??
My Blog: http://www.anarchico.net/
Production is 'anarchistic' - Ludwig von Mises
A number of possible reasons:
(1) Objectivists are against Kant and trends in philosophy that it considers tracable to Kant, and Austrian economics has an obvious neo-Kantian aspect to it.
(2) Objectivists may take issue with the usage of subjectivism even if they agree with the conclusions reached by Austrians.
(3) To the extent that Austrians superimpose the subjective theory of value onto ethics and become ethical subjectivists, Objectivists will obviously take issue with this.
(4) To the extent that Austrians are connected to anarcho-capitalism, Objectivists will be hostile because of their notion of the need for objective law.
Another thing is that objectivists, sadly like some austrians too, are not able to distuingish between the austrian school of economics and Mises' political philosophy and Rothbard's view on ethics.
But why are we attacked so harshly by the Objectionists? They consider us parasites to liberty... It not like we attack them, many Austrians consider Ayn Rand an influence...
This may sound harsh but Objectivists are fanatics. Rothbard for example was sympathetic to Rand's ideas but was led down because of the cult-like character of her circle. Austrians on the other hand are usually very open-minded and tolerant and this may be not only because of the idea that all value is subjective.
I would say mostly because of intellectual property... Randians view it as the cornerstone of capitalism. Its actually kind of funny because copying is actually the cornerstone of competitive markets (you copy your competitors, charge a lower price).
Metus: Austrians on the other hand are usually very open-minded and tolerant and this may be not only because of the idea that all value is subjective.
Austrians on the other hand are usually very open-minded and tolerant and this may be not only because of the idea that all value is subjective.
hahaha oh wow. Really, both camps are "guilty" of "cult-like" mentality.
P.S. as far as I observed, and I observed not much, most objectivists are not so far away from statists. They still imagine some divine intervention in governing our lives.
(english is not my native language, sorry for grammar.)
Brainpolice:(1) Objectivists are against Kant and trends in philosophy that it considers tracable to Kant, and Austrian economics has an obvious neo-Kantian aspect to it.
People say that all the time, but Mises wrote almost entirely negatively about the philosophy of Kant. What's the deal?
What is the obvious neoKantian influence? i believe austrian econ philosophy is more influenced by kierkegaard and/or nietzsche than kant
Actually, I think it is the OP that has failed to do the distinguishing you mention. It is not the quality of “Austrian-ness” that Objectivists object to, if they criticize an Austrian. It is libertarianism they have a problem with, and more specifically, its lack of an integrated philosophical base and its support of anarchy, not so much the Austrian school of economics. If Objectivists “attack” any Austrians, it is libertarianism they are calling philosophically parasitical (as you are referring to Peter Schwartz' criticism in The Voice of Reason), not Austrianism or the Austrian school.
Ayn Rand heavily promoted Mises' works, listed them in her bibliography in Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal and quote from Mises at length on various issues, and sold all of his major works at her conferences.
There has been a thread already on some of their differences with libertarianism, but what Brainpolice listed was pretty much true. It is the methodology, specifically the epistemology of Mises they had a problem with. (Again, a philosophical problem, not a personal one.) Yes, Mises also criticized Kant, but the specific issue they have is with the analytic-synthetic dichotomy. Because of the Objectivist theory of concepts in epistemology, there is no basis for the a priori. All logical truths are necessary and all factual truths are logically true, (there is no basis for contingent truth vs. necessary truth or "logical truth" vs. "factual truth") because the laws of logic are derived from the law of identity.
They also have a difference with some of the explanations of what constitutes “rational behavior” and “self-interest,” as a philosophy Objectivism has some specific answers to these concepts. Rothbard himself shared some of these disagreements and largely sought to correct them in his own work.
Note that Objectivists also don't have a problem with the subjective theory of value in economics really, they just have a problem with calling it subjective, as they would probably explain it more the way Menger originally did.
Here is an article by Roderick Long explaining and attempting to reconcile some of the differences between Objectivist methodology and Austrian methodology, e.g.
analytic-synthetic distinction
subjective value-judgments
all action = rational
the “Nirvana premise”
http://praxeology.net/praxwho-x.pdf
Here are some Objectivist reviews of Austrian works:
(Note: most of these predate and are irrelevant to any disputes between Rand and Branden)
Planning for Freedom by Ludwig von Mises
http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=184&st=20&p=8144&#entry8144
Human Action by Ludwig von Mises
http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=184&st=20&p=8146&#entry8146
Man vs. the Welfare State by Henry Hazlitt
http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=184&st=20&p=10060&#entry10060
Omnipotent Government, Bureaucracy, Theory and History by Ludwig von Mises
http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=184&st=20&p=8147&#entry8147
Thinking as a Science by Henry Hazlitt
http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=188&st=20&p=7531&#entry7531
Planned Chaos by Ludwig von Mises
http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=188&st=20&p=8143&#entry8143
There really is no conflict between Misesian and Objectivist methodology, at least when it comes to economics. Objectivism also relies heavily on deductive reasoning stemming from axioms.
