Anarcho-Capitalists Against Ayn Rand

Posted by  $  richrobinson 4 years, 11 months ago to The Gulch: General
89 comments | Share | Flag

Mises has disappointed me before so I was hesistant to post this but I wanted to get other input.
SOURCE URL: http://mises.org/daily/6754/AnarchoCapitalists-Against-Ayn-Rand


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by straightlinelogic 4 years, 11 months ago
    All governments indeed flounder on the dark side of human nature. However, noted political philosopher Michael Tyson once said: "Everyone has a plan until they're punched in the face." How does a government that is constrained to protect individuals and their rights from the initiation of force abridge anyone's rights? Without any agency to protect its citizens from the initial of force, what do we do with those who smash us in the face without provocation? Say we have private police forces. Are they all entitled to apprehend and punish the face smasher? That in effect makes them mini-governments, and that was the crux, which this article never mentioned, of Rand's argument. Anarchy is not the absence of government, it is the substitution of a myriad of might-make-right gangs who function as essentially lawless governments for a government whose role is limited to enforcing objective laws to protect individual rights. The difficulty of achieving such a government is not an argument for multiple, lawless governments that would result if anarchy was the prevailing principle.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by Wanderer 4 years, 11 months ago
      Straight;

      The sad, but true conclusion of my lifetime of observing peoples and governments all around the world is obeying the rules doesn't work, violence does. The party most willing and able to break the rules and visit violence upon its foes will win.

      To wit: The Democrat Party breaks the rules and wins via vote fraud and unlawful persecution of its foes by government agencies. Militant Islamists retake control of anyplace left in the hands of "moderate Muslims".

      Thus, if a government cannot or will not exercise force, it will soon be an ex-government, because somewhere inside its habit will exist a party that will use force.

      And, once bereft of forceful governments, we're reduced not to mob rule, but tribal war. Think for awhile and you can imagine us dividing ourselves into tribes. They already exist in street gangs and, even though we might not choose to join the Bloods or MS-13 or the Satanas, when government lacks force, eventually, as a means of survival, we will form tribes. When seen objectively, "Deliverance" was a tribal war, us against them.

      One can only strive for a government willing to allow us to be us within our tribes, but strong enough to defeat any tribe that attacks another. Our problem at the moment is the Totalitarian Socialist Tribe is attacking the rest of us and the once (perhaps) beneficent, or at least neutral government has joined in on the side of the attackers.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by khalling 4 years, 11 months ago
      Instead of enlighted societies, we would be headed back to feudal societies of the dark ages or worse -tribal.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by straightlinelogic 4 years, 11 months ago
        Here is an interesting hypothesis that will be the subject of an upcoming sll piece. We have all been conditioned to believe that expansion of governments and their control mechanisms are a given. After a century of it, that feeling is certainly understandable. What if, however, things are going to go the other way? What if forces are at work that no government can channel or control? Entropy is a law of nature. Amplified by the recent NSA revelations, there is a widespread fear that the future will look like the novel 1984. However, one thing I have learned trading financial instruments is the things that virtually everyone expects to happen are rarely what happen. Perhaps the Internet, Bitcoin, nascent secession movements in Scotland, Spain, and so on are the glimmer of the future, not the NSA. In other words, a decentralization, an uncontrollable whirling apart, rather than a centralization. I will develop this much more fully in that upcoming piece, but I think it is a possibility that merits some thought.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  4 years, 11 months ago
          I was just reading that a number of states have passed 10th amendment asserting that they are bound only by Federal powers enumerated in the Constitution. Seeing States stepping up and taking back their power is a good start at decentralizing.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by khalling 4 years, 11 months ago
          In Search of Jefferson's Moose,
          http://www.amazon.com/In-Search-Jefferso...
          This book is relevant to this discussion. This book shows self-organizing systems with no need of a centralizing power, authority. I think what the author misses in both cases (discusses the American West and the internet) there was a fundamental set of values that all the non-centralized participants roughly agreed upon. Without those, the biggest bully would have won. The internet is falling apart due to "bullies" who want to use it not as a free exchange of ideas and gather knowledge, but a way of exerting control. It started with state and local govts taxing and regulating. There is no short cut to NAP. Systems based on reason and logic.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  4 years, 11 months ago
        Is it the system or the people that fail?
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
        • Posted by Robbie53024 4 years, 11 months ago
          people.

