The Nature of Government by Ayn Rand

Posted by sdesapio 8 years, 4 months ago to Government
8 comments | Share | Flag

This article appeared in the December, 1963 issue of The Objectivist Newsletter.
SOURCE URL: http://fee.org/freeman/the-nature-of-government-by-ayn-rand/


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by Zenphamy 8 years, 4 months ago
    I've always had a problem with this one sentence of AR's: "There is only one basic principle to which an individ­ual must consent if he wishes to live in a free, civilized society: the principle of renouncing the use of physical force and delegating to the government his right of physi­cal self-defense, for the purpose of an orderly, objective, legally-defined enforcement."

    I agree with delegating to government the right of retaliatory force, but never his right of physical self-defense. Such a situation would mean there would be no self-defense or that government would need to provide at least one protector for each human (non-government person). There some rights that can not be delegated and your own self defense is one of them.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by dbhalling 8 years, 4 months ago
      Hi Zen,

      I think that Rand misspoke here. This may be because she was not an attorney. She clearly believed that people had the right to self defense even in a civil society or Atlas Shrugged and the Fountainhead would not make any sense.

      What I think she meant is that in a rational civil society you delegate the right to use non-immediate retaliatory self defense (this is straight from Locke). For example, you cannot wait a year to extract revenge for someone assaulting you (e.g., punching, shooting, knifing you). However, you have the right to use reasonable (proportionally appropriate) force to an immediate threat. This means you can punch someone who is threatening to punch you if there is no easy way to extract yourself from the situation. You cannot shoot someone for just trespassing on your land if they do not present any danger to you. In my opinion, this what she meant by retaliatory self defense.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by Zenphamy 8 years, 4 months ago
        db, I agree that she must have mis-spoke. Otherwise, it just throws a big monkey wrench into everything, though I can see that there are many that really believe that government should provide self defense. And I've encountered that very argument a number of times from anti-2nd Amendment idiots, socialists, and libertarians -- even some AR/Objectivists fans that are lazy thinkers.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by nsnelson 8 years, 4 months ago
      I think you are correct, and this passage is easily misunderstood. Rand was very much in favor of the right to self-defense, as a corollary to the even more fundamental right to life itself. Regarding this quote, in context, she is giving her rationale for a legitimate Government. We delegate to the Government has the right of coercion when it is retaliation, when it is protecting our natural rights against those who would take them away. This is legitimate only because we have that right of self-defense. So to deny self-defense is also to deny the morality of the Government's use of force.

      I think here she is thinking more about pre-meditated after-the-fact crimes of vengeance. She is not saying we do not have the right to immediate self-defense. These words are directed more to people who are acting out a personal vendetta (he killed my brother), or trying to get back property (he has a car just like mine that was stolen), vigilantes acting in the unstable heat of anger without any due process of law or objective standard. This is where the Government and rule of law is needed.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by broskjold22 8 years, 4 months ago
      This distinction (between retaliatory force and self defense) is why I argued for firearms training for those purchasing guns. Objective rules of what constitutes self defense is critical to establishing proper criminal law. Even making this distinction, and even for those who represent the government, it is difficult to keep the "victims" of self defense from staging "demonstrations" against it (i.e. the situation in Israel today).
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo