Political Theory

Re: Objectivists

Autolykos — Tue, 04 Dec 2012 13:43:18 GMT

Not only did they not have weapons (major facepalm there IMO), but they also announced themselves (i.e. "the Republic of Minerva") to the neighboring states! I think it was really quite foolish of them to expect the neighboring states to play nice.

Re: Objectivists

thetabularasa — Tue, 04 Dec 2012 03:06:25 GMT

Anenome:

Which is the major reason why I think once libertarians set up the first anarch society that actually works, people will be both shocked and awed and the dominoes will begin to rapidly fall in our favor.

I think it'd be awesome. The Minerva Project was a good go at it, but they didn't have weapons lol.

Re: Objectivists

Anenome — Tue, 04 Dec 2012 02:36:21 GMT

It's a shame that Rand didn't swallow her pride and accept an-capism. I think she was enamored with her own ideas too much, prideful, clearly.

And I largely came to libertarianism from reading Rand. Rand and LeFevre.

But considering the mental leap it takes to abandon the assumption of government, it's perhaps not that surprising. It takes a lot of effort to imagine how things could work absent a coercive governmet, and without being able to imagine how anarchy could work I don't think people will let go of government.

Which is the major reason why I think once libertarians set up the first anarch society that actually works, people will be both shocked and awed and the dominoes will begin to rapidly fall in our favor.

Re: Objectivists

Bert — Tue, 04 Dec 2012 02:24:19 GMT

Her view isn't based on some form of morality?

Re: Objectivists

thetabularasa — Tue, 04 Dec 2012 01:37:07 GMT

Bert:

Yeah, and Mises was a minarchist, yet we're on a forum on Mises.org. Petty stuff, friend.

I never read anything from Mises condoning violence in regards to an opposition that's actually having their rights violated from said state. It's not petty, it gives insight on Rand's views.

It gives insight into her views but nothing having to do with moral subjectivity. That was my point.

Re: Objectivists

Bert — Tue, 04 Dec 2012 01:31:48 GMT

Yeah, and Mises was a minarchist, yet we're on a forum on Mises.org. Petty stuff, friend.

I never read anything from Mises condoning violence in regards to an opposition that's actually having their rights violated from said state. It's not petty, it gives insight on Rand's views.

Re: Objectivists

Neodoxy — Tue, 04 Dec 2012 01:31:35 GMT

Then why is murder wrong?

You know that things are gonna get fun when you start asking that question :P

Re: Objectivists

thetabularasa — Tue, 04 Dec 2012 01:22:20 GMT

Bert:

No.

Then again Rand believed we should defend Israel because they are the more technologically advanced state and the Arabs are primitive racists - what kind of logic is that?

Yeah, and Mises was a minarchist, yet we're on a forum on Mises.org. Petty stuff, friend.

My whole counterargument to moral subjectivism is in the opposition to the consideration of murder somehow possibly being permissible. That's essentially what it means: that there are no moral absolutes, which deductively implies that murder can, indeed, be perfectly fine to commit.

Re: Objectivists

Neodoxy — Tue, 04 Dec 2012 01:17:32 GMT

"On moral subjectivism..... so there's nothing wrong with murder, right? Ought murderers be punished?"

We've been over this before

I believe murderers ought to be punished. I believe you ought to be sending me money every month, and I believe that more people ought to wear nice clothes. What I believe ought to be is a preference, it does not magically cross the uncrossable is/ought gap. Morality by its very nature is subjective because there is no objective way to determine morality. Everything within moral language and sentiment follows the same rules as preference precisely because they are one in the same.

Re: Objectivists

Bert — Tue, 04 Dec 2012 01:10:12 GMT

No.

Then again Rand believed we should defend Israel because they are the more technologically advanced state and the Arabs are primitive racists - what kind of logic is that?

Re: Objectivists

thetabularasa — Tue, 04 Dec 2012 00:57:54 GMT

Neodoxy:

"How she can receive so much criticism on this forum is beyond me."

A lot of that comes from the zeal of her followers and her ethics. Randian ethics and praxeology can be reconciled, but they don't reconcile easily.

Edit

This problems only get more distinct as people around here drift more towards moral subjectivism.

On moral subjectivism..... so there's nothing wrong with murder, right? Ought murderers be punished?

Re: Objectivists

RagnarD — Tue, 04 Dec 2012 00:37:42 GMT

I unfortunately completely agree with the posts so far, I guess it comes down to both Childs and the Objectivist writer above are right, but Childs arguement antecedes the Objectivist argument. That is anarcho-capitalism will lead to conflicting versions of rights being upheld, but to enforce anything else is to institute a violation of rights.

While recognising the an-cap position is consistent while the objectivist one isn't, it still leaves me straddling the fence between the two. Hoping to bypass those conflicts arising under an-cap by reversing the trend of centralization through education leading to competition for "the most minimal minarchy". Yes I realise it's highly unlikely, but preferrable IMO.

Re: Objectivists

suuruna — Tue, 04 Dec 2012 00:07:56 GMT

@thetabularasa, I hope you don't see my post as "rabid criticism," and I imagine I speak for most ancaps when I say that I recognize that objectivists and minarchists have a lot in common with ancaps, and that Ayn Rand has been important in introducing people to the idea that capitalism and voluntary association is not villianous. But I think that the step from "tiny government" to "no government" is an important one to talk about, and I don't think it should just be ignored when it is brought up. I think criticisms against minarchism go a long way in dispelling the aura of legitimacy that something called a "government" gets, and helps focus on protecting rights rather than protecting institutions that protect rights. And sometimes it's hard, weird, or anxiety-provoking to think about a society that different from what most of us live in. But that doesn't mean sabotaging the good arguments from people I don't agree with on everything... it's not like ancaps all agree on everything, either :P.

Re: Objectivists

Neodoxy — Mon, 03 Dec 2012 23:57:03 GMT

"How she can receive so much criticism on this forum is beyond me."

A lot of that comes from the zeal of her followers and her ethics. Randian ethics and praxeology can be reconciled, but they don't reconcile easily.

Edit

This problems only get more distinct as people around here drift more towards moral subjectivism.

Re: Objectivists

thetabularasa — Mon, 03 Dec 2012 23:46:57 GMT

I think she was brilliant. A nice fusion of Nietzsche's ethics and Aristotle's epistemology makes for a good system. Is it without critique? No. But the people on here splitting hairs saying she's a "statist" or "short sighted" and so forth are really...well...splitting hairs. It's the same distinction between anarchist and minarchist that makes the ancaps point and froth at the mouth shouting STATISTS! as though Objectivists are anywhere near the statism of the RepubliCrats.

Rand was definitely an individual, and she paved the way to a movement saying capitalism and greed are not bad things. How she can receive so much criticism on this forum is beyond me.