Socialism, voting and markets

Isn't voting a form of free trade?

The reason I ask is that the self-righteously superior, liberal, progressive, socialist, statist, communist collectivists argue that we shouldn't be totally free to trade with one another in a totally free market but that we should be totally free to vote -- totally free to vote on the kind of force we're trying to use on one another (as long as we all just agree that we should be using lots and lots of force in a supposedly-free society).

This seems to be the kind of a contradiction Rand alluded to when she said liberals don't trust folks to buy the right toaster -- but they supposedly trust folks to vote-in the right commander-in-chief.

Can anyone elaborate on this in order to make it more understandable to me?

Thanks.

Ed

Post 1

Sunday, July 27, 2008 - 7:13pm

Ed,

One the one hand, I suspect they think voting should be regulated (as it is now) just like everything else.

On the other, perhaps they just want to free the mind but chain the body (as Rand, I think, pointed out); hence, they favor fewer restrictions on voting than on trade.

Either way, I don't think they think a free vote will result in the "right" commander in chief. Gosh, I don't know anyone who thinks that! :-)

Jordan

Post 2

Sunday, July 27, 2008 - 8:30pm

Thanks for responding, Jordan. That gives me at least a little food for thought (though I find my intellectual appetite unsatisfied) ...

Ed

Post 3

Monday, July 28, 2008 - 10:58am

Ed,

You might also be looking for a unified theory where none is forthcoming. Rand was critical of the lefties in her day for being anti-principle and uber-concrete-bound. You're going to give your intellectual appetite a tummy ache trying to look for integrated themes where haphazard piecemeal moment-to-moment positions are what rule the day.

Jordan

Post 4

Monday, July 28, 2008 - 12:27pm

Ed -- collectivists don't support a free market in voting. A short perusal of campaign finance laws, and the sponsors of these measures, should disabuse you of that notion. Collectivists oppose openly selling one's vote, putting it up for bid on EBay with the buyer allowed to follow you into the voting booth and verify the transaction. They support all sorts of limitations on political free speech if it involves money, from McCain-Feingold to other campaign finance obstacles.

What the collectivists want is free access to your pocketbook, and the freedom of their political allies to buy votes to further that goal, and the power to prevent political opponents from spending money at all on vote acquisition.

"Open theft" =/= "free trade"

(Edited by Jim Henshaw on 7/28, 12:29pm)

Post 5

Monday, July 28, 2008 - 1:59pm

I quote:

A recent variant of anarchistic theory, which is befuddling some of the younger advocates of freedom, is a weird absurdity called �competing governments.� Accepting the basic premise of the modern statists�who see no difference between the functions of government and the functions of industry, between force and production, and who advocate government ownership of business�the proponents of �competing governments� take the other side of the same coin and declare that since competition is so beneficial to business, it should also be applied to government...

Remember that forcible restraint of men is the only service a government has to offer. Ask yourself what a competition in forcible restraint would have to mean.

The Virtue of Selfishness �The Nature of Government,� The Virtue of Selfishness, 112.

The common denominator of such [advocates of �competing governments�] is the desire to escape from objectivity (objectivity requires a very long conceptual chain and very abstract principles), to act on whim, and to deal with men rather than with ideas�i.e., with the men of their own gang bound by the same concretes.

Philosophy: Who Needs It �The Missing Link,� Philosophy: Who Needs It, 44.

(Edited by Ted Keer on 7/28, 4:24pm)

Post 6

Monday, July 28, 2008 - 4:10pm

Ted, re this quote from Ayn Rand: "Remember that forcible restraint of men is the only service a government has to offer. Ask yourself what a competition in forcible restraint would have to mean."

Rand asks the question, and then doesn't explore it, she just assumes it would be bad. This is sloppy thinking, or at least a failure of imagination. The whole point of the Constitution is to pit one sector of government against each other, leading to a weaker government than if they didn't compete against each other. And in fact the real world already has competitions in forcible restraint.

Assume you have 80% of the legislature wanting to engage in some unwarranted forcible restraint of their citizens, and 20% of the legislature opposing this unwarranted restraint.

For example, 80% of the Hawaii state legislature recently passed some gun control laws in violation of the plain language of the Second Amendment. Because there wasn't any competition for their business among their consumers, the voters, but rather a take-it-or-leave-the-state approach, the legislature forced every citizen in Hawaii to be compelled to accept this unjust forcible restraint, or leave the state.

So, while there is some competition in forcible restraint -- you can pack up and move to Utah if you seriously object to this law -- it would be better to have greater competition in forcible restraint and allow citizens to choose between Republican governance on this issue and Democratic governance on this issue within Hawaii's territorial borders -- with those who choose to be under Democratic governance subject to these gun control laws while on their private property, and those who choose to be under Republican governance not subject to these laws on their private property.

In effect, you would have a situation similar to a particular area on the border between Belgium and the Netherlands, recently posted about on Reason.com, where you have enclaves of Belgian territory entirely surrounded by the Netherlands, and areas within those Belgian enclaves that are enclaves of the Netherlands. In fact, there are houses in this odd area where one part of the house is in the Netherlands and the other part is in Belgium, and which set of laws apply within that house depends on where the front door is located -- and people can switch allegiance to a different country by relocating their front door!

So for those who say this competition isn't workable and can't possibly exist at all -- it already exists, and has existed for over a century now.

Post 7

Monday, July 28, 2008 - 4:22pm

I suppose when two governments compete over how they won't protect you from murder by jihadi, games of musical chairs without fear of jackbooted government thugs must be fun.

But tell me, what happens when the Flems make it illegal to move your door?

The point I was really interested in making was that government are not commercial enterprises. To talk of voting as a kind of free trade is to define by non-essentials. I've shrunken the irrelevant parts of my last post.

Post 8

Monday, July 28, 2008 - 10:28pm

Jim decided to accuse Rand of sloppy thinking or a failure of imagination. Obviously he was referring to the particular instance being discussed and not to Rand as a person. If he had been referring to her as a person, rather than to single instance from her writing, it would be ludicrous and we would just dimiss him out of hand.

Since sloppy thinking and failures of imagination are so very far from characterizing Rand's work, Jim's burden of proof in supporting that claim is quite high and he should be meticulous in his reasoning and the exercise of his imagination: No sloppy thinking on his part, and no failure to use his imagination!

He fails right off the bat. He presumes to know what was in Rand's mind when she wrote that when talks about her assumptions. Sloppy. Then he mistakes checks and balances that are enacted under a single jurisdiction as being the same as competition in forcible restraint - excuse me, but when the different branches turn guns on one another in a war that is a result of no common set of laws between them, and that is a normal situation, THEN you have competition in forcible restraint. Sloppy.

Jim said "...there is some competition in forcible restraint -- you can pack up and move to Utah if you seriously object to [Hawaii's] law..." Wrong, they aren't competing iin forcible restraint. Each has its own, separate jurisdiction that falls under the federal jurisdiction and the US Constitution. Let me know when Hawaii decides to use force against Utah citizens. Again, this is one set of laws with differing juridictions, not a competition in the use of force. Sloppy.

Jim did NOT mention that on-going conflicts involving terrorists, thugs, and warring nations fighting over the same piece of ground ARE examples of competition in forcible restraint. A failure of imagination?

But here is the biggest example of sloppy thinking: All through his post he uses the word "competition" and the context he is stealing is "competition within a marketplace free of initiation of force, fraud or theft" - BIG difference. If you take away everything about the free aspect of a marketplace then you don't have benevolent competition - which is made possible by choice. What you have is malevolent competition which exists when force and fraud and theft are NOT outlawed and can ride roughshod over choice. Every argument he made involves stealing the value implied in having a single jurisdiction to which a single set of laws apply (be it in Utah or a Flemish foyer) and that it would be better if we just get rid of that pesky jurisdictional concept and let people compete in initiating violence. Sloppy.

Jim argued for a concept of multiple, competing juridictions, subscribed to by choice, and existing under the the umbrella of a single protector of individual rights - alluded to in this post but fleshed out in that other thread. But that argument has already been addressed. It is far too complex to implement and impractical to an extreme as a strategy for gettiing from here to a state of liberty. If someone can't see the overwhelming impossibility of that proposal, they are choosing not to use their imagination. And here is the heart of that proposal: Any argument for the possibility of an step by step increase in jurisdictional choices (Jim's "baby steps") just leads to the point where there is no law - anarchy by jurisdictional overload. Let's put multiple front doors on the Flemish house and put the house on rollers and let the occupant declare which jurisdition applies - until one of the powers with guns decides on a more forcible competition and takes the house.

Incidently, that argument was made in a thread that Jim started with a nasty sort of lampoon of Objectivists, Rand and Atlas Shrugged. Jim, if it isn't your intention to attack Rand or Objectivism, then you need to exercise greater care in choosing your language and arguments.

Post 9

Monday, July 28, 2008 - 11:22pm

[He] "did NOT mention that on-going conflicts involving terrorists, thugs, and warring nations fighting over the same piece of ground ARE examples of competition in forcible restraint. A failure of imagination?"

Nothing to see here. Move along.

Oh, and it was for the alliterative "Flemish foyer" that you should consider yourself sanctioned.

(Edited by Ted Keer on 7/28, 11:25pm)

Post 10

Tuesday, July 29, 2008 - 7:12am

Steve,

Remind me never to try to be wily, philosophically-underhanded, and lexicographically-arrogant with you. It just doesn't seem to be something that you are ready and willing to let folks get away with.

:-)

It's funny the hubris you see when folks get up the courage or brazenness to muster typed words amounting to: "Rand really dropped the ball ... here." If I had a nickel for every time ... Perhaps it's some sort of expression of jungle psychology, where every now and then there is the enterprising young gorilla who thinks it might be profitable to tangle with the 600-lb silverback?

Back in my younger days (this was months and months ago, maybe even years), I submitted an article called "Intentional Conceptualism ..." where I claimed that Rand had the superficial failing of not putting her philosophy in current philosophical terms (so that contemporary philosophers could more easily see its value). But, because of my supposed hubris, Lindsay Perigo tossed this article submission into the cybernetical dust bin (with a less-than-kind note back to me on it).

I did have anxiety over attacking what I viewed as such a superficial failure of Rand's, the kind of anxiety that makes you check the nature of the road you are on (and maybe even double-check, just to be sure you've got the course right). So it's really funny to me when I see folks who apparently don't have similar anxiety over attacking deeper and more fundamental characteristics of Objectivism.

At times it can even remind me of the intellectual bankruptcy expressed in a Monty Python film (name escapes) where a bunch of paupers or townsmen were figuring out the epistemological method of determining whether a captured woman was a witch or not (paraphrased):

=========
Crowd:
"She's a witch ... burn her!"

Head guy:
"We have to be sure."

Crowd:
[moan and groan]

Head guy:
"Wood burns and witches burn ... and wood floats."

From the crowd?:
"See if SHE floats!"

"Yeah!"

"If she floats, she's a witch!"
=========

Ed

p.s. Please disregard the phrase "lexicographically-arrogant" from above. Though I'm not even sure what in the hell it is that that phrase must mean -- I'm pretty sure that I, myself, am guilty of the transgression expressed by it.

:-)

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 7/29, 7:28am)

Post 11

Tuesday, July 29, 2008 - 7:25am

Ted,

The point I was really interested in making was that government are not commercial enterprises. To talk of voting as a kind of free trade is to define by non-essentials.

Thanks for directly addressing the posed question, Ted. I appreciate the concentrated feeling of visibility that that affords.

Ed

Post 12

Tuesday, July 29, 2008 - 9:06am

Monty Python and the Holy Grail

Scene 5

CROWD:  A witch!  A witch!  A witch!  We've got a witch!  A witch!

VILLAGER #1:  We have found a witch, might we burn her?

CROWD:  Burn her!  Burn!

BEDEMIR:  How do you know she is a witch?

VILLAGER #2:  She looks like one.

BEDEMIR:  Bring her forward.

WITCH:  I'm not a witch.  I'm not a witch.

BEDEMIR:  But you are dressed as one.

WITCH:  They dressed me up like this.

CROWD:  No, we didn't... no.

WITCH:  And this isn't my nose, it's a false one.

BEDEMIR:  Well?

VILLAGER #1:  Well, we did do the nose.

BEDEMIR:  The nose?

VILLAGER #1:  And the hat -- but she is a witch!

CROWD:  Burn her!  Witch!  Witch!  Burn her!

BEDEMIR:  Did you dress her up like this?

CROWD:  No, no... no ... yes.  Yes, yes, a bit, a bit.

VILLAGER #1:  She has got a wart.

BEDEMIR:  What makes you think she is a witch?

VILLAGER #3:  Well, she turned me into a newt.

BEDEMIR:  A newt?

VILLAGER #3:  I got better.

VILLAGER #2:  Burn her anyway!

CROWD:  Burn!  Burn her!

BEDEMIR:  Quiet, quiet.  Quiet!

There are ways of telling whether she is a witch.

CROWD:  Are there?  What are they?

BEDEMIR:  Tell me, what do you do with witches?

VILLAGER #2:  Burn!

CROWD:  Burn, burn them up!

BEDEMIR:  And what do you burn apart from witches?

VILLAGER #1:  More witches!

VILLAGER #2:  Wood!

BEDEMIR:  So, why do witches burn?      [pause]

VILLAGER #3:  B--... 'cause they're made of wood...?

BEDEMIR:  Good!

CROWD:  Oh yeah, yeah...

BEDEMIR:  So, how do we tell whether she is made of wood?

VILLAGER #1:  Build a bridge out of her.

BEDEMIR:  Aah, but can you not also build bridges out of stone?

VILLAGER #2:  Oh, yeah.

BEDEMIR:  Does wood sink in water?

VILLAGER #1:  No, no.

VILLAGER #2:  It floats!  It floats!

VILLAGER #1:  Throw her into the pond!

CROWD:  The pond!

BEDEMIR:  What also floats in water?

VILLAGER #1:  Bread!

VILLAGER #2:  Apples!

VILLAGER #3:  Very small rocks!

VILLAGER #1:  Cider!

VILLAGER #2:  Great gravy!

VILLAGER #1:  Cherries!

VILLAGER #2:  Mud!

VILLAGER #3:  Churches -- churches!

VILLAGER #2:  Lead -- lead!

ARTHUR:  A duck.

CROWD:  Oooh.

BEDEMIR:  Exactly!  So, logically...,

VILLAGER #1:  If... she.. weighs the same as a duck, she's made of wood.

BEDEMIR:  And therefore--?

VILLAGER #1:  A witch!

CROWD:  A witch!

BEDEMIR:  We shall use my larger scales!      [yelling]

BEDEMIR:  Right, remove the supports!      [whop]      [creak]

CROWD:  A witch!  A witch!

WITCH:  It's a fair cop.

CROWD:  Burn her!  Burn!  [yelling]

(Edited by Jonathan Fauth on 7/29, 9:12am)

Post 13

Tuesday, July 29, 2008 - 10:38am

I have been tempted many times to post this witch trial

Post 14

Tuesday, July 29, 2008 - 12:05pm

"I suppose when two governments compete over how they won't protect you from murder by jihadi, games of musical chairs without fear of jackbooted government thugs must be fun."

Ted -- Strawman. The point of competing governments, as I outlined it, is that the only powers that government will be granted will be ones that the two biggest blocs of voters mutually agree on. This gets you much closer to minarchy than our current system of "50.1% of the populace can run roughshod over the other 49.9%". Or are you arguing that it would be bad if our government had less power?

If you're arguing that Republicans and Democrats couldn't agree that murder is bad and should be stopped -- well, that's not in accordance with observed facts. Try running for office on the slogan: "Legalize murder -- for Teh Childrun!" and see if you break single digits in the vote count.

If you're arguing that competing governments wouldn't have gotten us bogged down in Iraq -- that's a feature, not a bug.

Post 15

Tuesday, July 29, 2008 - 12:12pm

Yes, Jonathan and Ted (and thanks)!

THAT's the kind of intellectual bankruptcy to which I was referring (when I was referring to most of Rand's critics).

;-)

Ed

Post 16

Tuesday, July 29, 2008 - 12:54pm

"Jim decided to accuse Rand of sloppy thinking or a failure of imagination. Obviously he was referring to the particular instance being discussed and not to Rand as a person. If he had been referring to her as a person, rather than to single instance from her writing, it would be ludicrous and we would just dimiss him out of hand."

Steve -- I admire Rand and consider her a brilliant thinker. I was indeed referring to just this one statement from "The Virtue of Selfishness", which jumped out at me when I recently read the book. Virtually everything else in the book was magnificent and a pleasure to read.

"Since sloppy thinking and failures of imagination are so very far from characterizing Rand's work, Jim's burden of proof in supporting that claim is quite high and he should be meticulous in his reasoning and the exercise of his imagination: No sloppy thinking on his part, and no failure to use his imagination!"

No one gets a pass on everything they write because some of their ideas are good, unless you are running a theology rather than a rigorous, well-thought out philosophy. The burden of proof is the same for any statement -- either it stands up to examination or not. Nobody in the scientific community gets lessened scrutiny because their prior ideas were good -- philosophy should be held to that same higher standard. Because Rand was right about so much doesn't mean she should get a pass on her views on the health benefits of smoking; or the virtues of unchecked industrial pollution; or the value of a poorly checked monopoly government that was clearly lurching into tyranny when Rand was alive and has progressed further down the road since. Perhaps you believe that one or more of these views are correct -- very well, argue your case with reason, rather than an appeal to authority.

"Jim argued for a concept of multiple, competing juridictions, subscribed to by choice, and existing under the the umbrella of a single protector of individual rights - alluded to in this post but fleshed out in that other thread. But that argument has already been addressed. It is far too complex to implement and impractical to an extreme as a strategy for gettiing from here to a state of liberty."

It's not particularly hard to imagine or implement this concept -- "The Republican contigent of congress holds an absolute veto over any proposed legislation by the Democrats that affects Republicans (the Democrats can screw over their supporters to their hearts content). The Democratic contingent of congress holds an absolute veto over any proposed legislation by Republicans that affects Democrats. Thus, the powers of government are strictly limited to those that the two largest blocs of voters mutually agree upon."

This gets you to minarchy -- to limited government -- much easier than the current tyranny of the majority.

"If someone can't see the overwhelming impossibility of that proposal, they are choosing not to use their imagination."

You're saying you can't imagine how competing governments could possibly work, then say that anyone who can imagine that is "choosing not to use their imagination"?

"Jim, if it isn't your intention to attack Rand or Objectivism, then you need to exercise greater care in choosing your language and arguments."

Steve, pointing out one's disagreements with specific assertions made by Rand or any given Objectivist, and pointing out the reasons for the disagreement =/= "attack(ing) Rand or Objectivism". If your spouse or significant other says to you, "I disagree with what you just did there", that is a constructive statement and can lead to a constructive discussion, while saying "You're a bad person because of what you just did" is a recipe for a failed relationship.

I believe Rand was a great thinker who offered many insights that if followed would lead to much greater freedom. I believe that most of the core principles of Objectivism are valid and would lead to much greater freedom. I reserve the right to vigorously point out my differences on those few points where I disagree. I reserve the right to change my mind if someone here advances arguments that convince me I hold incorrect views.

But, I'm not going to apologize for vigorously debating and defending my views. Nor should anyone else.

Post 17

Tuesday, July 29, 2008 - 2:31pm

The only way you can continue to maintain this:

"It's not particularly hard to imagine or implement this concept -- "The Republican contigent of congress holds an absolute veto over any proposed legislation by the Democrats that affects Republicans (the Democrats can screw over their supporters to their hearts content). The Democratic contingent of congress holds an absolute veto over any proposed legislation by Republicans that affects Democrats. Thus, the powers of government are strictly limited to those that the two largest blocs of voters mutually agree upon."

Is to continue to ignore this:

"Jim did NOT mention that on-going conflicts involving terrorists, thugs, and warring nations fighting over the same piece of ground ARE examples of competition in forcible restraint. A failure of imagination?"

Of course you can imagine the success of your wishes. Toddlers can do that. The true test lies in the ability to consider the unintended consequences of the underlying meaning of your chosen principles. How can one define civil war, except as competition over law enforcement.

The problem is that you do not understand the central methodological tool of Objectivism, the identification of stolen concepts. You cannot assume the truth of an idea while advocating an idea which denies the validity or necessity of that same concept.

When you imagine the peaceful competition of alternative legal structures, you are using the notion of peaceful competition of private business concerns within the context of a single natural-rights protecting limited government. You are not looking at the competition of feudal lords, of Egypt and Assyria, of Sparta and Athens, of the White Army and the Red. All the successful, beneficial, commercial types of competition you are imagining exist only within a minarchist free market system. You are assuming the fruits of the precondition of a widespread respect for a single system of law while arguing that you can continue to have the harvest of those fruits without a single system of law safeguarding the tree which produces it. There is nothing other than the choice of educated citizens to maintain such a system. And indeed, if your Belgium / Netherlands example is true, (PLEASE DOCUMENT IT) it only works because each jurisdiction currently happens to be compatible. Without any higher authority, (which you oppose) nothing ensures that this will continue. Nazism used the mechanisms of a weak state to rise to power in Germany. When Sharia is established in Belgium, do you think people will be able to vote with their front doors? Civil war is an eventually to be avoided, not made way for in advance.

(Edited by Ted Keer on 7/29, 7:16pm)

Post 18

Tuesday, July 29, 2008 - 9:58pm

Jim, I'm disappointed in your reply. I said that you accused Rand of sloppy thinking or a failure of imagination in one particular instance. Then I said there was a burden on you to not be sloppy in your thinking or to be guilty of failing to exercise your imagination when you attempt to support that claim. It is right there in your quotes of my post. Isn't that a fair statement and a fair request? (Rhetorical question)

So, why did you then argue as if I were implying any of the following:
- Someone should get a pass on everything they write because some of their ideas are good.

I did not say that. I said you needed to be held to the same standard that you were holding her to.

Did you really mean to imply that Rand or I argue or behave like, "..one is running a theology rather than a rigorous, well-thought out philosophy"?

You said, "Nobody in the scientific community one gets lessened scrutiny because their prior ideas were good." I never implied otherwise. I said because her prior ideas were good, someone criticizing her should have their ideas examined critically. That is totally different. Do you believe that because her prior ideas were good that criticism of them should be subjected to lessened scrutiny?

Please point out any statement of mine that says or implies that philosophy should not be held to that same higher standard than science.

You claim that I am appealing to authority and not arguing with reason is false and insulting. That your arguments are made with such blatant disregard for the evidence right in front of every readers' nose that... well, it's just bewildering!

You imply that that I said because Rand was right about so much means she should get a pass on her views where she was wrong. That's false. I not only don't believe such nonsense, but I have pointed out or agreed with others that have pointed out errors she made. (It's in writing here and there in posts on ROR.)

I have seen ample evidence of your intelligence; you can't claim ignorance as an excuse for this kind of dishonest argument. I have seen ample evidence that your imagination is strong as well. So those are no excuse for arguments like those.

No one can be reasonably held to any standard that demands perfection, but it is reasonable to ask people admit when their statements, once seen in the light of day, and away from the heat of the moment, are just plain not fair, and not reasonable - when that is obviously the case.

Post 19

Tuesday, July 29, 2008 - 10:13pm