RoR: Forum

I did a quick bit of editing after noticing that I used the wrong word in a couple of places.

Post 1

Wednesday, March 31, 2004 - 11:40am

Mr. Graybosch,

This is an excellent article, skillfully written in the conversational tone that you would like individual discussions on this topic to assume. May I reprint it on The Rational Argumentator?

I have also deliberated over this matter, and I agree with you entirely that the tyranny of the majority is just as, if not more than, dangerous as absolute power in the hands of kings and dictators. I have also pondered on how the existing political system can be amplified to virtually incapacitate the majority from effectively violating individual rights. My proposed solution (which I hope to amplify on, maybe within the next few months) is the theory of Laissez-Faire Meritocracy. It was published on SOLO last summer as an article series, and, if you are interested and have not yet read it, you can access the articles at
http://solohq.com/Articles/Stolyarov/The_Betrayal_of_Checks_and_Balances.shtml
http://solohq.com/Articles/Stolyarov/Meritocracy_Cleansing_the_Smear.shtml
http://solohq.com/Articles/Stolyarov/The_Protectorate_The_Ultimate_Check.shtml
http://www.solohq.com/Articles/Stolyarov/The_Functions_and_Mechanisms_of_the_Protectorate.shtml

I am
G. Stolyarov II

Post 2

Wednesday, March 31, 2004 - 8:06am

Hi Matthew,

Great article! This is a great example of how we can encourage those around us to see the truth about our political systems.

Post 3

Wednesday, March 31, 2004 - 9:31am

What do you do when everyone running is not for freedom they are all parasites looking to moving your money earned to a council or committee that otherwise wouldn�t exist if it wasn�t for this redistribution of wealth. Not enough people will back it with their own money but it sounds like a noble cause so for the good of the people lets vote for him.

Post 4

Wednesday, March 31, 2004 - 10:09am

I like the conversational style, Matthew.

It's too bad most people would not understand you. They like the handouts. They like their claim on your life and efforts.

I hope you find someone to vote for that really is for limiting government and reducing the tyranny. I think that is the real problem. No politician is going to take that position.

I liked the article anyway. Thanks!

(Why don't you run for office and then we'll have someone to vote for. I'd do it, but I'm too old.)

Regi

Post 5

Wednesday, March 31, 2004 - 11:17am

I think most Hondas are manufactured in the US.

Coincidentally, on the back of my Honda Civic: Who Is John Galt?

Great article. :)

Post 6

Wednesday, March 31, 2004 - 3:08pm

I'll probably be denounced for this but there are times when I wonder if Objectivists should support democracy at all (including in republican form). In so far as democracy tends to equate to tyranny of the majority, I have no problem saying that I have pretty serious problems with it as a form of government.

Anyone else think this?

Post 7

Wednesday, March 31, 2004 - 3:39pm

Mr. Humphreys,

I have no problem saying that I have pretty serious problems with it as a form of government.

Anyone else think this?

Yes, I do.

The United States is supposed to be a Republic, not a democracy, that uses the democratic (voting) method only to elect officials. Of course that is not the way it works out.

I would support a system where the officials were elected with "dollars." That is, where every vote was a pledge of so much money, which one would have to pay if their man was elected, and then only if the power of the government were restricted to protecting the liberty of the individual citizens. Everything else is tyranny. The system, by the way, eliminates taxes, and only those who get what they want pay.

Post 8

Wednesday, March 31, 2004 - 4:34pm

Regi,

That is a terrific idea!! In fact its one of the best I've heard (others included imposing a property qualification for the right to vote). Having said that, if the government's role was constitutionally restricted to an Objectivist-style minarchy, I would actually question the extent to which voting would then be required.

Matthew G - I had meant to say in my last post that that really was a marvellous article!!

MH

Post 9

Wednesday, March 31, 2004 - 4:18pm

I think a Constitution Republic, like the US, could be noticeably improved by one simple change: require that for a bill to become law, a 2/3rds majority need be met, and that for a law to be repealed, a simple majority be met. The bottom line is that if there is an overwhelming number of people that want to do X, then you can't really stop them. However, an overwhelming majority of people really only agree on a very limited number of things. Such a change would give us a minimal government.

Craig Haynie (Houston)

Post 10

Wednesday, March 31, 2004 - 4:47pm

Mr. Graybosch,

good article, you bring up a good point.

I don't like your conversational style, but I do like the concepts you try to communicate.

I think Joe Rowlands and Jeff Landauer put it nicely: "Truth is not a social phenomenon". Truth is absolute and objective.

I have thought about it a little and...

There should be no voting (except for officials as Mr. Firehammer mentioned) , Objective laws should be put in place once and for all. When a new law needs to be created, it should not be because a larger number of people think it is right, but because it can be proven moral. It should all boil down to who really uses logic correctly.

So Mr. Humpreys, here is another person that agrees with you.

You should all vote for people that promote life, but more importantly, we all should work to create a Laissez-Faire Capitalist nation where we can be free and not focus so much on exactly how our government is immoral.

Trying to convince others generally never works. You cannot force a person to think rationally. They choose to think irrationally. You cannot live an irrational life, turn around, then live a rational one. You cannot "convert" to Objectivism. A true Objectivist is "born" embedded with Objectivist values. Reason, man is not a slave, man's life is good, we can be happy. Sometimes we misinterpret what it is to act on these values and act irrational for periods of time, but the values remain the same.

