Who are the men in an Objectivist culture/nation suited to govern?
Posted by Zenphamy 7 years, 8 months ago to Philosophy
This is a line of inquiry generated in responses to comments in a recent Post by khalling:
The Myth That Ideas Are a Dime A Dozen
Posted by $ khalling 1 day, 18 hours ago to Technology
It's difficult to imagine a group of Objectivists, egoist, creators wanting, striving for, gaining, and manipulating for governing power. Can an Objectivist be the governing power, and if so how is he chosen and controlled once selected to such position? We've never satisfactorily addressed that question on this site, at least to my satisfaction. The conflict between wanting to gain and maintain government power vs living an Objectivist, laissez faire capitalist life, seems at first glance to be overwhelming.
Rand seemed to deal with the conflict as: "The acceptance of the achievements of an individual by other individuals does not represent “ethnicity”: it represents a cultural division of labor in a free market; it represents a conscious, individual choice on the part of all the men involved; the achievements may be scientific or technological or industrial or intellectual or esthetic—and the sum of such accepted achievements constitutes a free, civilized nation’s culture." It is the acceptance of the achievements by other individuals by conscious, individual choice on the part of all men involved.
Jefferson dealt with it by suggesting the necessity of a revolution each generation. Does the space and verbiage utilized in this space devoted to the current political battle answer any part of this primary question? Or are we left with the old adage of 'At least 'such and such' will move us in the right direction' and is that even in the realm of true or reality?
The Myth That Ideas Are a Dime A Dozen
Posted by $ khalling 1 day, 18 hours ago to Technology
It's difficult to imagine a group of Objectivists, egoist, creators wanting, striving for, gaining, and manipulating for governing power. Can an Objectivist be the governing power, and if so how is he chosen and controlled once selected to such position? We've never satisfactorily addressed that question on this site, at least to my satisfaction. The conflict between wanting to gain and maintain government power vs living an Objectivist, laissez faire capitalist life, seems at first glance to be overwhelming.
Rand seemed to deal with the conflict as: "The acceptance of the achievements of an individual by other individuals does not represent “ethnicity”: it represents a cultural division of labor in a free market; it represents a conscious, individual choice on the part of all the men involved; the achievements may be scientific or technological or industrial or intellectual or esthetic—and the sum of such accepted achievements constitutes a free, civilized nation’s culture." It is the acceptance of the achievements by other individuals by conscious, individual choice on the part of all men involved.
Jefferson dealt with it by suggesting the necessity of a revolution each generation. Does the space and verbiage utilized in this space devoted to the current political battle answer any part of this primary question? Or are we left with the old adage of 'At least 'such and such' will move us in the right direction' and is that even in the realm of true or reality?
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
- John Adams
By presenting this quote I'm only drawing a parallel that an Objectivist leader (oxymoron?) must have a like-minded Objectivist community if he/she has any hope to govern.
The most important aspect of the Sedition Acts to me, unlike the patriot act, was that it was put in place for a time to serve a needed purpose and then, in recognition of his unconstitutional nature, promptly put away.
If only ...
I count Adams' actions, along with Washington's/Hamilton's use of Federal troops against the Whiskey Rebellion in eastern Penn., and Jay's settlement agreement with the British for reparations as the beginnings of the end of the Constitution. Of the three, I consider Adams' the worst.
It was interesting to me that Adams could so easily deal with his defense of the British soldiers and still be so admired by the founding generation. Not so true today.
“The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. Although the detail of the formation of the American governments is at present little known or regarded either in Europe or in America, it may hereafter become an object of curiosity. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses.”
~John Adams, “A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America” 1787-1788
5. “The Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion.”
~1797 Treaty of Tripoli signed by Founding Father John Adams
6. “Thirteen governments [of the original states] thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery, and which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favor of the rights of mankind.”
~Founding Father John Adams, “A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America” (1787-88)
As a "spin-off" thought:
No Objectivist would seek any kind of political power but would rather seek to be a moral guide to any leader (whether federal or state) who is open to the ideas and ideals of individual rights and freedom with responsibility.
(Much like the prophets of old were the conscience of the leaders of Israel. Different concrete...same abstraction.)
We don't need 'governing.' The few jobs to be done by what we call 'government' should not have significant power over free, productive, sovereign people. The job might be a place where someone learns about business before they graduate to a competitive real world productive position. It should not be a career or a final goal to be attained.
