About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unread


Post 0

Sunday, December 26, 2004 - 8:42amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hi all,

I understand that the preferred O'ist form of government is minarchist and that it exists only to protect the individual rights of the persons within its jurisdiction. But it's not clear to me how O'ists think the law should be 'created' (i.e., made explicit) or implemented.

It's unclear to me whether O'ism embraces democracy. I've seen several students of O'ism reject it outright, in that democratic laws are determined by (majority) vote, often without regard for whether those laws accord with individual rights. Some popular alternatives to democracy are monarchy, oligarchy, and anarchy. For the purposes of this discussion, I'd like to ignore anarchy.

So my question is: Should O'ists embrace democracy, and if not democracy, then what?

Jordan


Post 1

Sunday, December 26, 2004 - 5:43pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
The form of govenment does not matter, as long as there is a constitutional recognition of individual rights and specifically that government rests on the consent of the governed.
 
I make a case for tyranny as being appropriate to a capitalist society. A good starting place is the Bartleby.Com article,
http://www.bartleby.com/65/ty/tyrant.html which rests on these works:
See P. N. Ure, The Origin of Tyranny (1922); and A. Andrewes, The Greek Tyrants (1956, repr. 1968).  I also recommend The tyrant's writ: myths and images of writing in ancient Greece by Deborah Tarn Steiner (Princeton, N.J. : Princeton University Press, c1994.) Assemblies allow citizens to give speeches.  Foreign residents of Athens relied on writing -- the tool of tyrants -- to spread their philosophies.
 
The tyrants were generally self-made men on the rise.  In Cosmos, Carl Sagan denigrates Polycrates of Samos for having started out as something like a caterer.  Imagine that, though, you start out cooking food and bringing it into houses and after a lot of hard work, you get to run the whole town!  Those Greek towns were, indeed, run, at least in part, as businesses.  Tyranny replaced hereditary rule at the time that mercantile wealth, concentrated in coinage, replaced agricultural society. This was the same time that coinage was created.  Coins, tyrants, writing, and philosophy all entered the Greek world at the same time.  (Read about how Thales made a profit by cornering the olive presses with futures contracts.  That is philosophy.)
 
Also -- those Ionian Greeks did not stand and fight to the last man for the land where their pilgrims cried.  When the Persians showed up, they cut and run: they got into their ships in the night and rowed away, taking their coined wealth with them.  This also happened in Akgragas on Sicily.  That is the logic of the trader.
 
We think of Athens as the home of philosophy, but the Athenian council was not happy with tough questions.  Philosophy was first taught in Athens in the home of Aspasia of Miletos.
 
Anyway, I have my prejudices.  The fact remains, as stated above, that the form does not matter, but the constitution does.
 
The constitution does not need to be written.  Britain's is not.  The old Soviet constitution, which was written, promised all kinds of rights that no one really had.
 
 We could elect the Secretary of State to a three -year term and the President to a six-year term. I like Robert Heinlein's sugggestion that every candidate who gets more than 1% of the vote gets to vote his fraction. 
 
Basically, it all comes down to the people. People who demand their rights -- and who are armed at the highest level available -- never have to worry if the king is constitutionally chosen by  a golf match or if the three houses of legislation all require being able to dance the Irish jig.


Post 2

Sunday, December 26, 2004 - 6:26pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
John Stoussel had a ABC special a few years back discussing the issue of prosperity, democracy and personal liberty. It is apparent that democracy does not guarantee prosperity (example, India and some other countries), while Hong Kong as a British colony, and Singapore with a dictatorship, have been the most prosperous countries in Asia for many years.

Historically, extraordinarily wise and courageous monarchs have done wonders for their countries and their people. But, alas, none of those prosperous periods had lasted for longer than a few generations. So for all its flaws, if I have to choose today, I'd still choose democracy.