          I'm becoming more and more convinced that liberty loving people will always succumb to tyrants. It is endemic with liberty - those that love liberty have no desire to impose their views or desires on others, thus they don't seek elective office. Tyrants, on the other hand, live to impose their will on others, and thus actively seek out elective office as the modern societies acceptable way to be a bully. Thus, we end up with the tyrants in charge. These same tyrants know that placating the populace is the way to maintain their power (Bread and Circuses) and thus lull the majority of the populace into willing serfdom. When the liberty lovers (aka Tea Party) try to reassert themselves, they are vilified and their efforts to restore liberties are twisted to seem to be bigoted, anti-minority this or that.

          And those positions of power are not merely political. They have infiltrated the schools, at every cycle of political power they entrench more and more persons in the courts, and the media - those that like to tell others what to think - slant to the collectivist left.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
          • -1
            Posted by Maphesdus 4 years, 11 months ago
            The Tea Party does not stand for freedom, they just stand for fundamentalist Republicanism.

            https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=...
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
            • Posted by Hiraghm 4 years, 11 months ago
              You'll have to define "fundamentalist Republicanism".

              If, in capitalizing "Republicanism" you refer to the progressive political party, then you don't know what you're talking about.

              As for the cartoon, as corporations are more heavily regulated than everyone else, I can see the need to deregulate them so that they can generate wealth and provide employment, especially since they know their business far better than professional bureaucrats.

              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by Maphesdus 4 years, 11 months ago
      I'm sorry, but saying that Anarchy is not the absence of government is illogical. If we're going to debate ideas and concepts, then we need to establish precise and consistent definitions. Otherwise we'll just become mired in intellectual confusion. If you want to advocate a society that still has some form of government, then you need to use some other word besides "anarchy" to describe that society.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  jbrenner 4 years, 11 months ago
    Ayn Rand wanted a very limited government. The libertarians at the von Mises Institute want even less. After reading the above link in its entirety, the author is making a distinction without a significant difference. The author says that government, no matter how small, is incapable of staying small, and he is right about that. America's founders recognized that, too. America was founded properly and until about 1900 followed its original charter. Its deviation from its founding charter has resulted in its becoming Amepoble (poor as opposed to rich). America's founding was a correct compromise between objectivism and libertarianism, with respect to all regardless of religious belief or lack thereof.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  4 years, 11 months ago
      The Anarcho argument seems impractical to me. Rand argued for limited government which the US proved can work. We have probably strayed too far at this point.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  jbrenner 4 years, 11 months ago
        Agreed completely. As Alexis de Tocqueville pointed out,
        "The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money."
        Well, that has unfortunately happened past the point of no return.

        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • Posted by Maphesdus 4 years, 11 months ago
        Ayn Rand did more than simply advocate limited government. She advocated a government which abides by the non-aggression principles, and never initiates force. However, what Ayn Rand failed to understand was that the initiation of force is a necessary component of every government, and a government which does not engage in the initiation of force will become incapable of preforming its essential functions, and thus cease to be a government. Therefore, Objectivism logically leads to Anarchism, because Objectivism is built on the non-aggression principle, and the non-aggression principle has Anarchism as its ultimate and inevitable end.

        The idea of limited government was indeed part of our nation's foundational principles. The non-aggression principle, however, was not. There is not a single Founding Father who ever advocated anything even remotely similar to the non-aggression principle. It is a modern philosophical concept which didn't fully develop until the mid-20th century.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by conscious1978 4 years, 11 months ago
          The concept of the "initiation of force" that Rand defined is specific in its nature. It seems you might be equating the Exercise of force in any circumstance to the "initiation of force". Self defense is an exercise of force, as is the initiation of force; but they are not the same. So it would follow that Objectivism, by its nature, does not lead to Anarchism.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
          • Posted by Maphesdus 4 years, 11 months ago
            No, I'm perfectly clear on the distinction between initiation of force and using force in retaliation. My point is that sometimes a government must initiate force. Ayn Rand asserted that the only way to violate man's rights is through the initiation of force. However, that is simply untrue. There are many, many ways to violate the rights of an individual that do not involve using any force at all. Therefore, punishment for such violations of man's rights naturally requires the government to initiate force.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by Rozar 4 years, 11 months ago
          I've read an article on what a voluntary government would look like in an objectivist ideal world. It made a strong case for the possibility of a government that receives taxes voluntarily. However they would still have to initiate force to prevent another government from governing the same geographical area.