"Protecting property rights is a primary reason given for concentration of power."
I did not agree that singular concentration of power is required to protect property rights as it is in the federal government. I said that is a reason that is given for concentrating power. That is an excuse for centralization of power in government..
Some limited power to protect rights is a primary need, but giving that power to one agency to rule over everyone is akin to communist central planning. When the agency has no competition and "its their way or go to jail" it is doomed to corruptuion and failure. Decentralization of that power in the free market with competition and customers who choose to use the service voluntarily based on customer satisfaction will result in a non statist outcome with a lower incidence of failure due to corruption.
There is no right person or group. Anyone can be corrupted under manipulated circumstances. There are no exceptions because of self interest.
Most people want to live their lives in peace and to have someone to relieve their concern by promising to protect their property and safety is very alluring. Let someone else take responsibility for that, and if something goes wrong it's their fault, and we can blame them instead of ourselves. It's hard enough to find time to handle all the concerns of a business and a family and to pursue happiness.
But we must find the time to do that one more task, the task of choosing between competing free market defenders of our property. We must do this because no one else has our self interest. No central authority is concerned first with the interests of their "customers". Just because the government man or woman is supposed to represent the interests of the people above his own interests does not mean he will do so. This is unrealistic and naive. When the "government" agent has concentrated ultimate power there are no checks or balances to prevent corruption. Men and women are corruptible.
Central government is the wrong solution to protect property. It has always rewarded the powerful and has done a poor job of protecting the rights and property of the less powerful.
I was just rereading the chapter, "The Fallacy of Anarchism" in Isabel Paterson's "The God of the machine" which ends in a kind of warning for the many today who want a leader.
"When the word leader, or leadership, returns to current use, it connotes a relapse into barbarism. For a civilized people, it is the most ominous word in any language."
That is happening throughout the world today, including the USA starting to get into the act leading to the present political situation with promises of near barbarousness, at least in writing from seemingly more sources. In a rational world the desire for leadership should have died out just by the history of the twentieth century. If barbarism, then wholesale death leading to private property mainly some farming and keeping animal herds.
I won't repeat all the arguments against such approaches other than I agree with AR's positions.
The best politicians are those who have a regular day job - who don't make politics a career.
The best politicians are those who have not only read the Constitution, but understand, respect, and fight to uphold its principles.
The best politicians are unpopular to those who seek power.
The best politicians are those who are wary of the power they hold: who treat it like a fire which can quickly grow out of control.
It has become less desirable for anyone disinterested in dominating others to run for public office. George Washingtons are few and far between. The problem seems to me to be directly in proportion to the drift toward nationalism and away from federalism, or as related to statism vs. individualism. Sometimes I think we would have been better off if we had found some other solution to the purported problems of the Confederation and never created a Constitution. As good as it was, it has been as Franklin posited "In these Sentiments, Sir, I agree to this Constitution, with all its Faults, if they are such; because I think a General Government necessary for us, and there is no Form of Government but what may be a Blessing to the People if well administered; and I believe farther that this is likely to be well administered for a Course of Years, and can only end in Despotism as other Forms have done before it, when the People shall become so corrupted as to need Despotic Government, being incapable of any other." I believe we have arrived...
I prefer to leave, as much as possible, all necessary protection of property and rights to one's local Sheriff who must please the local populace or suffer removal at each election. It may still not be perfect, but there is no utopia and at least it allows some consideration for the disparate interests of the local inhabitants and conditions.
Considering present circumstances, it seems to me, an Objecitivist would have little incentive or chance to acquire high office in such a subjective, partisan atmosphere.
Regards,
O.A.
Indeed. Yes a trustee. Also, "conservative (in the literal sense and not a political sense)." is an important distinction most do not appreciate.
Good comment.
Regards,
O.A.
Trustees is on the mark!
2. why would an objectivist run for office, knowing they would not win?
3. We call them "legislators". an objectivist would not introduce any bills that were not designed to tear down existing law.
4. His first bill would be to mandate that all legislators are only doing business in DC 3 months of the year, as it was first required.
This is a great question, though. I picture that I'd get into power and immediately start disassembling the machine. Probably would end up being eliminated...ala JFK.
You have to realize that's the way it was stated. It was for pagan bicameral man...it was just the paradigm of the times.