Political Atheists Blog
Actually, the opposite is true. I can see how that might be a misconception, but Objectivism generally favors economic laws derived from induction rather than deduction from axioms. The real disagreements over methodology only actually come into conflict starting with Mises. It would be closer to the methodology employed by JB Say to a large extent, and the earlier Austrians, Menger (strikingly close to Objectivism), and Bohm-Bawerk (in "The Historical vs. the Deductive Method in Political Economy," B-B denies that Austrian methodology confines itself to inferences and deductions from a priori axioms, claiming instead that it starts "with observation of actual conditions and endeavors from this empirical material to derive general laws" and then proceeds to deductions based on inductively-derived concepts, as Objectivism would have it.)
As Branden states in his review of Human Action, the disagreements of the Kantian elements in Mises' theories “pertain, not to the sphere of economics as such, but to the philosophical framework in which his economic theories are presented.” That pretty much sums up any disagreements between Objectivists and Austrians about economics.
As I read through the comments in this thread that contain in one post or the other accurate citing of the significant differences between Objectivists and the various species of Libertarians that can mislead one to think that Objectivists are opposed to Austrian economics—which they are not, I thought perhaps I could supply a little connective tissue as a context for those differences. 1) Differences with Libertarians in general over the basis and derivation of capitalism: The bigger, all encompassing picture in this case is the nature of and relationship between ethics, politics, and economics. For most Libertarians, liberty and capitalism are necessitated by demonstrably practical free-market economics that is often held to be a logical conclusion of a concept of "self-ownership" held to be an a priori axiom. Those concepts constitute an inversion of the Objectivist hierarchy. Rand explained that economics was not a philosophical science but rather a specialized applied science that was derivative of and dependent on the philosophical science of politics that is derived from and dependent on ethics that is in turn dependent on epistemology and ultimately on metaphysics. The ethical base of capitalism begins with the most fundamental choice man faces—life or death. If one chooses to pursue life over capitulating to death, then his life is automatically his most fundamental value and the standard of measure for all others. Hence, Objectivist egoism. Being volitional, men are also fallible, and if reason and its application to action is their only means to pursue that life, then individual autonomy must be a prerequisite for the pursuit of a human life. When that individual ethics is extended by application to a a social context of a society of men, it necessitates a structure that will enable individual autonomy (freedom) by guaranteeing that all human interactions shall be voluntary (autonomous). Hence her radical laissez-faire capitalism. Objectivists reject the Libertarian attempt to establish their politics without the ethical base. It leaves them with nothing but pragmatism to support their advocacy of liberty and vulnerable to arguments about practicality. Objectivists are not vulnerable in that way, because all of their political positions rest on and are traceable to moral principles, and the moral is always practical. ---------- 2) Differences with the anti-IP Misesians over the nature of ownership: Closer scrutiny of the logical chain from ethics to politics described above will reveal why Objectivists clash with those Libertarians who oppose intellectual property and those who advocate anarchy. Recognizing the application of a person's reason to action as his only means to pursue life morally destines the product thereof to the service of his life alone and no other. Thus that which a person can morally claim to own is only the product of his reason and actions—and nothing else. Objectivism holds that matter, as such, cannot be owned, because it is not the product of anyone's reason or effort. It is only the embodiment of reason/effort (an improvement) in otherwise unowned matter that can justify its possession. This is the reason why Objectivists say that all property is intellectual property. The only difference between physical property and intellectual property is that the reason/effort in the former case is already embodied, while in the latter it is embodiable. Whatever other men are willing to exchange for the added value the product of someone's reason/effort does or can add to something is due the one who created or produced that reason/effort. [Note: re the unfortunate reference to this as "subjective" value: in respect to the valuer, the worth is, or should be, determined objectively. In respect to the market as a whole it is not "subjective", but rather "personal"] Since in a just and free society, all exchanges must be voluntary, then the worth of any value exchanged may only be established bi- or multilaterally by the parties to the exchange, no one else, and never unilaterally. The IP opponent who argues that because the creator of an invention, a literary work or some software still has the original when he takes their creation for his own use, he violates the requirement that no exchange of a value may be unilaterally effected, and in so doing, the IP opponent embraces the politics of statism and the morality of thieves. 