We should be finding other Objectivists, (young) people that have Objectivist values, and teaching our children to be rational.
We should remain rationally selfish. Focusing on our life directly is a better use of time than convincing others who should already be interested in philosophy, and had eventually discovered Objectivism/found truth by using their own head, and be with you on this issue.

We need quality Objectivists, not a quantity of Objectivists.

Post 11

Wednesday, March 31, 2004 - 7:07pm

Eric Brunner writes:

>Trying to convince others generally never works. You cannot force a person to think rationally. They choose to think irrationally....A true Objectivist is "born" embedded with Objectivist values.

So rational arguments are powerless - what you really need is the right genes. Christ, with defenders of reason like this, who needs enemies?

- Daniel

Post 12

Wednesday, March 31, 2004 - 7:44pm

an alternative to democracy:
borrowing from previous ideas on this board, how about a system where government official spots are literally auctioned off to the highest bidder? there would be no formal voting per se, but there would of course be private institutions dedicated to raising bid funds for their officials of choice, which themselves would be funded by the citizenry.

Post 13

Wednesday, March 31, 2004 - 8:16pm

Matthew wrote:
>I'll probably be denounced for this but there are times when I wonder if Objectivists should support democracy at all (including in republican form). In so far as democracy tends to equate to tyranny of the majority, I have no problem saying that I have pretty serious problems with it as a form of government.

This is a fairly common misapprehension about democracy. I'll try to clear it up:

First, the situation is best summed up by Winston Churchill when he said "Democracy is the worst form of government, apart from all the others". Despite its many disadvantages, its key benefit is that it makes it possible to remove the government without violence - via debate and discussion instead that results in an eventual vote. So freedom of speech, rule of law etc becomes essential to a functioning democracy.

Democracy is our best safeguard against tyranny, but it is important to realise that *no system can perfectly protect us from tyranny*. This is because ultimately the responsibility lies with *us* - with *our* decisions. We must decide - we cannot let *any* system absolve us from this responsibility.

Second, there are two forms of democracy. These are roughly described as:
1) "Direct" democracy
2) Representative democracy

The two are often confused. The so-called "direct" democracy is the "tyranny of the majority" you're talking about. It's just mob rule in drag - and the modern techno version touted by the likes of Ross Perot a few years back is no different. The problem is that crowds can't make good policy - simple as that.

This leaves representative democracy as the remaining option.The roots of this come from Periclean Greece, and is summarised as "though only a few can make a policy, many can judge it". This style works more like a jury trial, and every three or four years after hearing the arguments, the public deliver a verdict on their representatives. This style also takes into account the protection of minorities - in principle at least, they hand over their rights to political determination in exchange for this protection.

Of course, if you're looking for absolute guarantees, there are none. This is why government must have limits in the first place! But while fraught with problems, there is ample scope for improvement - such as a constitution, etc. Bottom line, if you're not an anarchist, you need some sort of government - and then representative democracy, for all its failings, is for you.

- Daniel

Post 14

Wednesday, March 31, 2004 - 8:20pm

Daniel Barnes writes:
"So rational arguments are powerless - what you really need is the right genes. Christ, with defenders of reason like this, who needs enemies?"

Rational arguments are useful primarily for yourself. To prove to yourself that what you believe is right. They can be useful when communicating to others, but sometimes that doesn't work because they don't listen. And I don't mean literally born with ideas. I am not talking A Priori or anything like that. I mean that a rational person chooses to value certain things continously through out his or her life. Besides, what I am saying about this particular point isn't a total fact, but it makes pretty good sense.

This is unimportant, but why say "Christ"? There is no reason to say the name of a evil philosopher like that.

Post 15

Wednesday, March 31, 2004 - 10:09pm

Good job, Matt G.

Wednesday, March 31, 2004 - 9:34pm

Eric writes:
>I am not talking A Priori or anything like that.

But when you say one cannot "become" a true Objectivist - that one can only be "born" one - you are saying *exactly* that! True Objectivism is therefore A Priori. Nothing less!

In fact, your argument amounts to saying you can only be a "true" Objectivist if you don't earn it!

- Daniel

Post 17

Thursday, April 1, 2004 - 4:59am

Daniel,

Representative democracy in practice often *does* amount to tyranny of the majority. This is currently the case in the US, as Matthew G explored in his article, and I would argue was also the case in ancient Athens. Just look what happened to Socrates!

MH

Edit due to spelling mistake.

(Edited by Matthew Humphreys on 4/02, 4:42am)

Post 18

Thursday, April 1, 2004 - 12:57pm

Matthew wrote:
>Representative democracy in practice often *does* amount to tynnany of the majority. This is currently the case in the US, as Matthew G explored in his article, and I would argue was also the case in ancient Athens. Just look what happened to Socrates!

Yes of course this is true. Representative democracy still carries the potential for tyranny. Every form of government does to a greater or lesser extent. Democracy's representative form is merely our best *hope* against tyrannical government. And Socrates fate is often cited in anti-democratic arguments. Yet Socrates himself chose his own fate - he had the alternative of escaping, but instead chose to obey the laws of Athens. His death was something of a rhetorical masterstroke - a testament to the value of the rule of law, but simultaneously a criticism of authority that has lasted for all time.

Really, the problem is not in this particular solution, but the question itself. The question shouldn't be "what is the best form of government?", but instead "What is the best way to ensure government is 1) open to criticism and 2) removable without violence".

- Daniel

Post 19

Thursday, April 1, 2004 - 3:32pm