We might very well look back at present times and refer to them as barbaric, superstitious or in some sense, less conscious than some future time...if we make it that far...I have my doubts about that.
The reference to Z's post, does relate to "Objectivism in the sense that everyone governed by an objectivist government should be themselves, Objectivist...and that's really simple stupid...if We the people are to govern ourselves then some of those people would find their way into that governance...Right?
First, the idea of a single figurehead leader is everything I am against. A nation of laws should be just that, without the need for "leadership". If you can get through the process of making a perfect set laws that simply protect the individual rights of property and person, then the only form of "government" you would need is a police force and judicial powers. If you could somehow make the police force a volunteer service of citizens that must abide by the same laws as all citizens, then the only issue becomes the judicial system. The actual punishments could be spelled out in the constitution of laws and not be subjective. Judges would have to be simply "managers of the court" that have no real power. All cases would have to be held by a jury of peers, which would be daunting to say the least...
Once the laws are complete, there would be no need for the executive branch or legislature. In addition, the judicial branch would be somewhat powerless, and simply a management tool to allow the citizens to judge the cases.
We need laws, not men. Laws that are equal to all, protect all, benefit all. ZERO special interest. No political class.
The only real issue you have if all of that can be achieved is protection from foreign invasion. Not sure how to get that done without leadership of some sort, not to mention taxes... Don't think a militia of the people is going to cut it in the modern world. If someone has a solution for this please let me know!
I can judge your version of Eutopia meaning the place that doesn't and can't exist using objectivism and that's it.
So the fallacy in your premise is considering objectivism as a anything more than what it is. A damn fine philosophical tool to address things as they are. There are mentors and guides but with rare exception no leaders for as individuals we lead ourselves.
Like it or not participants in some form or the other of a social contract we may and do try to influence certain areas but it's still an individual responsibility and unlike a Soviet system participation in the social contract is not mandatory.
Case in point something very simple. i don't watch TV and learned early on how to use the on and off knobs on a radio followed by having no need for newspapers. Why? Their nature is valueless to my existence. On the other hand i have an extensive music collection multi genre if it has value. I am correct but test it daily. What you decide is also correct. Indivdualism therefore rules and is the smallest of the minorities. Why is that important to me. If I expect you to protect my minority rights I should respect yours. Value given value received. Which gets into politics at that point so i'll stop.
our saying is if the answer is wrong check premises one or more of them will be false.
Now you can start off on an even keel and re-examine the nature of things apply your tests, evaluate usefulness and consider is it ethical.
I want to read that post for sure when you present it.
Welcome to the world of the mind.
I read Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology when I was in 8th grade and, while I somewhat understood the premise, I was overwhelmed a bit by the use of language. I read Atlas Shrugged and The Virtue of Selfishness (my favorite collection of Rand writings I have so far read) as an adult and feel that I understand fairly well the ideas of Objectivism. I do understand that Objectivist Philosophy and political government don't exactly work together and are mutually exclusive. Objectivism deals entirely with the individual, which, in a political setting, can only hope to provide guidance in the making of the laws needed for a peaceful society. While each individual's needs and desires may be different, we hopefully could only focus on laws that protect each individual from theft, fraud and brute force. Those seem to be the mainstays of an "ethically selfish" individual.
So, I agree that a government in any form should be a simple social contract beneficial (or at least not debilitating) to all parties. Those who subscribe to objectivist philosophy would most likely be the most logical choice to help come up with laws that do not infringe on the individual. Once the laws are in place, we can live without threat of infringement by a government or political activists.
Being a business owner I can't not delve into politics I guess...........
What are the three proper functions of government? The police, the military, and the law courts.
So: the most important profession to fill from the ranks of Objectivists is: the Bench. Second to that, the Prosecutorial Bar. Judge Narragansett, who runs an arbitration practice in Mulligan's Valley, is the archetype. And why the Prosecutorial Bar? Because any government, choosing to govern by Objectivist principles, must have as its representatives in court, persons who agree with and can articulate these principles.
That aside, you need a military Commander-in-chief, and a Chief of Police--or a Sheriff. And of course you need an independent legislature to make the laws that chief of police will administer, and that judges will interpret.
And of course you want to eliminate any of the other functions this government has arrogated to itself.
The United States government would do well to limit itself to four departments: State, Treasury, Defense, and Justice.