          Basically I agree with you and I'd recommend searching through theobjectiviststandard.com to find the article on how a voluntary government would work, you may find it enlightening.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by CircuitGuy 4 years, 11 months ago
          I'm not up on the philosophical side, but it seems to me that Objectivists say they won't be the first to initiate force but they have a very broad definition of what counts as force. For example, they think of copying someone's IP illegally and profiting from it as force. Receiving goods and not paying as contractually agreed, they see as force. If that's how we define "force", it seems reasonable to say we should never be the first to initiate it but can respond to it.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by khalling 4 years, 11 months ago
            Stealing is force.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
            • Posted by Maphesdus 4 years, 11 months ago
              That actually depends on the situation. There are many ways of stealing that do not involve the use of physical force.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by  $  4 years, 11 months ago
                I think that was her point. Stealing is force. Weather or not their is a physical confrontation is irrelevant.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                • Posted by Maphesdus 4 years, 11 months ago
                  How do you define "force" in the absence of a physical component?
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by  $  4 years, 11 months ago
                    If someone steals something and I am not home that isn't an initiation of force?
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by khalling 4 years, 11 months ago
                      if you steal my intellectual property- it is the same as breaking into my home. If you make knockoff NIKES, you have stolen my design and brand name. It takes lots of investment in money and time to develop a brand name and shoe designs. The protections of these ideas are assets. They can change ownership. They have value as long as they are protected. If they are not, they will have only nominal value. Prosecuting thieves is an act of self defense
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by CircuitGuy 4 years, 11 months ago
                        "if you steal my intellectual property- it is the same as breaking into my home. If you make knockoff NIKES, you have stolen my design and brand name."
                        I agree completely, but it's not the same as my everyday definition of force. I might say, "I left the door unlocked, so the thieves were able to come in an steal my property without using force." That's just a colloquial definition of force. By the objectivist definition, they did use for, and they had pointed a gun at me during the theft it would have been further use of force.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                    • Posted by Maphesdus 4 years, 11 months ago
                      Breaking and entering is obviously an initiation of force. The force is simply being exerted against a piece of property rather than a person.

                      However, that isn't what I'm talking about. There are other ways of violating the rights of another person that have nothing to do with physically injuring them or stealing from them. This is a problem that I keep running into during debates with Objectivists (or anyone else who believes in the non-aggression principle). Under the non-aggression principle, the only actions which qualify as a violation of rights are assault and theft, which is an incredibly simplistic and naive way to look at the world. That's why the non-aggression principle is fundamentally flawed.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by CircuitGuy 4 years, 11 months ago
              What if you it's a civil matter, like someone paid me to write articles but they think I breached b/c I missed a deadline. If they sue, the courts may force me to pay back some of that money. Did I use force against the publisher when I missed the deadline?
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by khalling 4 years, 11 months ago
                Contractural performance. You volunteer to give up some rights in order to enforce performance. If you don 't perform you have to give back the payment.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by CircuitGuy 4 years, 11 months ago
                  My question is failure to relinquish some of the money force? It's not my everyday definition of force, but if it is philosophical force then I agree with the thing about never initiating force first.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
          • Posted by Maphesdus 4 years, 11 months ago
            Yes, that's true. Many Objectivists who want to maintain Ayn Rand's opposition to Anarchism have had to adopt a vague, loose, and slippery definition of the word "force" in order justify their support of the non-aggression principle in a non-Anarchistic society. But that presents its own problem, because Ayn Rand also said words should have exact and precise definitions, like mathematical equations. In order to turn away from anarchy, Objectivsts have to allow for logical contradictions in their philosophy, which is itself a contradiction of their philosophy. When we apply logic and reason to Ayn Rand's ideas, it quickly becomes obvious that rigidly following the principles of Objectivism to their logical conclusion (which is what Ayn Rand demanded) is guaranteed to end in anarchy. There is simply no way around that. It's the logical path Ayn Rand laid down.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  CBJ 4 years, 11 months ago
          Since so many built-in and obvious exceptions exist, non-initiation-of-force makes more sense as a policy prescription than as a basic principle. "This policy is appropriate in most adult-to-adult interactions. However, in other contexts exceptions come readily to mind, such as dealings with children or persons afflicted with severe mental problems." - See more at: http://www.libertyunbound.com/node/1201#...
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
          • Posted by Maphesdus 4 years, 11 months ago
            I suppose if you want to interpret the non-aggression principle as a general guideline rather than an absolute unbreakable rule, then that would be perfectly fine. The problem is that Ayn Rand said it should be an absolute unbreakable rule, without any exceptions whatsoever. When we recognize that she was wrong on that point, the rest of her philosophy starts to crumble. Hence why Libertarianism is superior to Objectivism as a political ideology. A Libertarian can discard or reject the non-aggression principle without violating the fundamental tenants of his ideology. An Objectivist cannot.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  jbrenner 4 years, 11 months ago
          While the non-aggression principle did not exist back in the late 1700's, America's founders did have a strong tendency toward non-interventionism a term that Ron Paul coined but had been practiced for centuries. There is some difference, but the difference is pretty minor.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Zenphamy 4 years, 11 months ago
    Personally, I'm of the thought that Objectivist, in trying to define a government need must accept that everyone else are not objectivist, nor libertarian, particularly those that seek government or involvement in government. The anarcho-capitalist appears to be the most naive in accepting that basic fact. The takers/looters/moochers' existence has to be considered in anything more than pure philosophical discussion.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  MikeMarotta 4 years, 11 months ago
      A culture of reason is antecedent to a political environment of freedom. The political high points of human history always followed and flowed from a cultural shift in the dominant philosophy. To take the worst case, look at the history of China. Confucian philosophy became highly legalistic as the government grew both more distanced from the people and more cruel in enforcement. However, at other times, when Confucian thought was questioning - or when it was challenged by Buddhism - then, later, trade and commerce improved. In the West, of course, the evidence is more dramatic.

      Unlimited constitutional government here:
      http://necessaryfacts.blogspot.com/2011/...

      Another example of unlimited constitutional government here:
      http://necessaryfacts.blogspot.com/2011/...
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  MikeMarotta 4 years, 11 months ago
    +1 to every post here. This remains a discussion to be had, as long as those who post their own views are willing to understand the facts presented from different perspectives.

    I am not an anarchist. I understand "government" to be like "clothing" or "language" or "tools", an institution of any and every society and culture. The government could hold a monopoly on police powers and effect that by contracting it out to competing others who are all nonetheless bound by explicit laws. We have this today in that many police forces contract out specific services such as parking enforcement and central dispatch. In te wake of the current recession, cities squeezed by fiscal constraints have contracted out police patrols. The cities maintain the fundamental cultural recognition of primary authority, but the delivery is sold to multiple others. It seems to work well enough.

    It does _NOT_ work so well in Somalia...

    Culture runs deep and broad. The Enlightenment agenda of the West is not to be imposed from the top down, but must grow from the roots. We benefit from that. It will take a some time and effort to bring that to other peoples. In fact, it has yet to be completely and consistently recognized here...
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 4 years, 11 months ago
    Well, I generally find the thinking from the Mises Institute pretty good, but these anarcho-capitalists are just looney. Their theory (and I think that true Objectivists would have to agree) is that if everyone truly respects everyone else's liberty, then no government is necessary.

    That theory is fundamentally flawed in that it totally misses a fundamental nature of humanity - some humans will always seek to rule other humans. If we only had spears and axes, we could probably deal with a society without government. But with the ability of one human to exert the types of force available today over huge swaths of humanity, we need a countervailing force. That force would necessarily be governmental in nature.

    That's not to say that the governmental structure shouldn't be severely limited, it should. But not having any government is foolish.

    That said, you might want to find my comments on another thread about my feelings on the inevitability of tyranny, regardless of whether created by a government or just a powerful individual. I think that a well crafted government can slow the inevitable tyranny, but I still have come to the conclusion that tyranny is inevitable.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by Maphesdus 4 years, 11 months ago
      I agree. Anarcho-Capitalists often tend to use the argument that government is simply a group of people organized in a political body (which is true), and that people are inherently corrupt (also true), which means that government will inevitably be corrupt, and so we should not have a government. However, they totally ignore the possibility of a system of checks and balances and a separation of powers to protect against the inherent corruption of government officials. The Anarchists take a few logical positions, and then extrapolate them forward to one particular end without giving due regard to potential alternatives.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  MikeMarotta 4 years, 11 months ago
    If you read the essays, "The Nature of Government" and "Man's Rights" by Ayn Rand, you will find that she grounded her assertions about government in facts about individual morality and social ethics. On his island, Robinson Crusoe had no special ethics. He nonetheless had a desperate need for morality. In society, social ethics depends on personal morality. We cannot live together without a recognition of individual rights. Those rights are objective to human nature.

    Realize, also, that Rand lived through a real civil war. (Our War Between the States was not a civil war.) For her, that was the realization of "competing governments."

    I point out that Ford Motor Company and General Motors both had large police forces literally next door to each other and none ever fired a shot at the other. Pinkertons never fought it out with Burns. (Police have killed security guards. I have yet to find the reverse case.) The larger narrative is that all sides in the only working free market we know actually subscribe to the same body of law -- and more importantly to the same culture and society.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by Maphesdus 4 years, 11 months ago
      Why was the Civil War not actually a civil war?
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • Posted by Hiraghm 4 years, 11 months ago
        Depends on which civil war you mean.
        If you're referring to the conflict between the nation of the United States of America and the nation of the Confederate States of America... one generally doesn't refer to wars between sovereign nations as "civil wars".

        Nearest thing we had to a civil war was the whiskey rebellion in the late 18th century, and the cultural revolution of the mid- 20th century.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
        • Posted by Maphesdus 4 years, 11 months ago
          Except that the so-called "Confederate States of America" was PART of the United States of America. It was not a separate nation.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
          • Posted by Hiraghm 4 years, 11 months ago
            No, it was a separate nation. The Confederate States seceded.

            If they were not a separate nation, then the United States is still a PART of Great Britain...

            "That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. " - Declaration of Independence
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  MikeMarotta 4 years, 11 months ago
    Projection is an easy test in criminal interrogations. You really do not know "most people" even if you are the Gallup Poll. So, if you ask someone, "Are most people basically honest?" They tell you about themselves.

    "... liberty loving people will always succumb to tyrants."-- Posted by Robbie53024
    "I agree. People are incredibly short-sighted." Posted by khalling,
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  jbrenner 4 years, 11 months ago
      I found even today that I had to check my premises with regard to the honesty and good will of people.

      With regard to projection, it is the default reaction for liberals and, unfortunately, suprisingly common amongst non-liberals.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  jbrenner 4 years, 11 months ago
    If Ayn Rand had been one of America's founders, would she have been a federalist or an anti-federalist? Had she been voting on the Articles of Confederation, I think she would have voted for that. I am far less sure that she would have supported the Constitution + Bill of Rights. I am pretty sure she would not have supported the Constitution without the Bill of Rights.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  4 years, 11 months ago
      Tough questions. Most of the States refused to ratify the Constitution without the Bill of Rights as well. I wonder if she would have insisted on settling the issue of slavery? She was very rigid on certain principles.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by Wanderer 4 years, 11 months ago
        Rich;

        Insisting on abolition at that time would have resulted in several nations, rather than one nation. Not to say the result would have been the unions of free colonies and slave colonies, it might have resulted in 13 separate nations, attempting to go their own ways, that certainly would have included slavery's propagation. Though the Constitution left room for slavery, in the minds of the abolitionists it left no room for exit. It bound the slave states to the public opinion of the antislave states.

        Though an imperfect solution, I think the Founders' unwritten tactic, binding themselves together while allowing slave states to think there was a means of unbinding themselves, was their means of eliminating slavery.