Post 3

Monday, December 27, 2004 - 7:47amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
A VOTE FOR DEMOCRACY
 
The form of government should meet the needs of the society it serves. It is impossible to construct any form of govenment that is inherently immune to injustice. Every form of government has shown strengths and weaknesses in the ability to serve and protect without oppression. Governments have only the virtues and faults of individuals who comprise them. The success of the United States in establishing and maintaining individual rights has always depended on the fact that "we the people" successfully demand -- and respect -- those rights. It is possible to have a democracy that carries out the business of government and fully respects individual rights. 
 
In America, we have always had elections with broad geographies.  We just gather the votes by precinct. We even have absentee ballots for citizens who are away from home, even abroad in foreign countries.  Continuing improvements in communication and travel from the telegraph to the Internet, and from the post road to the airport, have always allowed us to all be in the same place at the same time.
 
In "Man's Rights" Ayn Rand said that the unlimited democracy of ancient Athens stood above moral law. That is not true.  Like individual men, the assembly could behave immorally.  The fact remains that such acts were denounced as immoral or unconstitutional. When the assembly of Athens condemned Anaxagoras, Aspasia, and Socrates for impiety, we say that their rights to freedom of speech were violated. Similarly, we blame the ancient Athenians for slavery. American history has its own examples of just those same violations of individual rights even under a federal republic limited by a Constitution with a Bill of Rights. 
 
Democracies are difficult to subvert. When power is concentrated, it can be abused. Democracy diffuses power down to the level of each voter and across the entire voting district.
 
If you want to understand what "democracy" really is, then you have to read the works of the ancient Greeks.  Aristotle's Politics is obviously a good choice. The plays of Aristophanes also show how democracy worked.  Many other sources can be called on because participating in the assembly was an important part of daily life for a citizen.

Each of us knows their own best interests. Democracy allows and makes each person responsible for voting their interest and their conscience. Democracy is to government as capitalism is to markets.



Post 4

Monday, December 27, 2004 - 8:19amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hong Zhang wrote: "John Stoussel had a ABC special a few years back discussing the issue of prosperity, democracy and personal liberty. ...  So for all its flaws, if I have to choose today, I'd still choose democracy."

However...

Jordon wrote: "I've seen several students of O'ism reject it outright, in that democratic laws are determined by (majority) vote, often without regard for whether those laws accord with individual rights."
I point, again, to Rand's essay "Man's Rights."  Looking in the Ayn Rand Lexicon, I find similar denunciations of "democracy."  Some people on SOLOHQ -- usually new -- use the word "democracy" to mean the American form of government or to mean political freedom or something similar.  It is a basic fact of American political theory that Objectivists, like other conservatives, distrust majority rule and therefore support "constitutional republic," not "democracy" as the correct form of government. 
 
I just posted an essay recommending democracy.  However, I wrote it knowing that Objectivism rejects democracy.  Therefore, I knew that I had to make a case for it.
 
It is a fundamental assertion of Objectivist epistemology that words have meanings.  Yet, most of us are saddled with the burden of having been to some kind of public (or parochial) school.  Even so-called "private" schools can only hire government-approved teachers -- though exceptions have always existed and are increasing greatly.   Therefore, it is not uncommon for people in general, and even students of Objectivism, to use words incorrectly. 
 
Unless making a special case, as I did in the previous post, no consistent student of Objectivism will advocate "democracy" as a desirable form of government.
 
(Personally, I obviously think that I have other insights, but, again, I am explicit in those hypotheses and I am not using the word "democracy" incorrectly.)
 
 


Post 5

Monday, December 27, 2004 - 8:07pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I just want to see what we're trying to achieve here. The question is, what forms of government are compatible with individual rights, fundamentally? And, how do these different forms of government compare with each other?

I'm an American, by the way. I live in western Pennsylvania.

Let's start from the beginning. I want to reintroduce anarchy just long enough to note that anarchists claim that there should be no institutions that clearly spell out what those rights are. This causes problems when different ad-hoc authorities disagree on those rights and the particular constituencies that those authorities act on behalf of. This happens sometimes even in non-anarchist systems; in Pennsylvania, state and local police sometimes disagree on who should patrol which roads.

