Ayn Rand Missteps pt 4: Politics

More ideas on Ayn Rand, and objectivism
stefbot
XOmniverse

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Ayn
• Rand
• objectivism
• libertarianism
• politics
• capitalism
• anarchy
• anarcho-capitalism
• voting
• activism

[andyissemicool]

@Harikus: I have read plenty of her, but if we are using the same definition of what a state is, the idea that a govt can protect rights is contradictory and not realistic. Who would choose what rights a person has? The state? The majority?

I'd also like to ask how you can infer rights from existence. It seems like you're trying to derive an ought from an is. I know Ayn Rand has claimed to solve the is-ought problem, but I think she fails completely at it.

Thanks for the lively debate.

[Harikus]

I think anyone who has read Ayn Rand at length and understood it, they would know one - the police and courts would be paid for on a voluntary basis. two - Only valid laws that exist would be laws that defend your rights. I am not sure where this idea came from, but doing whatever you want whenever you want has nothing to do with rights. Rights are inherent to the fact that you exist. Tyranny exists when rights are violated, regardless of the source (private or public).

[andyissemicool]

@Harikus: What about the people who don't want a military or police? If they would be forced to pay for it and obey their laws, this is tyranny. If there is no force to pay for it, then you can't really call them government. They'd be more like private defense companies, which would be the model of an anarcho-capitalist society.

[Harikus]

A population remains mostly docile until extreme force is initiated against them. Only a small group are sensitive to the nuances and differences between various systems of economy or governance.

[Harikus]

I am unsure as to what sort of force a minimalist state uses against its citizens? When reading the Virtue of Selfishness, she specifically outlines what her ideal system would be like. I may have missed it, but I didn't see any. The military would exist to defend from threats both foreign and domestic, and police would exist to protect individual liberties. Any support from the people would be voluntary when concerning courts, military, and police.

[andyissemicool]

@Harikus: All there is now is mob rule. If we could organize our societies in a voluntary manner and keep ourselves protected, this is to be preferred to the current state.

[andyissemicool]

@Harikus: She does call for a minarchist govt, but the definition of a state is an entity that has a monopoly on the initiation of force. A state by definition is tyrannical. You can argue from a pragmatic standpoint that anarchism wouldn't work, but the moral argument is still that the logical extension of the opposition to initiation of force is anarchism.

[Harikus]

In anarchy, all there would be is mob rule. There would be no checks or balances to speak of against tyranny via majority.

[Harikus]

No I think this is way off. I am sure she would say you are taking things out of context. If your military takes steps to use force in order to protect civilians of their government, that is justified. She says that in all of the works I've read by her. However, if you use force to extract lets say - taxes, that is unjustified. Or if the government coerces individuals based on say religion or anything other than protecting its people, its unjustified. She calls for a minimalist style gov't

[fungku777]

Voting does not take away our right to oppose the majority. If you don't want a Hitler to run your country, go out and vote against him (or her). And then go home and wash the evil off your hands. It's over and done with. Ayn Rand voting or being a part of a majority (which we all are to some degree) does not mean she can't make a case against majority group think any more than a prisoner can't file a complaint about being beaten by a prison guard.