        Would Ayn Rand have recognized this and gone along with it? I don't know, because it required the public appearance of thoughtlessness or intellectual dishonesty. Would she have accepted the Constitution as it functioned, a plot to destroy slavery, without the public acknowledgment of that fact?
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  4 years, 11 months ago
          My understanding is that the Founders also thought that slavery would eventually become unnecessary. I believe it was already on the decline. They could not have foreseen the massive increase in the need for cotton. I wonder if they could have written a plan that phased it out in 50 years? Would slave States have agreed? Anything resulting in States choosing not to join would most likely have been left out. Tough issue.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by Wanderer 4 years, 11 months ago
            Rich;

            Note the total absence of discussion in the Constitution of the potential exit from the Federation of any member. Slave colonies didn't think they were binding themselves irrevocably to the public opinion of the North. Neither did northerners state it explicitly.

            The Founders were bright men. They saw and foresaw many things. I believe, for that reason, many southerners came to see this as duplicity. Delegates from antislave colonies anticipated the day when the issue would divide the nation and purposely failed to address it. I can imagine delegates from the antislave colonies quietly conniving to bind the slave colonies to a union in which the population of abolitionists was growing much faster than were the proslavery populations of the south. In fact, I think this is exactly how most southerners then and now see the issue.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by  $  4 years, 11 months ago
              Great point. That led to the Missouri Compromise. Hard to believe we kicked that can down the road for so long. As a human and moral issue I would have expected it to be resolved sooner than it was.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
          • Posted by Hiraghm 4 years, 11 months ago
            People keep saying "Founders". Is this another PC adjustment to the language?

            Growing up, it was always "Founding Fathers".
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by Hiraghm 4 years, 11 months ago
      She wouldn't have voted for anything, being female.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  jbrenner 4 years, 11 months ago
        Fair enough, as a female back then, she would not have had the right to vote. Given that, she would have likely been the Susan B. Anthony of that time had she been then and there.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • Posted by Maphesdus 4 years, 11 months ago
        Yeah, people tend to forget that women didn't get the right to vote until the 1920's...
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
        • Posted by Hiraghm 4 years, 11 months ago
          What date in 1920 did God come down and grant women this right?

          In point of fact, they lacked the *privilege* to vote. If voting were a "right", then we would be remiss in preventing a billion Chinese from voting in our elections...

          I point this out because I hate the modern proclivity to try to have one's cake and eat it, too. First, moderns want to assert how women were oppressed back then because they couldn't vote, own property, whatever, as per to modern ideology (revisionist history based on an erroneous conclusion); at the same time they want to magnify women's contribution to (only positive) historic events.

          If they were consistent in their idiocy, I mean ideology, then moderns would equally condemn Eva Braun for the Nazi excesses, as they condemn her bedmate.

          But, no, moderns attribute the evils of history solely to those with man-parts, even as they share credit for the good of history with women, slaves, foreigners... anybody but the very men responsible.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by Maphesdus 4 years, 11 months ago
      I think you mean Founding Mother. ;)

      And my guess is she probably would have found some way to insist that the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution (even with the Bill of Rights) were both wrong, given that the very last page of Atlas Shrugged depicts Judge Narragansett rewriting the Constitution and crossing out the alleged "contradictions" in its statements (though Ayn Rand never specified what exactly those contradictions were).
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  jbrenner 4 years, 11 months ago
        I used the term "America's founders" intentionally to be gender neutral. The biggest change that AR would have insisted on was the inclusion of property in the Declaration of Independence. I am sure that she would have been as confident in her stance as any of America's founders. It would have been fun to see.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
        • Posted by Hiraghm 4 years, 11 months ago
          I thought so... political correctness triumphs historic accuracy.

          The founding FATHERS... MEN gave us our country. Women contributed. So did slaves. So did horses. But it was a comparatively small group of MEN who organized, ran, risked and in the end gave us our republic. Like it or not, that is the historic reality.

          Too bad if the testosterone challenged don't like this historic fact. I'm tired of being made to feel guilty-by-association with the men who gave us the foundation of the U.S. It wasn't Swahilis in Africa or Samurai in Japan or Imams in Persia who came up with and created the forms of our nation. Nor was it slaves on the plantation or women in their homes.

          But, thanks for making me once again feel grateful for Karen Straughan...

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JHkGZvC0...