3) Differences with certain Libertarians and voluntaryists over self-ownership. Objectivists reject the concept of "self-ownership" as inapplicable to human beings, least of all oneself. It only refers to a relationship between oneself and external matter embodying one's reason/effort. Furthermore, the choice to form a society with a third party institution to manage the use of force to enable liberty logically precedes the necessity of an objective standard such as ownership to justify the possession of values that is property. Thus it is not fundamental enough to be an axiom. -------------- 4) Differences with anarchists over the nature of liberty: Objectivists and Libertarian anarchists are in agreement that the principles of Austrian free-market economics as presented by Mises are valid. When it comes to defining the proper government structure to enable that economics, however, the anarchists are subjectivists. That is why Rand labeled them "the hippies of the right." Objectivists can go a long way towards the decentralization of government through the use of private contractors and their preference for smaller units of government over one large one. And a lot of anarchists will concede that justice requires a single set of principles that will be enforced, and some will even concede that it requires some single function of oversight for appeals of the last resort to those principles. But ultimately, they will circle the wagons around one single argument. Anarchists maintain that a government may not exercise their monopoly of force to stop them from the inherently just and moral act of using force to defend themselves from an initiation of force by others—not just in those spontaneous acts of self-defense when attacked, but anytime ever, because it is in itself an initiation of force. Objectivists reject that argument altogether, pointing out that the anarchists are relying on an incomplete understanding of the nature of liberty itself. Unique to Rand's capitalism is the recognition that the primary prerequisite for liberty is that the exercise of defensive force will be objective and expected, not arbitrary and unknowable. All laws, procedures, and acts of enforcement must be objectified in the Constitution, the laws, the adjudications, the rules of enforcement, and the punishments for violations. The anarchist, in condoning the use of force in self defense without having to comply with objective standards that are known or knowable to all in advance, violates the liberty of others by enabling an arbitrary use of force that in the daily life of the populace becomes indistinguishable from an act that initiates the use of force. The principle that anarchists ignore is that over half the value of liberty is the justifiable expectation of it in one's daily life. Anarchy is thus inherently incompatible with liberty.
Michael M:Anarchy is thus inherently incompatible with liberty.
Well, that's the final word then. A is not equal to A.
from http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=184&st=20&p=8146&#entry8146 about the objectivist view of 'Human Action'
"In justice to Professor Mises’ position and our own, it must be mentioned that there are many sections of Human Action with which Objectivists cannot agree. These sections pertain, not to the sphere of economics as such, but to the philosophical framework in which his economic theories are presented. We must take the gravest exception, for example, to the general doctrine of praxeology; to the assertion that all value-judgments are outside the province of reason; that a scientific ethics is impossible; to the disavowal of the concept of inalienable rights; and to many of the psychological views expressed."
i don't know which la-la land these randians come from but there definitely is no reason to emotional value judgements, if there was, how could they be having an irreconcilable disagreement with that point.
science does not define ethics, ethics is based on the prior point, perhaps the objectivists think that the simple fact that we are better off with win-win and a free market and minimal government should define the ethics of science... the point about inalienable rights...
yeah, i would definitely have to conclude that mises definitely draws more from nietzsche than kant, as mentioned above. as far as i'm concerned it stems from the misidentification of the ego with the will of the creator, which should rightly be called (and is by many people) a psychological disorder. i guess this is why i have 'converted' so heavily to misesian/austrian economic theory, because i already had spent so much time thinking about the meaning of life and just couldn't find one (i sought an answer because of a long depression), i concluded that nihilism was correct, at base, that any purpose is a subjective decision but one that is supported by the acting physiology which defines pain as preferable to avoid and pleasure as preferable to seek, but the human brain then adds to this power by seeing the exchange of pain in the present for greater pleasure than the alternative to choosing pleasure now. this answer resolved permanently my depression problem, and it just also so happens to be the fundamental axiom of praxeology.
in any case, i can't read atlas shrugged. it's so repetitive and bombastic and really only has two characters. if this is a picture of ayn rand's mind then it's no wonder she believes in principles that amount to good/evil as prescribed by a disincarnate deity.
