A question about the confederacy

How was the confederacy viewed from an Objectivist viewpoint? Certainly not the aspect of their support for the continuation of slavery, but rather when looking only at their assertion that their states had the right to secede from the union? Or is it not possible to separate one from another?

I ask these questions in innocence and ignorance...I am new to the formal philosophy of Objectivism, though the foundations of my beliefs have always been there and seem well aligned. Reading many of the discussions on these boards is, as they say, like drinking from the firehose, and I am unable to quench my thirst. :)

Post 1

Tuesday, September 21, 2010 - 1:06pm

Hi Michael, a government can only have a legitimate moral claim to sovereignty insofar as it respects the sovereignty of its own citizens, i.e. the rights of the individual. The right to secede is only a right if it means you are trying to free yourself from tyranny, you don't have the right to take an action in order to tyrannize. I have a hard time thinking the Confederacy had the right to secede in order to perpetuate itself as a slave state.

If Vermont for example wanted to secede from the Union in order to establish a communist state and set up gulags for business men and educated individuals, it would have no moral right to do so.

Post 2

Tuesday, September 21, 2010 - 1:21pm

The problem should be considered separately from the Confederacy since a reading of the Confederate constitution reveals that slavery was at the heart of it. No state admitted to the Confederacy could prohibit or interfere with the slave trade or the owning of slaves and had to return run away slaves.

Probably better to frame the question of secession in a hypothetical, or in reference to Jefferson's letter to the citizens of Kentucky where he suggested that they put the right to secede in their proposed state constitution.

Here is one problem we have had in considering these issues. The word 'state,' in this context has acquired a subconscious connotation of "inferior to" - it is the smaller (than federal) governmental unit - but when the United States Constitution was written that was not the case. They were abandoning the status (and designator) of "Colony." When they chose to call themselves "states" a state was sovereign and was of the same stature as England, France, Spain, etc. There was no other political connotation or usage for that word.

Thus, our 'nation' was really intended to be a confederation (pardon the term) of nations - a permanent association of sovereign nations who signed a contract (ratified the constitution) in which they gave up just a few sovereign rights in exchange for the benefits conferred by that confederation. They intended to become permanently bound allies in defense against any future threats to freedom.

From that perspective, it is a contract. And a contract may no longer be binding when one party or the other abrogates the terms. There is nothing anywhere that altered that fundamental relationship out of which the federal government arose. It is like you and I, being next door neighbors signed an agreement to share the costs of trash collection and lawn care for our to houses and we paid a fellow to organize and oversee this. But then, later, he started to tell us what color to paint our houses, and how much we should pay him.

The Declaration of independence talks of the right of people to sever a bond, and of "the causes which impel them to Separation." The Declaration sets the precedent by discussing the terms of a political contract (bond). All contracts presume the moral/legal stature of the parties to enter into such an agreement, and the Declaration states that governments are created for the purpose of securing men's rights.

If I were making the argument for secession, I'd frame the argument in this fashion, "The federal government acts towards the good citizens of my state as if we were its subordinates, as if it were the parent and we were disobedient children. It has gone from being a protector of our rights to a violator of our rights. This removes the very purpose and justification for our continuing the existing relationship. Our citizens are of a majority in this conviction. There will be people in other states who will disagree, but by what right do they deny us the freedom to make own laws and and live our own lives when we so in a profound respect for everyone's individual rights?"

But I'm not making the argument now, because it is far, far more likely that we will be able to win freedom for the entire nation in our foreseeable future... without dividing up. It is still well inside the realm of the possible. And that being the case, we don't have just cause to sever the bonds.

Post 3

Tuesday, September 21, 2010 - 1:34pm

Great replies guys, thanks, and in a way they both drive the initial point home in the same manner (and I am ashamed that such an obvious answer was almost written into the question by me!) - The confederacy sought to reduce the rights of some of the individuals it sought to governed, thereby invalidating their justification for doing so.

Steve -
Great thoughts. I am very clear also on the original intent of the colonies when they entered into their contract with one another. And that is what has gone awry. I don't think there is any cause for modern day secession either. The question to me is whether freedom for the whole can be won when the game is now rigged.

Post 4

Tuesday, September 21, 2010 - 1:40pm

1. Elect people that will un-rig the system (even if they aren't perfect)
2. Continue to educate voters about individual rights, constitutional government, Capitalism, and man's right to live for the sake of his own happiness (no duty to sacrifice)
3. Promote the celebration of human values and greatness in the arts and in our culture
4. Paint the picture of what could be
5. Take back the education system
6. Be patient but persistent and enjoy the adventure

Post 5

Tuesday, September 21, 2010 - 1:48pm

1. Elect people that will un-rig the system (even if they aren't perfect)

Agreed.

