Voluntaryism vs Objectivism Q&A 1

After a presentation by Yaron Brook, Executive Director of the Ayn Rand Institute, some Voluntaryists got up to ask him some root striking questions.

Category:

Nonprofits & Activism

Tags:

• Voluntaryism
• Objectivism
• AynRand
• YaronBrook
• WesBertrand
• Constitution
• Government
• Freedom

[MoneyIsSilver]

I'd like to see Yaron debate Stefan Molyneux.

[masonkiller666]

@LordVigeous666999 Humans aren't angels, some are devils. So, proportionately, the government has some devils too. In fact its mostly devils. At least with private agencies if devils try to start a company, they wont find enough customers or investors. With the government its "pay or we put you in a metal cage."

[eggory]

@freedhwy Wow, he actually did say that. I wrongly flagged your comment as spam, thinking that you misquoted another post where he said something similar in subject matter but opposite in meaning. I'm sorry. But given his regular bad english I assume that he did not intend to say such a completely absurd thing.

[dubified89]

I agree that government is unnecessary and evil, but I see the possibility of people like Ron Paul getting elected into political offices and being able to fix 95% of the problem as more likely than the public being persuaded into full anarchism.

[freedhwy]

@Bigturns33 "Force can only be used when it deny's individual rights." Yeah . . like virtually everything the government does!

[freedhwy]

@MoneyIsSilver Objectivists REFUSE, generally to debate "libertarians".

[SurprizedDaily]

@richardcadbury Better yet, what is Evil spelled backwards?

[Arjozof]

yet Yaron Brook and other objectivists discard such an arrangement a priori, and would justify government aggression against such private dispute resolution agencies, therefore breaching their own non-aggression principle.

[Arjozof]

@Bigturns33 I know, but let's assume that most companies and individuals in such a society agree to arbitrate disputes via private network of agencies with different laws and rules, and these private dispute-resolution agencies furthermore contract among themselves to arbitrate disputes over conflicting rules with a neutral third party, if need be. This would be total privatization of law, an anarcho-capitalist ideal. And this would work, and would be in accord with OBJECTIVIST principles.

[Bigturns33]

I thnk you confuse objectivist standards of law. According to objectivism, parties that arbitrate disputes contractually agreed upon rules is infact and "OBJECTIVE STANDARD OF LAW"! Silly.

[Arjozof]

@Bigturns33 no, it's not a "fact", because you won't find a shred of historical evidence to prove that "undisputable" "fact".

Government by definition is an entity which violates non-aggression principle, because if several parties agree to arbitrate disputes on their own accord, on the set of agreed-upon rules, independent of government monopoly, then in the Objectivist scenario, government aggresses against them to make sure they follow "objective standards of law", arbitralily forced by gvnmt

[Bigturns33]

I think you stuck your foot in your mouth. Your premise is build on Historical evidence which was build on false premises to begin with. Force is not a Market value. Force is independent of a market system. Government has to be the abitration which strick powers set up which it cannot violate. Yron was right its only function is to administer force when force is improperly applied against agressors. Competeing for this simply brings about gangs and thats a fact.