the point about self ownership by objectivism is nonsense. when you submit to the command of another, you are restraining your internal command system and the very fact you can resist submission proves that the original power to control one's own physical self, and thereby the ownership, since ownership rests upon control, is in the self. this makes is fundamental and therefore an axiom.
the objectivist view about self defense is completely nonsensical. objectivists are basically saying 'the law' decides what is right and what is wrong. but this cannot be correct because in the transaction called a 'fight' the terms of the agreement are mutual, er, i mean disagreement, and while one party may claim justification from one arbitrary set of rules, equally the other can declare this also. this is why the basis of the discussion is not about who is right but who steps across the line and violates the property of the other first. you can only support the idea of a collectivist law system as a property boundary if you believe that ideas can be property. ideas cannot be property because they lack the property of exclusivity of presence. the same idea can be everywhere at once. a new arrangement of ideas not previously known can be only in one place but in order to offer that idea for sale it has to be copied and thereby ceases to have the physical exclusivity that is universally present for any other property. newspapers don't sell words, they sell pieces of paper with words printed on them. it is this lack of recognition of this being an obsolete product is why the newspaper industry is going down the gurgler.
you can argue for these objectivist principles all day long but you stand with the statists when you support intellectual property monopolisation laws. if businesses want to develop and produce a new product, they grant themselves ample time of natural monopoly in the market simply by keeping their ideas to themselves until they have more than enough units to satisfy the expected demand projected for a period of time. reverse engineering is not without cost and while the resources are devoted to this process it is not going into production of anything that can be sold, and if they yield a better version of the same product is it not in the best interests of the consumers to have access to this superior 'copy'?
In a philosophical context, I make a distinction between ownership and physical control in order to emphasize and clarify that ownership in that context is a moral relationship, specifically, the moral relationship that justifies physical posession and control. Few Libertarians can make that distinction, because most have no integral moral-poliical structure within which to make it.
---------------
Objectivists do not say "the law decides what is right and what is wrong." Political rights are moral principles necessitated by the application of individual ethical principles to a social context. Laws merely concretize (objectify) those rights as standards for the behavior of the government and the populace.
Once again you are concrete bound to random non-essential physical attributes of property. Until and unless you can invalidate the moral structure I reported that explains ownership as a relationship between a human being and the product of his reason and actions, your comments, fascinating as they might be, are not particularly relevant to my explanation of IP.
point one: if you don't control what you own, how can you say you own it? collective ownership diminishes control to a proportion of one's ownership but the better solution is always to assign ownership of the good to a single individual because then you don't get problems of increasing external economies that comes with collective ownership (example being, the river that flows through thousands of people's properties, obviously it is not their river because everything they do to it affects everyone else downstream, therefore it should be owned by someone and its resources sold to those whose properties border it.
ownership is not a moral relationship. it is an economic relationship. your ownership implies rights and responsibilities, those are not even moral either because ultimately if you own a piece of hunting land and then eradicate all the game from it who ultimately suffers in the future from this action? you.
...
the problem with collectivised laws as you describe them is that your personal influence on them diminishes to zero, and the previous point about deprecating the control (economic) factor in ownership's importance extends to the sovereignty of the individual which you advanced nothing to support the idea that someone else should be allowed control within the bounds of an individual's physical person.
if intellectual property was a natural right it wouldn't need the state to defend it. information is not like goods, the cost of reproduction is nearly zero. building a machine based on an idea is still building a machine, and still requires all the production and capital facilities required that the 'original owner' of the IP has. it is not the same to reverse engineer something as it is for a thief to steal the blueprints from the company making the machine. that is still theft and should still be prosecuted as such. likewise copying the data files by violating the security of the original owner of the IP is still theft as it has required circumvention of security, i guess more technically that would be called espionage, both things are the same really though.
Just to clarify, the Objectivists' position insofar as it departs from the conventional wisdom is that morality is not closed to rational investigation, and it is not the exclusive province of mysticism or of personal whim. There is no such thing as “emotional value-judgments” because emotions are themselves are cognitive responses to one's value-judgments. Emotion responds to aspects of existence as determined by one's evaluations of that aspect, object, event, etc.
Ayn Rand did not believe that good and evil comes from any “disincarnate deity,” but is grounded in the nature of man and reality. It is a naturalist theory of ethics, as moral judgments reflect facts about the world and their relation to furthering or hindering the survival and well-being of the organism, thus the organism's nature will dictate what is good for it by pointing us to its needs, which explicitly leads to the conception of individual rights. The Objectivist argument for radical laissez-faire is based on that moral code, not on utilitarianism (that's what Branden is referring to in the review of Human Action you quoted from.)