Any acceptable form of government with any power at all has got to say what rights are being defended, at the very least. What other starting point is there? Why else would we have government in the first place?

Such a government would also have to say how those rights are to be defended; these are the "laws." In my example, traffic laws are enforced so that the roads may be traversed as safely and as efficiently as possible. It only takes one goofball to tie up traffic, you know!

Plus, there must be lines of jurisdiction, geographic or otherwise, so that if someone's rights are violated, the incident would be handled by only one set of laws. This is important, because anyone who wishes to act within a jurisdiction must be able to determine which laws they must abide by. In PA, the state police patrol the state roads, and the local police handle local roads. (In the occasional dispute between police departments, it usually turns out that they just forget which roads are which.)

None of this so far determines who makes the laws, who enforces them, and who applies them in disputes. (I chose these questions because they correspond to the three branches of the American federal government.) There are several ways to proceed with our inquiry, but I don't think I'll get very far just looking at traffic laws! Anyone else want to comment on this?

Post 6

Tuesday, December 28, 2004 - 7:26amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
David,

That's a fine start. I hope we can all agree that the government is the ultimate arbiter of what rights it will acknowledge and how (when and where) it will protect them. My question really is: which type of government is best at acknowledging and protecting individual rights?

I would think O'ists would want checks on their government. There is always the check of the people on their government, but I'd think internal checks would also be desirable. Internal checks would help prevent the government from self-dealing or perhaps from general waste. On this note, monarchy is out because there'd be no internal checks.

About constitutional governments. A constitution is just a very-hard-to-change statute. It might accept or reject individual rights. Automatically saying that it's for or the best protector of individual rights is kind of circular. Someone still has to make or vote on a constitution.

So I'm not sure where to go from here. Maybe I should ask whether approximating individual rights is better achieved with more or with fewer voices. Or maybe I should ask whether experts are preferable to laymen. I dunno. Someone conduct an experiment where the test subjects are more likely to go for individual rights.

Jordan


Post 7

Sunday, January 9, 2005 - 8:34amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jordon wrote:  I hope we can all agree that the government is the ultimate arbiter of what rights it will acknowledge and how (when and where) it will protect them.
If the government decides what rights you have, how do you have any that it does not want you to have?

If the government decides which of your (acknowledged) rights it will defend, then how do you get defense?  Suppose that your town is overrun by troops from Ghana and they close down all the newspapers -- and the US government says, "That's okay, the Ghanians are allowed to do that as long as you still have the right to freedom of religion, and as long as the Ghanians collect income tax at our rate which they give to us." You cannot be advocating such a scenario. That is, however, what your words say.
Jordon wrote: My question really is: which type of government is best at acknowledging and protecting individual rights? .... On this note, monarchy is out because there'd be no internal checks.
In the science fiction novel, Double Star, Heinlein makes as strong a case for aristocracy as he does for laissez faire in Moon/Mistress. The British monarch has long been hired by Parliament to be the head of state, while Parliament has powers of its own.  The princes of Poland elected their king.  Slovenians point to their own legislature of nobles as a model that Thomas Jefferson was aware of and admired.  Monarchy as despotism is the exception, no better or worse than anything else and pretty much dependent not so much on the king but on the individuals in the kingdom.  Art and science flourished in "Germany" (so-called) and "Italy" (however defined) before they became modern national republics because political pluralism within a common culture created a competitive envriornment that promoted freedom.  As they became modern nation states (with elections,  and constitutions) more and more people fled to America.
Jordon wrote: Someone still has to make or vote on a constitution.
Yes, it comes down to the individuals.  That is why changing a "society" (so-called) really amounts to bringing ideas to individuals.  No constitution can ever cover all the possible permutations that will arise in the future.  Consider the relatively simple words in the U.S. Constitution "Congress shall have the right..."  Sometimes this means that only Congress shall have the right and sometimes it refers to a non-exclusive right. People of the time knew what they meant -- and they might even find it odd to think that we do not.  The only thing that is constant is that each individual wants the best for themself.  Getting that requires understanding ethics, which depends on epistemology, which rests on metaphysics.