2. Continue to educate voters about individual rights, constitutional government, Capitalism, and man's right to live for the sake of his own happiness (no duty to sacrifice)

Agreed.

3. Promote the celebration of human values and greatness in the arts and in our culture

I think it needs to include the celebration of individual achievement in other areas as well - innovation, business, accomplishment. We need to stop vilifying achievers.

4. Paint the picture of what could be

Agreed

5. Take back the education system

This one is hard. Not just the initial education but secondary education as well.

6. Be patient but persistent and enjoy the adventure

:) I already am.

Post 6

Tuesday, September 21, 2010 - 3:40pm

"I already am."

That was the best part of your post!
----------------

I wasn't clear about point #3. I meant celebrate human values and greatness WITH the arts and THROUGHOUT our culture - and, yes, all kinds of virtues, values and achievements. (As a little kid I grew up on Western movies - the good guy won and he did it by sticking to what was right, with courage, and skill. The bad buys lost and they did so because evil was inferior)
---------------

Taking back the educational system will be hard. It isn't a critical component for the short term struggles, but it is the almost the whole enchilada for the long term - to actually win the war and not just some battles.

The good news is that taking it back will be much easier after achieving a degree of success in Washington. I'd say that by 2014 there will be many changes happening 'automatically' that look almost like natural side-effects of a political culture going the right way, and large changes in the educational system will be one of them. At about that time, a conscious focused effort to make things right will speed that up enormously.

Post 7

Tuesday, September 21, 2010 - 6:26pm

My opposing view to how to change the US:

Its not going to change, its just going to get worse. Elections are based on equal weighted per person majority. The majority of people would rather have lower standards of living and live off welfare (socialism) than be productive and independent and have a higher standard of living.

I don't think education is going to help. In the numerous debates I've had with people on the subject of economics, I don't think I've ever changed a person's mind.

The only solution is to leave the US and move to a more economically free country. Using the Index of Economic Freedom as a source, it looks like only Singapore and Hong Kong are such countries by any significant margin.

Post 8

Tuesday, September 21, 2010 - 7:02pm

Gee, Dean, do they have a different species of human in Singapore and Hong Kong - I mean why are they higher on the freedom scale?

Are you saying the neither people nor cultures change over time? If that's so, how is we have been getting worse during the 1900's? Or do you think things can only get worse as history unrolls? But if that were so, we could never have broken away from England or had the glorious burst of freedom we did for a couple hundred years.

I'm also not clear on how education won't help. Are you saying that you would vote the same now as you would have if you'd never learned anything about Objectivism or Capitalism?

But above all I'd say that you do not have ANY solid, rational evidence to support your claim, that given a choice the average American would take a lower standard of living, and be on welfare, than to have a higher standard of living and be productive and independent. What I should say is speak for yourself, except that I believe you prefer the productive, independent higher standard of living. Me too. What's the deal, are we not humans?

You mentioned that you don't think that you've ever changed anyone's minds in an economic argument. Change your arguments. The one you gave us was short on facts, long on assertions, and was as depressing as a nihilist's funeral. I adopt new information and shift my views about all the time... I educate myself. Years ago, I took many, many classes and was in the process of changing aspects of my beliefs in a very concentrated fashion.

If I believed what you do, I'd already be in Singapore. And if you REALLY believed it, you'd already be there too.

Post 9

Wednesday, September 22, 2010 - 4:47am

Steve Wolfer,

Are you saying the neither people nor cultures change over time? If that's so, how is we have been getting worse during the 1900's? Or do you think things can only get worse as history unrolls? But if that were so, we could never have broken away from England or had the glorious burst of freedom we did for a couple hundred years.

The US started out economically and socially free due to a large number of people migrating from places of high government control to the land of the free, the US. The US was the land of the free because the people who moved to the US desired to be free.

In a very productive society that has lots of social safety nets and generosity, socialists can reproduce faster than capitalists. This is because a socialist can have any number of children, all of whom will not die no matter how unproductive the parents are. A capitalist would not have more children than she can support herself. Hence in such a society socialists reproduce faster than capitalists.

Since the early US, due to generosity and donations, people who prefer to live at the expense of others have been multiplying like rabbits. Around the start of the 1900's socialists began to reach equal numbers as the capitalists. 1920's, women's suffrage passed, added a massive number of voters that are generally socialist.

Some people change over time, but I don't think many do. Cultures definitely change over time, one kind of change is the process I described above. And I think I made it clear how we "broke away from England" and "had the glorious burst of freedom". Its because people who desired to be free all released themselves from their old state of bondage and banded together at a new place to create a new place of freedom for themselves.

But above all I'd say that you do not have ANY solid, rational evidence to support your claim, that given a choice the average American would take a lower standard of living, and be on welfare, than to have a higher standard of living and be productive and independent. What I should say is speak for yourself, except that I believe you prefer the productive, independent higher standard of living. Me too. What's the deal, are we not humans?