I think Michael's argument is a pretty good example of standard Objectivist dogma. The unsupported assertions and strawman arguments are to be expected.
Also, it's nearly impossible to get an Objectivist of this sort to admit that his so-called reason results in a contradiction, and that because his reason results in contradiction, he needs to check his premises, because those premises are inherited from Rand herself, and Objectivism cannot contradict Rand.
1) You do control what you own. More precisely, you control that which embodies what you own, i.e. the product of your reason and actions.
2) When I say that ownership is a moral relationship, I mean that the concept is first necessitated by a requirement of ethics that man who survives only by reason and action needs to retain (own) the product of those, and that only later is ownership functionally described by economics.
3) I do not describe laws as collectivised. Rights and laws are defined in terms of individuals, not a group or collective anything.
4) IP is not a "natural right" as much as it is a right by the nature of man. It needs a state to defend it as much as any other right does.
5) The relative cost of production has absolutely nothing to do with the qualification of something as property.
For the rest, I'll need an interpreter...
Michael M:4) IP is not a "natural right" as much as it is a right by the nature of man. It needs a state to defend it as much as any other right does.
A state violates rights, so how can it defend rights? It's a contradiction.
My rights don't require a state to defend them.
@ liberty student,
"Objectivist dogma" is an oxymoron. Since intellectual independence is a primary virtue of the philosophy's ethics, treating any of it as dogma by its author or any student, fan, or adherent would disqualify them from being or claiming to be an Objectivist. Consequently, such accusations tell one more about the accuser than the accused.
Also, I am wondering why you asserted that I was making unsupported assertions, and then failed to support that assertion. While you are at it, you might also support your assertions of strawman arguments and contradictions ...
1) There is nothing inherent in the concept of a third-party institution controlled by a system of checks and balances that would allow one to assert that it would inevitably violate rights. First of all because such an institution consists of volitional human beings.
2) Such an institution can defend rights if those who establish it and define the rules by which it must operate enable it to perform only one single function: to guarantee that all human interactions in its jurisdiction shall be voluntary.
3) It is precisely because you think that you do not need a state to defend your rights that the rest of us need one to defend our rights from you.
Michael M:Since intellectual independence is a primary virtue of the philosophy's ethics, treating any of it as dogma by its author or any student, fan, or adherent would disqualify them from being or claiming to be an Objectivist.
Do you have the intellectual independence to refute Ayn Rand? Is it possible for Ms. Rand to ever be wrong, within the Objectivist philosophy?
Michael M:Also, I am wondering why you asserted that I was making unsupported assertions, and then failed to support that assertion. While you are at it, you might also support your assertions of strawman arguments and contradictions ...
I'll happily list some.
Objectivists reject the Libertarian attempt to establish their politics without the ethical base. It leaves them with nothing but pragmatism to support their advocacy of liberty and vulnerable to arguments about practicality.
Strawman.
It is only the embodiment of reason/effort (an improvement) in otherwise unowned matter that can justify its possession.
All human action is purposeful.
Since in a just and free society, all exchanges must be voluntary
Except in the Objectivist just and free society, which insists the state is necessary for coercion.
Objectivists and Libertarian anarchists are in agreement that the principles of Austrian free-market economics as presented by Mises are valid. When it comes to defining the proper government structure to enable that economics, however, the anarchists are subjectivists. That is why Rand labeled them "the hippies of the right."
There is no such thing as a proper government structure that is not one that is freely consented to. And consent is subjective. And a lot of anarchists will concede that justice requires a single set of principles that will be enforced, and some will even concede that it requires some single function of oversight for appeals of the last resort to those principles
Anarchists maintain that a government may not exercise their monopoly of force to stop them from the inherently just and moral act of using force to defend themselves from an initiation of force by others—not just in those spontaneous acts of self-defense when attacked, but anytime ever, because it is in itself an initiation of force. Incorrect, strawman. Anarchists don't think government is moral because it has a monopoly on force, through the use of force. It operates outside consent. It is by definition unaccountable, authoritarian, and prone to political violence.
Unique to Rand's capitalism is the recognition that the primary prerequisite for liberty is that the exercise of defensive force will be objective and expected, not arbitrary and unknowable.
Epistemologically impossible.
All laws, procedures, and acts of enforcement must be objectified in the Constitution, the laws, the adjudications, the rules of enforcement, and the punishments for violations.
