectivism
TheCapitalistdog 1 year ago 3
@TheCapitalistdog I think Rand was aware of the moral superiority of voluntarism, her ideal society was basically an anarcho-capitalist society: Galt's Gulch. She never really won the grappling match with the contradictions in her ethics, and she never really resolved the problems of having a police force that is involuntary while the rest of us have to associate in strictly voluntary means. But, I have to say we still owe her at least a nod for advancing capitalist ideas.
1rstbreath 1 year ago 4
@1rstbreath
Enlightening post, thank you very much. :-)
TheCapitalistdog 1 year ago
@1rstbreath No it wasn't. If someone in Galt's Gulch broke a contract, the victim had no right to go and use retaliatory force against the violator. It would be up to the government.
mrrobotica 1 month ago
His supposed "philosophical foundation" is that guns need to be pointed at people so they comply with the will of those pretending to "protect" them.
CorrodedConformitySD 1 year ago
I know objectivists aren't fans of libertarians, but the intellectual argument, or definition is this:
If by supplying the service to one, you must give it to all, then Gov can do it.
Example, the army can't protect everyone but Tim from a Russian invasion. In order for the army to protect anyone, they must protect everyone
same for police. the police can't run up to a rapists and then say, "WAIT! Sally didn't pay her taxes, rape away, rape away"
Thats the line where Gov can act
LordVigeous666999 1 year ago
Healthcare; in order to replace timmy's heart, I do NOT have to dis-infect your wound
Therefore, the private market can handle it
LordVigeous666999 1 year ago
@LordVigeous666999 Sally will be protected as a "free rider". Sure. She won't get raped, but she will get dirty looks for not paying taxes. She will get her business boycotted by responsible taxpayers. That's enough incentive for enough people to make the system work.
richardcadbury 6 months ago
@CorrodedConformitySD
Objectivism does not support the initiation of force. He is saying is a society's political system is based on its moral ideas, which is why he keeps saying we have to educate and spread the right morality before any political change will be effected. He is not saying "we have to force freedom/Objectivism/Ayn Rand onto people with a gun," notice when he said "force and reason are opposites." In Objectivism, you cannot force someone to be good, the moral is the chosen.
Koutetsu 1 year ago
@Koutetsu That is a well thought out comment. Rand seemed to struggle with the Initiation of Force and I believe she left some contradictions on the table. For example, the government/police are allowed to use the IoF on private citizens, as part of their practice. This seems to mean that Rand supports the IoF in the case of police. Now I agree with her, but I have to notice the contradiction here: I can't point a gun at a thief, but a man in uniform can.
1rstbreath 1 year ago
@1rstbreath Objectivism does not make it illegal to point a gun at a thief, per se. A proper government does not prohibit self-defense. There is a difference between providing your own private justice and retaliation against who you deem to be a thief, and acting in self-defense in an emergency. You are not permitted to engage in lynchings and vigilantism, the purpose of the police and courts is to make sure the use of retaliatory force is regulated under a rationally-derived legal code.
Koutetsu 1 year ago
Where did Rand struggle with this? Where did she say that you can't point a gun at a thief?
zeddicus12 1 year ago
If you must create that then what is the point of the pieces of paper? What about it being imposed on us? Is that a requirement for objectivists, that everybody be a part of their thing? Are they just advocating another form of tyranny as long as it's their team doing the terrorizing? I don't get them.
rockstarofredondo 1 year ago
@rockstarofredondo It would seem so. I have a friend who was a member of the Ayn Rand Institute or some area Objectivist group in his area and when he began to get into anarchism/voluntaryism and started confronting members on their contradictions and they eventually told him that he wasn't welcome anymore.
3rdear 1 year ago
@3rdear It's just another contradictory form of politicism, I think. If it weren't he wouldn't have to do all of the confusing twisting with the words and frustration & what not. He'd just answer the guys' questions & stay calm.
rockstarofredondo 1 year ago