Re: Re: Objectivism and Anarchism (2 of 2)

More on Objectivism and Anarchism.

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• Objectivism
• objectivists
• Ayn
• Rand
• philosophy
• cult
• criticism
• critics
• argument
• proof

[soitoldhimno]

About the thing with Bob and Sean. Under Rand's idea of government, the state would NOT interfere with the agreement between Bob and Sean, unless Sean's Defense Agency did violate someone's rights, i.e. initiate force. Rand's government would allow this agreement until Bob or Sean violated someone's rights. Qtronman covers this I think in comments when he talks about how private security organizations would still be allowed under an objectivist government.

[XOmniverse]

I guess my question is, if you allow organizations to perform the same functions as government, what makes the government a GOVERNMENT and not just another organization offering a service?

[kamilleaable]

how can you believe in Anarchism and believe that god is some kind of higher entity. That controls all judgment of the human race. Doesn't that sound like a dictator or a slave owner. Hanging eternal bliss or damnation above our heads to make sure we follow his/her fine line between good and evil?

[MillionthUsername]

I remember being struck by Rand's apparent contradiction regarding anarchy and gov't when I first read it. I think many people are afraid of the images of chaos and so cling to what's familiar, but I find it very hard to refute the notion of a voluntary society logically. Either way people WILL form institutions that "govern". Anarchists are just saying leave it alone. I don't believe anarchy is either a sea of chaos OR a promise of utopia. To me it's just decentralization.

[XOmniverse]

And if a "competing govt" (Ayn Rand is the only one to use this term that I am aware of) doesn't violate anyone's rights, but someone chooses to use it instead of the "main" govt?

[D4rkReaver13]

Competing agencies of law itself is more likely to lead to the violation of MORE rights, and to a greater extent, than minarchism bound by a single constitution with checks and balances in place.

[D4rkReaver13]

As for the whole philosophy crumbling, no it doesn't. This is pretty much the tip of the iceberg. You should know I'm still weighing things up - I haven't completely made up my mind. You need a single objective law to solve the problem of jurdistiction whereas you need a voluntarily funded state to solve the problem of a "monopoly". Neither are a perfect solution, but I see minarchism as a better POSSIBLE solution than anarchism.

[D4rkReaver13]

A state can still be decentralised, and Ayn Rand even spoke of the need for checks and balances as there are in the US.

[brainpolice2]

As for America, it was one of the most decentralized systems ever set up; meaning that it was separated into as many different, subdivisions as possible, which is the opposite direction you claim it moved. America has done well (relatively speaking) precisely because of the degree of subdivision, not unification, of its political system.

[brainpolice2]

Another test of consistancy: if your concern is that we need universality in government, then to be consistant you must either (1) support a single, unified global government, otherwise your political position is self-contradictary or (2) realize that for the same reason that private phone and electric companies all develope standards on their own, and thus there is no reason to believe that universal standards cannot be developed privately for arbitration and defense.