Isn't Obama being elected strong enough evidence? He's one of the most socialist of people-- and he was elected. So... go ahead... tell all of the Americans that socialism results in death, like in China and Russia. You know what? They've heard it already. And they voted for Obama. Maybe they think "We'll vote for capitalism again once things start to get bad". Mainly I think they think "If Obama wins then I get stuff for free yay!" and they don't think beyond that.

I'm also not clear on how education won't help. [...] I adopt new information and shift my views about all the time... I educate myself. Years ago, I took many, many classes and was in the process of changing aspects of my beliefs in a very concentrated fashion.

Yes, well, you are smart. You can learn complex abstract ideas and verify the truth yourself. Dumb people can't do that. And I'm saying that dumb people who can't think who are socialists are in the majority and in power. I just read news: The Fed says they need to do some more "quantitative easing" to fight against deflation of the USD. Can you imagine anything more stupid than that statement? And yet the statement is accepted and unchallenged.

In last, Steve, I am preparing to move. I've been gathering resources and increasing my hire-ability and independence for the last four years so that I am capable of moving successfully. I've got a hobby software project going at home that may lead to starting my own business. I've reached the point now where I'm feeling very comfortable that I'd be able to move anywhere successfully. I just need to find the place now.

Disclaimer: No, I don't think women's suffrage is a bad thing. But I do think that equal weighted per person voting is bad. I think votes should be weighted by size of financial donation to the government.

Post 10

Wednesday, September 22, 2010 - 4:55am

I moved to New Hampshire three years ago. I didn't officially join the Free State Project, but I moved to NH for the same reasons. I don't think the FSP is effective enough. NH is an improvement over many US states. I want to be more economically free. I don't think education works. I do think migration works.

Another point on the uselessness of education. High School and College are a huge waste for most people in the US. Sorry, your problem solving and reasoning skills don't improve with education. Education is merely the presentation of ideas. Its up to the person receiving the education to discern which of the ideas are consistent with reality and useful. And then once you get into the real world of employment, you either have the motivation and problem solving ability to be a creator or leader, or you just do what leaders tell you to do: on the job training where most all of that education was useless.

A person can't learn to be as good as me at problem solving. With current technology, they either are as good, or their not. They would have to change their genetics or use some kind of high tech brain performance improving technology to solve problems like I can. All humans are not born equal. There is a huge variation in mental ability.

A huge variation in mental ability. The majority of people are of near intelligence and dumb. These people control the government in our equal weighted per person voting policy.
(Edited by Dean Michael Gores on 9/22, 5:19am)

Post 11

Wednesday, September 22, 2010 - 9:10am

Dean,

We disagree. The average person is of average intelligence not "dumb" as you think. People can learn to increase their problem-solving abilities (check the research). You think that people don't change over time and education doesn't work. Yet cultures change? How does that happen?

The proof that you are wrong will be the vote this November. If you were right, the people wouldn't be able to change and they would vote for pretty much the same people. If you were right they would continue to choose the people that will provide entitlements. If you were right they wouldn't have learned anything since Obama were elected.

Post 12

Wednesday, September 22, 2010 - 11:09am

He was jolted back into the courtroom by the people pressing to surround him. He smiled in answer to their smiles, to the frantic tragic eagerness of their faces; there was a touch of sadness in his smile.
"God bless? He looked at the people around him. They had cheered him today; they had cheered him by the side of the track of the John Galt Line. But tomorrow they would clamour for a new directive from Wesley Mouch and a free housing project from Orren Boyle, while Boyle's girders collapsed upon their heads. They would do it, because they would be told to forget, as a sin, that which had made them cheer Hank Rearden.

Why were they ready to renounce their highest moments as a sin? Why were they willing to betray the best within them? What made them believe that this earth was a realm of evil where despair was their natural fate? He could not name the reason, but he know that it had to be named. He felt it as a huge question mark within the courtroom, which it was now his duty to answer.

This was the real sentence imposed upon him, he thought - to discover what idea, what simple idea available to the simplest man, had made mankind accept the doctrines that led it to self-destruction.

Post 13

Wednesday, September 22, 2010 - 1:03pm

Yes, that is the key:

...what simple idea available to the simplest man...

The power of an idea - to do harm or to do good.

- If most men were too dumb to grasp ideas, that would not be the case - ideas would run past with little effect on men or history.
- To say that ideas are not available to the simplest man (in a meaningful way) is to deny the existence of volition (or to fail to understand it properly).
- If people were incapable of change, ideas would be nearly useless and history would show little change - certainly in any correspondence with ideas.

Ayn Rand spent her life educating all who listened because she believed that ideas matter and that man is volitional. And she had great respect for the average American in particular.

Post 14

Wednesday, September 22, 2010 - 3:56pm