There is no such thing as an objective Constitution. Constitutions are written by men.
The anarchist, in condoning the use of force in self defense without having to comply with objective standards that are known or knowable to all in advance, violates the liberty of others by enabling an arbitrary use of force that in the daily life of the populace becomes indistinguishable from an act that initiates the use of force.
Strawman. Non sequitur.
Anarchy is thus inherently incompatible with liberty.
Contradiction.
Michael M:1) There is nothing inherent in the concept of a third-party institution controlled by a system of checks and balances that would allow one to assert that it would inevitably violate rights. First of all because such an institution consists of volitional human beings.
And where are these volitional human beings?
Michael M:2) Such an institution can defend rights if those who establish it and define the rules by which it must operate enable it to perform only one single function: to guarantee that all human interactions in its jurisdiction shall be voluntary.
Absolutely security is absolute slavery. This is utopianism.
Michael M:3) It is precisely because you think that you do not need a state to defend your rights that the rest of us need one to defend our rights from you.
I don't violate the rights of others. You still haven't made the case for why you need a state.
I think you're mixing terms here, so I will try to help you out.
A state, is a territorial monopoly of law and security. It does not seek volition, it doesn't operate by concensus. It isn't equally accountable, it doesn't perfectly follow perfect rules. What you call a state, is a utopian institution that is all knowing, perfectly restrained, established and run by imperfect men, to run with a perfection that exceeds its creators.
It's great science fiction. It's actually not too far from a collectivist fantasy. If only we can mechanize and institutionalize the perfect, and cut out the human in humanity.
And before you go off about reason again, remember Mises' praxeological insights. All human action is purposeful. All of it is reasoned.
Sticking your unsupported assertions into my post like placeholders doesn't cut it. So we will just have to take 'em one at a time. Pick any one to start with, and tomorrow we will debate it thoroughly. Then, when you say "uncle" we'll move to the next, and the next, and ...
This sounds fairly interesting. Specifically, I would like to see you substantiate this assertion:
First of all because such an institution consists of volitional human beings.
If true, compulsory taxation wouldn't exist, correct? The state would consist of socially necessary institutions that provide services which are demanded by the general public. In other words, it would yield economic goods, which could be sold in markets for profit. It would be what economists call a “natural monopoly” for things such as security and an objective legal system.
Additionally, the idea that society requires a certain degree of compulsion in order to limit the coercion which otherwise would exist in an anarchical system, is something that I’m extremely sympathetic to. But this begs the question, namely why does the state, even the democratic republic, restrained by a constitution, necessarily degenerate into the largest human rights violator and greatest source of economic inefficiency (I’m implicitly referring to certain arguments made by public choice economists)? Is this merely coincidental? And if so, how could this be avoided?
Just some things to consider.
"If we wish to preserve a free society, it is essential that we recognize that the desirability of a particular object is not sufficient justification for the use of coercion."
Michael M:Sticking your unsupported assertions into my post like placeholders doesn't cut it.
Maybe you should draft a Constitution against it.
Esuric:If true, compulsory taxation wouldn't exist, correct? The state would consist of socially necessary institutions that provide services which are demanded by the general public.
If true, compulsory taxation wouldn't exist, correct? The state would consist of socially necessary institutions that provide services which are demanded by the general public.
Objectivists would very much agree with that sentiment. Rand was in favor of some system of voluntary taxation, such as lottery funding.
Life and reality are neither logical nor illogical; they are simply given. But logic is the only tool available to man for the comprehension of both.—Ludwig von Mises
Life and reality are neither logical nor illogical; they are simply given. But logic is the only tool available to man for the comprehension of both.
Justin Spahr-Summers: Rand was in favor of some system of voluntary taxation, such as lottery funding.
Rand was in favor of some system of voluntary taxation, such as lottery funding.
Unless somebody has a problem with that, I guess that settles it: Objectivism doesn't include what we call "statism".
If I wrote it more than a few weeks ago, I probably hate it by now.
Objectivists reject the Libertarian attempt to establish their politics without the ethical base. It leaves them with nothing but pragmatism to support their advocacy of liberty and vulnerable to arguments about practicality. Objectivists are not vulnerable in that way, because all of their political positions rest on and are traceable to moral principles, and the moral is always practical.
Some libertarians use pragmatic arguments, but that's not to say there isn't an ethical basis to it. For example, I wouldn't care if drug prohibition actually "worked" in terms of stopping people from taking drugs - I'd still think it was immoral - but that doesn't mean I can't point out to its advocates the embarrassing fact that it doesn't even achieve the ends they want it to.
Maybe it's just that libertarians live in the real world, and objectivists live in Ayn Rand's psyche...
Michael M:Since in a just and free society, all exchanges must be voluntary, then the worth of any value exchanged may only be established bi- or multilaterally by the parties to the exchange, no one else, and never unilaterally. The IP opponent who argues that because the creator of an invention, a literary work or some software still has the original when he takes their creation for his own use, he violates the requirement that no exchange of a value may be unilaterally effected, and in so doing, the IP opponent embraces the politics of statism and the morality of thieves.
No, his concept of ownership is simply predicated upon scarcity.
The axiom at work is that human action is purposeful, conscious adjustment to the state of a given human's environment, as he perceives it. If you have a problem with that axiom, we would all love to hear it.
Man desires natural resources which are scarce, therefore he must act rationally to reduce scarcity. Man desires knowledge in order to do this, so he must act to reduce his ignorance.
From an ethical perspective which seeks to apply universally valid moral principles, it's sufficient to say that each individual human should act rationally to reduce his own scarcity inasmuch as he does not do this by taking for his own that which is functioning to reduce the scarcity of another. He should not engage in a zero-sum transaction of his own scarcity for another's, as this would violate ethical universality.
Similarly, should it not be sufficient to say that each individual human should act rationally to reduce his own ignorance inasmuch as he does not do this by increasing the ignorance of another? ;)
Objectivists reject the concept of "self-ownership" as inapplicable to human beings, least of all oneself. It only refers to a relationship between oneself and external matter embodying one's reason/effort.
Yes, a relationship in which the owner has the legitimate ethical prerogitive to use the property in question in any way he sees fit. That's how ownership is defined.
The human body, including the mind it generates, is physical matter and energy external to the metaphysical "self". It is a scarce physical resource used by the metaphysical self, and it can be used by others too. If something can be used, it must be owned, since ownership is nothing more than the ethical relationship describing who may or may not use something. "Self-ownership" is fundamentally non-transferable, because you can't literally give your life to someone else.
Furthermore, the choice to form a society with a third party institution to manage the use of force to enable liberty logically precedes the necessity of an objective standard such as ownership to justify the possession of values that is property.
I don't think that's logically possible. The recognition of objective ethical values must surely precede the establishment of institutions acting to enforce such a system. If there is no morality, then you can't form an institution to enforce something that doesn't exist.
Thus it is not fundamental enough to be an axiom.
Yeah, I agree, it's actually not a true axiom...
It's based on the praxeological axiom that man acts purposefully to reduce his perceived discomfort, and the moral axiom that valid ethical principles apply universally to all natural persons.
Anarchists maintain that a government may not exercise their monopoly of force to stop them from the inherently just and moral act of using force to defend themselves from an initiation of force by others—not just in those spontaneous acts of self-defense when attacked, but anytime ever, because it is in itself an initiation of force.
No...
Anarchists maintain that it is illegitimate to hold a monopoly on force, no matter what you intend to do with it.
If you're wondering why libertarians criticise the vast majority of wars, it's because the vast majority of wars, as a matter of case-by-case fact, are not legitimately waged in self-defence.
Objectivists reject that argument altogether, pointing out that the anarchists are relying on an incomplete understanding of the nature of liberty itself. Unique to Rand's capitalism is the recognition that the primary prerequisite for liberty is that the exercise of defensive force will be objective and expected, not arbitrary and unknowable. All laws, procedures, and acts of enforcement must be objectified in the Constitution, the laws, the adjudications, the rules of enforcement, and the punishments for violations. The anarchist, in condoning the use of force in self defense without having to comply with objective standards that are known or knowable to all in advance, violates the liberty of others by enabling an arbitrary use of force that in the daily life of the populace becomes indistinguishable from an act that initiates the use of force. The principle that anarchists ignore is that over half the value of liberty is the justifiable expectation of it in one's daily life. Anarchy is thus inherently incompatible with liberty.
What are you going to write in your constitution? Arbitrary, specific rules? Maybe that people can only use 9mm handguns for self-defence, or how hard they can hit back if someone is punching them?
It is inherent to the definition of "self-defence" that one is exercising force that is, under the circumstances, necessary to protect against a real initiated threat of force, and no more excessively than that.