Jordon wrote: Maybe I should ask whether approximating individual rights is better achieved with more or with fewer voices.
Writing as Publius, Alexander Hamilton pointed out in Federalist Number 58 that a legislative body with a larger number of representatives is more likely to be ruled by a few strong leaders.  He cited ancient democracies in which a single orator could incite the passions of the entire citizenry at assembly. Again referring to Moon/Mistress, Heinlein suggested that everyone who gets 1% or more of the vote gets that fraction of a vote in the legislature.  That allows for minority expressions, something the "winner take all" of our electoral system does not.  The way things are now, you can actually make a good case for being disenfranchised by an election that puts into office someone you voted against. 
Or maybe I should ask whether experts are preferable to laymen. 
One of the many ways that the television show West Wing validates the present administration is by portraying a president who has a Ph.D. and a Nobel Prize.  Bush II does not, but the reflected glory is there, and Bush II does have Condoleezza Rice. Of course, every politician steers a course between being perceived as "one of us" and being perceived as "better than us."  The question comes down to: better than us at what?  A constitutionally limited government, engaged only in adjudication and protection would not be much of a challenge to run.

Jordon wrote: Someone conduct an experiment where the test subjects are more likely to go for individual rights.
It has been done.  It is called "The United States of America."


Post 8

Sunday, January 9, 2005 - 1:05pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
hi Marotta,
If the government decides what rights you have, how do you have any that it does not want you to have?
Under natural rights theory, a government doesn't decide which rights one has, only which rights it will recognize and protect. People have various rights even if a government doesn't acknowledge them. For example, US Slaves in the 1800s had the right to liberty even though the government refused to recognize or protect that right. I hope this clears up some confusion.
[an experiment where the test subjects are more likely to go for individual rights] It has been [conducted].  It is called "The United States of America."
Nah. It needs to be randomized. ;)

Jordan



Post 9

Sunday, January 9, 2005 - 2:18pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
If the government decides what rights you have, how do you have any that it does not want you to have?

My understanding is that one has every rights except the ones forbidden by the laws.

(Edited by Hong Zhang on 1/09, 2:19pm)


Post 10

Sunday, January 9, 2005 - 4:37pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jordan wrote: Under natural rights theory, a government doesn't decide which rights one has, only which rights it will recognize and protect
Read and consider my rhetorical question again. My point is that the government cannot be allowed to decide which rights it will recognize and protect  Once the rights of an individual are defined, then the only proper functions of government are those which preserve and protect those rights.

I thought that this was supposed to be a discussion of the ideal government, not a review of historical failures.


Sanction: 1, No Sanction: 0
Post 11

Sunday, January 9, 2005 - 4:57pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hong Zhang wrote: My understanding is that one has every rights except the ones forbidden by the laws.
We have a couple of parallel activities going on here.  Basically, this is a theoretical discussion, started by Jordan, asking what the mechanisms of the best form of government would be, and how those would be created in a rational society.

The entire discussion must take place within the context of Ayn Rand's Objectivism.  Any deviation must be noted, if only by implication, for instance, I offered Tyranny, Democracy, a Republic and Monarchy.  Clearly, Ayn Rand favored the American constitutional republic and in Atlas Shrugged, Dr. Hugh Akston made some minor corrections to the Constitution to iron out its few internal contradictions, without altering the essential substance, in the Aristotlean sense, of the document.

I highly recommend Rand's essays: "Man's Rights" and "The Nature of Government" both of which appeared in both The Virtue of Selfishness and Capitalism: the Unknown Ideal

To answer your question, Hong, according to Ayn Rand's view of natural rights, the rights you have are yours innately by virtue of your having been born a human being.  The government may ignore those rights -- governments often do -- but they are yours as surely as your ability to reason and choose. 

What you said is approximately correct in describing a free society.  In America, we can do whatever we want, except those things prohibited by law.  In other countries, you are not allowed to do anything unless it is permitted by law.

The difference between what you said and what Ayn Rand said hinges on the definition of "right."  To Rand, a "right" was something you do not need to ask anyone's permission to have: life, liberty, property, pursuit of happiness.  The law can forbid you from doing many things such as owning gold, or employing children.  You still have a (natural= by your nature) right to these actions.


Post 12

Sunday, January 9, 2005 - 4:59pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I've often thought that the best form of government would be a benevolent dictatorship with me as dicator.

Democracy is ok as long as it's a constitutional democracy where the role and powers of government are clearly defined.

Sanction: 1, No Sanction: 0
Post 13

Sunday, January 9, 2005 - 5:28pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jared Laskin wrote:

I've often thought that the best form of government would be a benevolent dictatorship with me as dicator.

Democracy is ok as long as it's a constitutional democracy where the role and powers of government are clearly defined.
Yeah, well, everytime I see myself as ruler of the world, I get the image of Moe with two fingers under his nose going "Jawohl." It helps keep things in perspective.  (:-)

As for  "constitutional democracy" ...

The United States of America was founded as a constitional federal republic. It was not intended to be a democracy.  After 214 years, many of the institutions of the U.S.A. retain their republican nature. Others have drifted toward democracy, though falling short of it. Justices to the Supreme Court still are nominted by the President.  These nominations are still subject to the consent of the Senate, and the justices still serve for life.  On the other hand, senators themselves were formerly elected by the state legislatures, but now are elected directly by popular vote.
 
Democracy is rule by the people.  The people themselves directly serve as judges, prosecutors, and defenders. Citizens hold administrative offices.  This sounds like the government we have.  It is not.  In ancient Athens, all citizens participated directly, voting on every matter, including foreign treaties, and declarations of war.  Juries consisted of 500 citizens.  Any citizen could serve as prosecutor or defender.  On the theory that all citizens were equal, in ancient Athens, some officials were chosen by lot.  Lifetime terms of office were unknown.  A one-year appointment was typical.  In ancient Athens, Socrates was charged with impiety and he chose death by hemlock over banishment at an old age.  Among the ancient philosophers, Protagoras, Anaxagoras and Aspasia were, like Socrates, charged with impiety before a jury of 500.  Examples such as these led Aristotle in his Politics to classify democracy as the perverse form of a constitutional republic.
 
The dangers in democracy were obvious to the founders of the United States of America. They sought to create a government that was immune to the shifting will of a rabble spurred by a demogogue.
 
Writing as Publius, Alexander Hamilton pointed out in Federalist Number 58 that a legislative body with a larger number of representatives is more likely to be ruled by a few strong leaders.  He cited ancient democracies in which a single orator could incite the passions of the entire citizenry at assembly. In The Federalist Number 10 and Number 14, Madison pointed out that a republic is not a democracy. In Number 10, Madison wrote, "... democracies have ever been spectcles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; have ever been as short as in their lives as violent in their deaths."
  
In "Textbook of Americanism" Ayn Rand called absolute democracy "a collectivist doctrine."  In "How to Read (and Not to Write)" Rand condemned democracy as "a social system in which one's work, one's property, one's mind and one's life are at the mercy of any gang that may muster the vote of the majority at any moment for any purpose." 

 
Is it possible to create a government that is based on the consent of the governed and that does not collapse into mob rule?  In other words, what is the connection between the apparent democracy of an 18th century American town meeting and the operation of our modern federal republic?  The answer is that every society is comprised of individuals. (In fact, the philosophy of Objectivism denies that "society" exists as an independent entity.) On one hand, if the individuals who live together are committed to the same basic rights, then the specific mechanisms of government are largely irrelevant.  On the other hand, in a society of thieves and murderers, no guarantees are possible.  The federal constitution was designed to encourage the first case and to prevent the second. 
 
In the context of a town meeting, every individual had the right to "stand up" for what they believed in.  Everyone had the right to "stand up and be counted" in the vote.  The phrase "stand up" was not accidental. In colonial America, secret ballots were rare. Roll call votes were the norm.  One person could afford to "stand up" against the majority opinion. That could only work as long as dissenters did not lose their rights.  Taking an unpopular stance might not stop people from grumbling at you as you pass on the street, but it did not allow them to burn down your farm. No law could make that work. It had to derive from each individual taking responsibility for their own beliefs and actions -- and allowing others the same rights.
 
The Constitution was designed to prevent anonymous gangs from seizing the government. Members of the House of Representatives were elected directly by the people in each congressional district.  However, Senators were chosen by state legislatures. The President was chosen by an Electoral College.  Each state legislature decided how its electors would be chosen. In the early days, electors sought the privilege as individuals.  Gradually, this evolved into slates of electors already committed to a presidential candidate.  That process ran parallel to the acceptance of the "Australian" ballot, which was imported to America before 1890.  Today, the secret ballot is the only way to vote, even for local elections in the smallest of villages. 
 
The "Australian" or secret ballot is not the cause of America's problems today.  However, its widespread adoption in the late 19th century signalled a change.  Another change that ran parallel was the way in which an individual acquired fornal eduction. In colonial times, learning took place in the home.  Teachers who established their own schools charged directly for their services, each running their own business. As the frontier moved west, settlers raised taxes among themselves to hire teachers for the village as a community. The era of aggressive "public education" began in the 1840s.  Among the active proponets was Horace Mann who had traveled in Europe and was impressed with the German methods of education.  It is no accident that both the "ABC Song" and "Deutschland Ueber Alles" are Mozart tunes. Rows and columns of passive learners following the orders of an authority who could flog them grew up to be voters.  The Consitution was amended.
 
It seems to be a fact of human nature that the farther removed a person is from the consequences of their actions, the less likely each is to take responsibility for them.  Apparently, there are statistically few individuals who perceive the longest and broadest ranges of their beliefs and actions. The direct election of senators, an income tax, and the criminalization of grain alcohol were indistinguishable from moving the presidential inauguration from March to January, the emancipation of slaves, and female suffrage.
 
It might be neat and tidy to claim that the U.S.A. was once a free nation with a strong federal Constitution and that both were degraded by a series of discrete steps each of which might be reversed.  Unfortunately -- or perhaps, fortunately -- life is not like that. In the Shays's Rebellion of 1786, Massachusetts farmers demanded that the government pass a law relieving them of their debts.  The Sedition Law of 1798 made it a federal offense to publish any statement bringing the President or Congress "into contempt or disrepute."  The fact is that there is no such thing as a perfect government.  As the Declaration of Independence says, "governments are instituted among men," and can be no more perfect than any individual can be infallible. 
 
Even if perfect knowledge evades you, you are capable of running your own life.  Very likely, you  feel that other people are not so adept at knowing what is best for you.  Perhaps you think they  do not even know what is best for themselves.  You might even think that you do know how they should live their lives. Perhaps you do. If so, then whether you feel secure standing up for what you believe in (and offering education to others) depends on whether you are living in a constitutional republic or a democracy.


Post 14

Sunday, January 9, 2005 - 6:16pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Michael,

Thank you for this great post and the references. I found "Textbook of Americanism" online here:

http://laissez-fairerepublic.com/textbook.htm

"How to Read (and Not to Write)" is contain in:

The Voice of Reason: Essays in Objectivist Thought (The Ayn Rand Library, Vol V)

Available on amazon.com for $11.56

Post to this thread


User ID Password or create a free account.