IDOAR #11: Damned to Repeat It, Pt. 2 - Anarchism

Part 2 of 3. A response to aaron0883's comments concerning Ayn Rand and her views on anarchism.

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• Ayn
• Rand
• Objectivism
• Objectivist
• anarchism
• anarchy
• anarchist

[claytonlisa]

Addendum: I agree that the non-aggression principle is any kind of substitute for law and such a position is inexplicably absurd. However, law - even when granted a territorial monopoly - is not objective, otherwise, we wouldn't need courts. And contractual agreements between a multiplicity of insurers, adjudicators, security services and arbitrators does not mean such contracts will be less objective; cf international treaties between nations and contracts between merchants.

[PaulMcKeever]

It is true that a territorial "monopoly" does not make law objective. However, the reverse is not true: you cannot have AN objective legal system if there are TWO sets of laws in the same territory which deal with the same subjects in mutually exclusive ways. That is why, in Canada's federal system, the doctrine of Federal Paramountcy was developed: to deal with situations where provincial and state laws overlapped but one violated one government's law by complying with the other's.

[PaulMcKeever]

A private defence company doesn't make objective laws. It simply uses force in accordance with the whims of whoever is paying it.

A government, ultimately, is a group of individuals. Those individuals' "rights" - i.e., the code governing what they should and should not do - do not change simply because they become part of that group.

If they are a government, they write objective laws. If the laws are truly objective, they are righteous.

[SoakyBeaver]

"Anarchism means without leaders, not without order."

[PaulMcKeever]

More specifically, "anarchy" means: "without a ruler" (i.e., without an entity that exercises power over others).

[SoakyBeaver]

Yes, but isn't a leader by definition someone who exercises power over another person? I know what you mean, though.

Of course, we'll still need policemen, etc. But their job would be to serve and protect the people, that's the way I see it.

Thanks for keeping the conversation alive, Paul. That's exactly what we need in times like these.

[PaulMcKeever]

My pleasure.

[egervari]

Great response. One thing that was obvious to me that I don't think you mentioned is that aaron0883 dropped context when he uses the word "force" -> he mentions force in a manner that government can't use force period. But Rand was very clear about this - she talked about government not being able to INITIATE force, which is very different from retaliating with force. aaron0883 though seems to drop this distinction entirely.

[richardcadbury]

It wasn't pointed out here that Rand was NOT in favour of coercive taxation, as is claimed by some.

[lashkaretoiba]

Someone sound make a drinking game out of this video. Everytime paul says Objective law you take a shot. :)

[Humpipe]

You should debate Stefan Molyneux on this topic. I'd love to see it.

[snarfeater]

who should govern you? you arent the master of your own body? and its immoral for the government to tell me what is wrong and right you communist in a state of constant fear??? of what ? its called LIFE thats life the role of government is to place the power in the hands of a minority and command people its a livestock company

[Sam26100]

By the title of this "Damned to repeat it" Im guessing that you are frustruated with having to make this argument on youtube, but this particular video is one of my favorites from the rest of your videos that I've watched because you adress specifically the difference between Objectivism and another philosophy which seems almost parallel to Objectivism. In other words, I think we need more videos that adress specific discrepancies, using specific examples whenever possible. Good job overall.

[olvew]

Also, I am in no way associated with the Freedom Party, thus I do not know if this is their platform.

[olvew]

Exactly right, unless the Objectivists get their hands on a strong enought weaponry to shake of the ravaging hordes of the irrational. However, I would like to add that the majority of course not are prohibited from passing ANY law, just laws that infringes the rights of the individual.

[olvew]

Unfortunately, they cannot be established against the will of an irrational majority. They can only be established by winning a democratic election and changing (in my case; restoring) the constitution. However, once the new constitution is written, the Supreme Court has the right to stop any new laws that infringe the rights of the individual, thus protecting the individual from the will of a whim-driven majority in the future.