I. Ryan: Justin Spahr-Summers: Rand was in favor of some system of voluntary taxation, such as lottery funding. Unless somebody has a problem with that, I guess that settles it: Objectivism doesn't include what we call "statism".
Funding is not the only criteria for statism.
liberty student: Funding is not the only criteria for statism.
What else is there?
(I'm sure that you're right, but nevertheless it might be helpful to list some specifics.)
Michael M: Such an institution can defend rights if those who establish it and define the rules by which it must operate enable it to perform only one single function: to guarantee that all human interactions in its jurisdiction shall be voluntary.
Such an institution can defend rights if those who establish it and define the rules by which it must operate enable it to perform only one single function: to guarantee that all human interactions in its jurisdiction shall be voluntary.
Won't your state do things like put criminals in jail?
And wouldn't things like that be as far away from "voluntary interaction" as it gets?
(Just picture your state throwing a thief in prison: Is the state's interaction with him necessarily "voluntary"?)
I think Objectivism is 'dogma' not just because no one concedes that Ayn Rand can be wrong on something. But because it is believed by Objectivists that Ayn Rand either had a complete system or that there is no way to solve some issue unless somehow Ayn Rand came back to life to settle it; Leonard Peikoff pretty much exudes this philosophy on life (which ironically Rand called 'second-hander' mentality during her life). That's why they always say things like 'we, as Objectivists should take issue with Mises on...'. As such there is there is 'individualism', but no individuals contributing. Since that is not one's place within objectivism to define objectivism themselves or to change objectivism. It is 'objective' and final and not democratic. It is someone's intellectual property; to engage it would be communism or worse: compromise. Therefore the individualist aspect is irrelevant to objectivism. One is accepting 'dogma', not because one can't think for themselves, but because objectivism necessarily doesn't call for it. Just as reading this post by me doesn't call for you to edit it and tell me what I mean. That is, there can be a debate against objectivism but not within objectivism. Once imbedded within objectivism, you are no longer a philosopher but a student of a philosopher. and again, since it is complete, there is no way to shift from student into philosopher mode. Because again, you are not needed. At best, you can take from Objectivism like a buffet and be your own person. But as such Objectivism has no need for philosophy, for individual input, or anything else. Just like any other dead person.
On the other hand, Austrianism, if such a thing exists, has very diverse opinion. Mises and Rothbard differ quite extensively on a number of issues. As far as I know, they didn't complete any systems. It's even possible that they did not have much in the way of positive systems. There are some Austrian dogmatists. But for the most part, it still retains the ability to be for 'we the living'. The people who follow the dead, then, are necessarily upset.
I even remember an interview some Objectivist did for the game Bioshock in which the person said that it is not unusual or untrue to say that Ayn Rand was a perfect person. "Why is that so weird?" the spokesperson asked.
I. Ryan: liberty student: Funding is not the only criteria for statism. What else is there? (I'm sure that you're right, but nevertheless it might be helpful to list some specifics.)
I answered this up thread already.
liberty student: I answered this up thread already.
Ah, I see.
liberty student: A state, is a territorial monopoly of law and security. It does not seek volition, it doesn't operate by concensus. It isn't equally accountable, it doesn't perfectly follow perfect rules. What you call a state, is a utopian institution that is all knowing, perfectly restrained, established and run by imperfect men, to run with a perfection that exceeds its creators.
As a territorial monopoly, it doesn't only force you to pay them, but (among other things) also forces out any competition. It doesn't just take your money, but also forbids you to pay anybody else for the same services.
(Also, I would add that a state isn't just a territorial monopoly, but is a compulsory, territorial monopoly: It doesn't only disallow you from paying anybody else for its kind of services, but also forces you to pay them. It doesn't just make it impossible to accept these types of services from other people, but actually makes it impossible to not accept it from them. Or at least it does that to enough people to warrant us calling it a "state", or something like that.)
'They consider us parasites to liberty... It not like we attack them, many Austrians consider Ayn Rand an influence...'
Everyone who isn't a Objectivist is a parasite to an Objectivist.
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
John Ess:I think Objectivism is 'dogma' not just because no one concedes that Ayn Rand can be wrong on something. But because it is believed by Objectivists that Ayn Rand either had a complete system or that there is no way to solve some issue unless somehow Ayn Rand came back to life to settle it; Leonard Peikoff pretty much exudes this philosophy on life (which ironically Rand called 'second-hander' mentality during her life). That's why they always say things like 'we, as Objectivists should take issue with Mises on...'.
John, thank you. This is what I meant, but was unable to communicate so eloquently.