          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
  • Posted by Maphesdus 4 years, 11 months ago
    I've said before that Ayn Rand's philosophy is inherently anarchistic at its core, though Ayn Rand didn't realize it. It's nice to see others have come to the same conclusion.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by khalling 4 years, 11 months ago
      Objectivism is no more anarchistic than Locke 's natural rights philosophy on which this country was built and run for the better part of 150 years. Capitalism is not anarchism by any stretch of even your imagination, Maph. You are purposely being intellectually dishonest here regarding Rand.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • Posted by Maphesdus 4 years, 11 months ago
        I agree that capitalism is not inherently anarchistic. I never said it was (although I have seen other people make that claim). I simply said that Objectivism was inherently anarchistic. Objectivism may strongly endorse capitalism, but it is not capitalism in and of itself. A common mistake I often see many Objectivists make is assuming that a criticism of Objectivism is automatically a criticism of capitalism. That an individual could be pro-capitalist and anti-Objectivist is a possibility that doesn't seem to occur to some Objectivists.

        And I'm not being intellectually dishonest at all. I'm simply following Ayn Rand's idea's to their logical conclusion. Most of these arguments are laid out by John W. Robbins in his book "Without A Prayer: Ayn Rand And The Close Of Her System," which was praised by Ron Paul who said it should be read by anyone who wants to endorse freedom using arguments that cannot be refuted. You can get the book here:

        http://www.amazon.com/Without-Prayer-Ran...
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by conscious1978 4 years, 11 months ago
          Based on the fundamental misconception you have that Objectivism's logical end is anarchy, you seem to be trusting the writings of others that disagree with Rand rather than drawing conclusions from reading her non-fiction works. However, I could be wrong in my assumption regarding what you've read.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
          • Posted by Maphesdus 4 years, 11 months ago
            It's not a fundamental misconception. It's a logical analysis of the non-aggression principle, which serves as the foundation of Objectivist philosophy. The non-aggression principle is inherently anarchist, and therefore, any ideology which is built upon it will be anarchist as well.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  4 years, 11 months ago
          I think you are splitting hairs Maph. Ayn Rand was a strong advocate for Capitalism. What stood out most for me in this article is that the ideas of the Anarcho Capitalist seem impractical.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
          • Posted by Maphesdus 4 years, 11 months ago
            Right, Anarcho-Capitalism is impractical. But Anarcho-Capitalism is the inevitable conclusion of Ayn Rand's philosophy when her premises are followed to their logical ends. There's a reason why people like self-described anarchist Stefan Molyneux are such big fans of Ayn Rand.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by  $  4 years, 11 months ago
              I just don't agree. If you are correct we should have devolved into anarchy at some point early in our history. Instead we became the most powerful nation on earth with the strongest middle class in history. Straying from limited government and capitalism has brought us to where we are.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
              • Posted by Maphesdus 4 years, 11 months ago
                Capitalism and limited government do not lead to anarchy. The non-aggression principle, however, does. That's what I'm talking about.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by khalling 4 years, 11 months ago
              Rand was not an anarchist.
              "If a society provided no organized protection against force, it would compel every citizen to go about armed, to turn his home into a fortress, to shoot any strangers approaching his door—or to join a protective gang of citizens who would fight other gangs, formed for the same purpose, and thus bring about the degeneration of that society into the chaos of gang-rule, i.e., rule by brute force, into perpetual tribal warfare of prehistorical savages.

              The use of physical force—even its retaliatory use—cannot be left at the discretion of individual citizens. Peaceful coexistence is impossible if a man has to live under the constant threat of force to be unleashed against him by any of his neighbors at any moment. Whether his neighbors’ intentions are good or bad, whether their judgment is rational or irrational, whether they are motivated by a sense of justice or by ignorance or by prejudice or by malice—the use of force against one man cannot be left to the arbitrary decision of another." Virtue of Sefishness

              If you continue to conflate capitalism with anarchism and ascribe it to Objectivism, I will down vote-it will not be productive becasue it is an untruth
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
              • Posted by Maphesdus 4 years, 11 months ago
                I'm aware of the fact that Ayn Rand disliked anarchy. However, in spite of her dislike for anarchy, she nevertheless chose to build the philosophy of Objectivism on the non-aggression principle, and the non-aggression principle inherently and inevitably leads to anarchy. Ayn Rand obviously didn't realize that that's where the non-aggression principle lead, but the fact that she didn't realize it doesn't change it.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo