What is official Objectivist policy?

For sake of clarification, could anyone here state what government policies (regarding laws, regulation, etc. - a list) would be specifically proposed by official Objectivist organizations (detailing any differences in position if such exist)?

Also, based upon the answer to the above question, what would you (succinctly) postulate be required to achieve said policy in a society such as the US - i.e. how do we get there from here?

jt

Post 1

Tuesday, July 29, 2008 - 9:29am

JT,

Well, Rand advocated repeal of antitrust laws, so there's that. But this is not going to happen. Antitrust law might be greatly diminished -- as they have been -- but that'll be the extent of it.

Jordan

Post 2

Tuesday, July 29, 2008 - 10:57am

Jay:

You should perhaps go to Ron Paul's site for most of your answers. There's not a one-to-one correspondence between what the Libertarian Party and an Objectivist Party would advocate, but there's a lot of common ground.

Sam

Post 3

Tuesday, July 29, 2008 - 2:54pm

Rand endorsed the minarchist government of the pre-anti-trust, pre-income-tax US, with the exception of slavery and disabilities for women and minorities. Study history while applying Objectivist principles. Perhaps someone can suggest such a history. The best book of which I know, and which no self-named Objectivist should be ignorant, is Isabel Paterson's God of the Machine.

Also, read the Ayn Rand Lexicon on line.

(Edited by Ted Keer on 7/29, 3:04pm)

Post 4

Tuesday, July 29, 2008 - 5:07pm

Jay I don't think Objectivism plays a big role in the study of jurisprudence. As Jordan pointed out the only laws I'm aware of that Rand explicitly rejected philosophically were anti-trust laws, and she did so as a concrete example to demonstrate why a mixed economy is immoral whereas laissez-faire Capitalism is moral. I also think Rand favored abortion as a right, and other prominent Objectivists have argued for the right to assisted suicide and for the repeal of drug laws. I also think it's too time consuming for a philosophy to list each and every concrete law it would be for or against. We can abstractly call for a set of laws consistent with an Obectivist morality, and then discuss whether a particular law is consistent with that morality or whether it violates it. Just as it would be too time consuming for a scientist to list every single instance of valid scientific inquiry and every instance of a pseudo-scientific inquiry when asked what that scientist's "official position" is on such matters. It's quite simply he's for science, and against pseudo-science. And quite simply Objectivists are for laws that protect rights, and against laws that violate them.

Post 5

Tuesday, July 29, 2008 - 5:20pm

John, can you specify who has supported assisted suicide? I find the concept bizarre, about as well thought out as anarchism. It is most certainly not a stated Rand position, and a definite misstatement to call it an official position.

(Edited by Ted Keer on 7/29, 5:25pm)

Post 6

Tuesday, July 29, 2008 - 5:28pm

Ted if you go to the ARI site there are many articles in favor of assisited suicide, just do a search. And it's not bizarre, and quite frankly I find it cruel people would deny the terminally ill the right to end their lives of pain and suffering when they've made the decision their life is no longer a value to them, and I didn't say it was Rand's stated position as I don't believe she ever gave an opinion on the matter. I'm aware you are against assisted suicide as a right and I've regarded your views on it to be as bizarre and as well thought out as anarchism.

It is most certainly not a stated Rand position, and a definite misstatement to call it an official position.

Agreed. And it is a statement I never made. I said "other prominent Objectivists have argued for the right to assisted suicide".

Yeesh!

(Edited by John Armaos on 7/29, 5:43pm)

Post 7

Tuesday, July 29, 2008 - 6:17pm

Jay,

The only purpose of the Federal Government should be to defend innocent civilians from foreign and domestic initiations of force. Using retaliatory force against those who commit murder, rape, theft, threats, and fraud should be the government's priority. Some things that wouldn't be a part of the government are social security, Medicare/Medicaid & other health and human services, transportation, technological research & science, energy, FDIC, loans & savings.

Personally I think foreign wars should only be started when US citizens have been attacked, or there is a clear and escalating threat against US citizens, or an attack against one of our allies where there is an economic incentive to assist. No nation building, destroy the antagonists and leave.

This would reduce the federal government's budget to close to nearly half? of the current defense budget, and after paying the national debt off would reduce the federal governments budget to nearly 15% of its current size.

Even if we still had federal taxes at that point (which is an Objectivists dream to do away with), we (the producers) would be doing Way better. Us Capitalists still argue about the details, but we agree on many huge improvements.

The "negative" side of Capitalism is that people who currently get the handouts are going to have to get off their asses and do some work or die of starvation/the elements/untreated disease... and we'll have to shovel their dead bodies off the streets.

Post 8

Tuesday, July 29, 2008 - 7:10pm

John, get off your hysterical high horse. I said and you said "assisted suicide." You can kill yourself alone as often you like, so far as I care. But there is no need for a government program to kill people, just a repeal of drug laws. Surely your emotionalism here doesn't make it impossible or painful for you to see or state clearly that neither Rand nor any other Objectivist took this position during Rand's lifetime. (What is the name of this thread?) Talk about putting words in people's mouths, where did I cruelly "deny the terminally ill the right to end their lives of pain and suffering when they've made the decision their life is no longer a value to them"? It most certainly is bizarre for a philosophy of laissez-faire individualism to find that the one thing it does like the government to interfere in is suicide. Ever heard of assited life programs?

You need to take a deep breath, think, keep the context, and pay attention to what you and I actually said.

If "It is most certainly not a stated Rand position, and a definite misstatement to call it an official position" offends you so much, then I'd be happy to ammend "is" to "would be".

And surely you can still provide links, since you make the claim, can't you? Or is the strength of your hysteria proof enough?

GOLLLYYYYY!

Post 9

Tuesday, July 29, 2008 - 7:46pm

Here's ARI's take on assisted suicide. Here's the Objectivist Center's view on the same. Check them out. If they bug you, then start a new post.

Jordan

Post 10

Tuesday, July 29, 2008 - 8:15pm

Jay Abbott asks:" ...could anyone here state what government policies (regarding laws, regulation, etc. - a list) would be specifically proposed by official Objectivist organizations (detailing any differences in position if such exist)?"

As noted, it is a principle of Objectivism that the purpose of government is to protect the rights of citizens. That said, it is a point that by "citizens" this means all inhabitants of a territory. The Constitution follows the flag: non-citizens have almost all the same rights, the right to vote being a major exception with implications such as no right to run for office. It is also a point that by "rights" we mean those conditions of social living for which one does not need to ask permission: life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, pursuit of property, i.e. the creation of wealth. There is no right to work, of course, nor a right to health care, nor to an education, etc., etc.. The so-called right to trial by jury, like the "right" to habeas corpus is a derived and conditional constrait on the government, rather than a "natural right.'

Also, to be more on-point, Ayn Rand quoted from the German sociologist Max Weber when she enunciated the principle that the govenment has a monopoly on the use of force. As a consequence, the only laws would those against force and fraud. In the discussion of the poll on the Objectivist Party, I pointed out that Objectivist political theory is not well developed. Steve Wolfer and others pointed to basic principles of Objectivism that are well established. However, there is little or no development beyond that.

John Locke said that there are three branches of govenment: executive, legislative, and diplomatic, He perceived the juduciary as being so tightly bound to the fabric of society that it was not a "branch" of the govenrment, but an essential (primary) if people were to live together at all. In that Topic (see here), I pointed out that there is no objective ("Objectivist") development of the specifics of govenment structure. By Locke's standard, perhaps we should elect the Secretary of State independently of the Exectutve and Legislature. (Also, it is not clear whether or which judges should be elected or appointed.)

The reason for the lack of such development is that Ayn Rand considered politics a derivative, based on ethics, which is based on epistemology, which is based on metaphysics. It is fairly common -- at least metaphorically or anecdotally -- for an Objectivist to engage someone on a political point, such as health care, and then, by dialectlic to discover step by step that the disagreement is Ethical -- ("people should...") which means Epistemoligical ("... all right for you to say, but how can you know what is best ....") which means Metaphysical ("... real for you is not real for me...."), It all comes back to metaphysics. Rand apparently felt that metaphysics was inarguable beyond axioms and she gave her best effort to Epistemology. You can find Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology via Amazon here.

At a lecture to introduce Objectivism, Nathaniel Branden was asked if Objectivism is the same as Realism or Rationalism. He replied that with lowercase letters, Objectivism is both realist and rationalist.

In the 1960s, Objectivist student groups on college campuses formed . To avoid any misunderstandings derived from those with incomplete -- and therefore incorrect -- ideas about what Objectivism is, or is not, Ayn Rand asked that such groups not use the word "Objectivist." The student groups were called "Ayn Rand Study Clubs" or "Radicals for Capitalism." That latter came from a Rand lecture in which she said that we are not "conservatives" but radicals for capitalism. (In other words, mere oppositiion to communism and vague assertions about the superiority of a market economy were insufficient on philosophical grounds. Those grounds were epistemoligical and metaphysical.)

All of that explains why there is little or no development in Objectivist political theory. As interesting as such questions may be -- and I think they are -- they would put the cart before the horse. Reality and Reason are the basis of Rights. The political philosophy of Objectivism -- and therefore the specific planks for a party platform -- stop with that.

Post 11

Tuesday, July 29, 2008 - 8:25pm

To take one specific, polluition would be illegal. In the nineteenth centuty, American courts ruled the "social utility" of factories superseded the rights of farmers to clean air and water. That was non-objective law.

(Edited by Michael E. Marotta on 7/29, 8:27pm)

Post 12

Tuesday, July 29, 2008 - 9:06pm

Thanks for the links Jordan. I have no intention of starting another thread. The issue was raised here and can be put to sleep here. (The official Objectivist policy on on whining about thread hijackers is here.) The ARC piece, by Thomas Bowden, published as an Op-Ed in the Philadelphia Enquirer, says nothing about the specifics of assisted suicide other than "And if a doctor is willing (not forced) to assist in the suicide, based on an objective assessment of his patient's mental and physical state, the law should not stand in his way." What this "assistence" consists of is unstated. Writing a prescription seems unquestionable. But if my doctor writes a prescription for scalp medicine, is that "assisted shampooing"? Does such assistance include administering a shot? Putting a bag over my head? And why does is a state licensed doctor necessary? Why can't a loved one kill me? Why can't I hire a hitman, if I use my money?

The TOC piece, by Todd Goldberg, argues that individuals have the moral right to kill themselves, again, uncontroversial. But he asks:

So, could two people, by mutual consent, agree to hunt each other for sport? This may seem preposterous and horrifying, but if we believe in absolute control over one's life and absolute freedom of interaction and contract, why is this not the logical conclusion?

One possible answer, which is offered here for readers' consideration, is the limit implicit in calling rights "inalienable," a term used by Rand as well as Jefferson. A person has the right to destroy whatever property he may come to own in the future. But could a person delegate to an agent the right to destroy whatever property the person might come to own at any time in the future? Under a theory of inalienable rights, it would seem he could not. Because a person's rights are inalienable, he must always be able to reclaim from his agent any power that has been delegated to the agent. In similar fashion, John Stuart Mill's On Liberty excluded from the freedoms conferred by autonomy the right to sell oneself into slavery, as it is self-defeating and contradictory to use one's freedom for the purpose of losing one's freedom.

A modern expositor of the doctrine has expressed it this way: "We may alienate (or destroy) the object of an inalienable right, but not the right itself" (Michael P. Zuckert, Natural Rights and the New Republicanism, p. 295). How this distinction would apply in the case of life, the source of rights, is a difficult question. Perhaps it would render permissible every possible assistance to a would-be suicide, and yet declare active euthanasia illegal. That is a question for political philosophers.

And he concludes:

I can see no objective philosophical basis for limiting human autonomy by banning suicide or assisted suicide. However, to pass from that observation to a law securing an unlimited right to assisted suicide would be rash. Philosophical questions exist about the right's proper extent, and practical questions exist about its impact in our present culture. Thus, state laws carving out various statutory rights to assisted suicide seem the best course at present. And such laws are within reach, while a reversal of the Supreme Court's decision probably is not. Majorities in Western countries appear to support the concept of assisted suicide. According to a recent survey cited in the British Medical Journal, 60 percent of Britons do so, and recent polls have found that up to 68 percent of Americans and similar proportions of physicians support the concept of physician-assisted suicide.

Neither of these Op-Eds is written by a widely respected Objectivist authority. Neither is published in any canonical or semi-canonical work. Neither piece can be said to be a validation of "assisted" suicide in any strong sense. At best, the articles agree that the matter cannot be decided on a religious basis, which is how the Rehnquist Court judged. Neither can be treated as an official policy, or even a conclusive statement.

Post 13

Tuesday, July 29, 2008 - 9:38pm

I see Ted you still resort to the same childish antics of trolling the internet for pictures to use as a means of denigrating other forum members. I'm certainly capable of using html code too Ted so I can certainly stoop to that level of discourse if you'd like.

John, get off your hysterical high horse. I said and you said "assisted suicide." You can kill yourself alone as often you like, so far as I care. But there is no need for a government program to kill people,

What government program? Who advocated a government program to kill people?

Surely your emotionalism here doesn't make it impossible or painful for you to see or state clearly that neither Rand nor any other Objectivist took this position during Rand's lifetime. (What is the name of this thread?)

Why does something have to be an Objectivist policy only if it was stated during Rand's lifetime? As Jordan points out, both ARI and the Objecitivst Center have opined on assisted suicide and agree it is a right. You I believe are the only self-proclaimed Objectivist who disagrees.

Talk about putting words in people's mouths, where did I cruelly "deny the terminally ill the right to end their lives of pain and suffering when they've made the decision their life is no longer a value to them"?

You just did in the same post when you said: "I said and you said "assisted suicide." You can kill yourself alone as often you like.." You leave out the possibility for someone who is too weak from a terminal illness to carry out the suicide on their own from seeking assistance from a willing doctor to help in that suicide, which means you want to doom them to live out their rest of their existence in horrible and immense pain since you would act to stop that willing doctor from helping the patient carry out his wishes. That meets the criteria of cruelty in my view and meets the definition of coercion. The argument is not that someone has a right to force someone to assist them in committing suicide, the argument is if a doctor is willing to assist of his own free will on the wish of the patient, no one, not even you the philosopher-king named Ted, should interfere in that voluntary act.

It most certainly is bizarre for a philosophy of laissez-faire individualism to find that the one thing it does like the government to interfere in is suicide.

Ted, this is some of the most sloppy thinking I've heard from you. How is it possible that someone assisting a terminally ill patient too weak to kill themselves constitute "government interference"? In fact, you don't even expound on how it would constitute "government interference". Not surprising since you don't have a tenable position on the matter. If it is your wish to die, and you want someone who is willing to assist you if you are too weak to commit to the act by yourself, by virtue of the fact you would deny them that opportunity by making it illegal means that is government interference.

Ever heard of assited life programs?

The analogy is incorrect. If by "assisted life programs" you mean "welfare", this is simply a form of COERCION. You do not have the right to coerce someone into giving you assistance to live just as you do not have the right to coerce someone in assisting you in committing suicide. But if a patient wants to die, and is too weak to do it, but someone is willing Ted, not coerced, willing to assist, then by you trying to stop that means you are acting cruelly and in a coercive manner. Do not understand the difference between coercion and voluntary?

You need to take a deep breath, think, keep the context, and pay attention to what you and I actually said.

Hey right back at you Ted. Since you attributed statements to me which I never said. Like "It is most certainly not a stated Rand position, and a definite misstatement to call it an official position."

Since I never said such a thing, you, not me, are guilty of not paying attention.

If "It is most certainly not a stated Rand position, and a definite misstatement to call it an official position" offends you so much, then I'd be happy to ammend "is" to "would be".

This makes no sense, you want to amend the statement to read:

"It [would be] most certainly not a stated Rand position"

?????

And surely you can still provide links, since you make the claim, can't you?

The claim that prominent Objectivists argue for the right to assisted suicide? Jordan already has. Which you like me to link to his post on this thread to the links he posted?

Or is the strength of your hysteria proof enough?

Is the strength of your childish posts proof of your position?

Post 14

Tuesday, July 29, 2008 - 9:49pm

Oh, Jesus John, my last post was a parody of yours. (Golllyy!) Look at my first remark to you, (I am sorry I used the fighting word "misstatement") and your whiny, blithering response. Then, for a comparison, look at Jonathan's post and my response to him. Why is your avatar so red in the face? Like I said, put down the gun, take a deep breath, and respond to what I've written, not to what the alcohol makes you think I've said.

XXX OOO

(LOL)

Post 15

Tuesday, July 29, 2008 - 9:58pm

Ted:

The ARC piece, by Thomas Bowden, published as an Op-Ed in the Philadelphia Enquirer, says nothing about the specifics of assisted suicide other than "And if a doctor is willing (not forced) to assist in the suicide, based on an objective assessment of his patient's mental and physical state, the law should not stand in his way." What this "assistence" consists of is unstated. Writing a prescription seems unquestionable. But if my doctor writes a prescription for scalp medicine, is that "assisted shampooing"?

Of course it's assistance. I can't understand how you would regard it otherwise. If a doctor hooks up the IV, and says here's the button, press it when you're ready and it will give you a lethal dose of medicine, how on Earth would you not regard that as "assisting"? If someone acts on your behalf that results in your ability to accomplish an end, that is the definition assistance. Otherwise could you define what it means to assist someone if that's not it? Because you have a peculiar view of the term.

Does such assistance include administering a shot? Putting a bag over my head? And why does is a state licensed doctor necessary? Why can't a loved one kill me? Why can't I hire a hitman, if I use my money?

Oh I see, because equating administering a lethal dose of medicine is the same as putting a bag over the patient's head or hiring a hit man. That Ted is certainly not "hysterics" right? [ / sarcasm ]

So you're saying because some people may want to die in bizarre ways, that should mean you have the right to coercively stop a terminally ill patient from receiving a lethal dose of medicine from his doctor if he so wishes to die?

Post 16

Tuesday, July 29, 2008 - 10:11pm

Ted:

Oh, Jesus John, my last post was a parody of yours. (Golllyy!) Look at my first remark to you, (I am sorry I used the fighting word "misstatement") and your whiny, blithering response.

And you still continue to act like an immature child. Why don't you just respond to my arguments?

Why is your avatar so red in the face? Like I said, put down the gun, take a deep breath, and respond to what I've written, not to what the alcohol makes you think I've said.

Brilliant Ted! Just ignore the fact you have an untenable position and accuse others of being alcoholics. That's a great argument for stopping assisted suicide!

Post 17

Tuesday, July 29, 2008 - 10:25pm

My basic objection is this: the state exists, in part, to insure that people aren't getting murdered. When a person dies, an inquest (however formal or perfunctory in the case of deaths by natural causes in hospitals) is held to determine the cause of death. By having doctor assisted suicide, where the doctor actually administers the lethal drug, you are saying that one person can kill another without an inquest, or are vitiating the protection s an inquest provides whenever someone is so foolish as to sign a death warrant, rather than simply killing himself. This leads to all sorts of conflicts of interest: "Well, the patient seems to be trying to remove the IV on the tape, your honor, but I knew that was just an effect of the drugs I'd given him, so I restrained him from freeing himself because I knew that he really wanted to die." The term "assistance" is entirely vague; consider my assisted shampooing analogy. Of course a doctor should be able to prescribe poison for a patient. He shouldn't administer that poison. Indeed, the patient shouldn't have to go to a doctor in the first place, you should be able to buy just as much morphine as you like. The entire issue is far too mixed premise for me. Why do we need a law to allow doctors to do for patients what patients should be able to do for themselves? And why, indeed, do we need doctors to do it. The fact that you think it's funny that I say why not have a hitman do the job should show you that there's something wrong with the idea, not that I have some special power of humor. If I want a hitman to kill me, why would that be less valid than wanting a doctor to kill me? The solution to a matter that is unjustly complicated by the state is never to introduce more state complications. Every effort should be made to repeal the drug laws. The solution to the problem that the drug law causes is not making doctors into licensed hit men. Vitiating the protections of a coroner's inquest when a death warrant, which might be forged, or which might not have been the euthanized persons will if it was not he who killed himself is just not a price that should be paid because of this artificial issue.

I don't intend to argue this further here - feel free to respond, I am explaining why I won't comment on this matter further on this thread. I think my point is clear that assisted suicide is not an issue upon which there is any Objectivist policy - while upon suicide there is.

(Edited by Ted Keer on 7/29, 10:26pm)

Post 18

Tuesday, July 29, 2008 - 11:07pm

Ted you appear to have finally dropped the immature antics. Thank you.

My basic objection is this: the state exists, in part, to insure that people aren't getting murdered. When a person dies, an inquest is held to determine the cause of death. By having doctor assisted suicide, where the doctor actually administers the lethal drug, you are saying that one person can kill another without an inquest, or are vitiating the protection s an inquest provides whenever someone is so foolish as to sign a death warrant, rather than simply killing himself.

That's not necessarily true Ted that assisted suicide must mean the state shouldn't have been given a burden of proof an initiation of force did not take place. I would agree that a burden of proof must be met first as to the wish of the patient to receive assistance in suicide. If such proof is not given it should be assumed an initiation of force took place. Such a burden can be met prior in a court of law in front of a judge with evidence provided of the patient's wishes. I don't believe such a burden could never be met. If so, then you must throw away the possibility that a burden of proof can be met at all for anything in a court. If you trust a judge and jury to execute or hold someone in prison for the rest of their life for an accusation of murder based on the evidence provided, then why all of a sudden in this instance you believe no such burden can be met in a patient's wish to seek assisted suicide?

This leads to all sorts of conflicts of interest: "Well, the patient seems to be trying to remove the IV on the tape, your honor, but I knew that was just an effect of the drugs I'd given him, so I restrained him from freeing himself because I knew that he really wanted to die." The term "assistance" is entirely vague; consider my assisted shampooing analogy. Of course a doctor should be able to prescribe poison for a patient. He shouldn't administer that poison.

You think it to be "vague" and you attempt to do so by contriving a scenario for us to ponder. But you seem to suggest this must always necessarily be the case. So in an effort to make sure someone doesn't make a mistake, you force all terminally ill patients who wish to seek assistance in committing suicide from doing so. Just as you can make the argument an agreement to fix my car can be "vague", so to protect from errors no one should be able to seek assistance in having their cars fixed because someone may end up getting automotive services they didn't actually want. If you think it is impossible a burden of proof can be met, you can't arbitrarily say it applies to every other criminal and civil court proceeding but can't be applied to assisted suicide.

Indeed, the patient shouldn't have to go to a doctor in the first place, you should be able to buy just as much morphine as you like.

And I would agree someone should have the right to do this, but you exclude the possibility that some people may be too weak from their illness to physically act on their own. My grandfather-in-law was dying of cancer, I had to help my wife and her aunt to change his diaper because he had gotten so weak he could no longer go to the bathroom on his own. No one of course forced me to help change his diaper, he asked someone to assist him and his family complied with his wishes, just as if he wanted to die, his family and his doctor if they are so willing to do so, should be allowed to help him die if he's too weak to do it on his own. And again, as long as a burden of proof is met, which is possible, then anything else is state coercion to which you advocate.

If I want a hitman to kill me, why would that be less valid than wanting a doctor to kill me?

You trivialize the matter by equating it to this. If someone wants a hitman to kill them, I would question whether that is for the reason their life has no more value or whether they are experiencing some sort of insanity. I don't know, it's a contrived scenario that I've never heard of someone wanting so I don't see the value in entertaining it beyond what I've said here. The fact is I AM AWARE of terminally ill patients who wish to die and are either physically too weak to kill themselves on their own, or they want assistance from a doctor who knows how to commit suicide in as painless a manner as possible(most people don't know how to hook up an IV to a machine with a button that can administer a lethal dose).

(Edited by John Armaos on 7/29, 11:08pm)

Post 19

Wednesday, July 30, 2008 - 4:14am