RoR: Forum

Rebirth of Reason

Sunday, April 11, 2010 - 9:24pm

I don't know where this quote came from originally, but I really like it. It seems as if the universe is bisected into us and everything else. I don't believe we are unique in a sacred fashion, but clearly we are the only entities we know of that exercise choice. It is in our nature... and no where else. It is the source of values, the watershed for what is appropriate to government, and the metaphysical root of our rights.

Monday, April 12, 2010 - 8:50am

The truth of this statement hinges on which meaning of "impractical" is used. The reality is that the various forms of government that currently exist are all predicated on controlling people by force, and those governments continue to control large swaths of our lives. So, from a certain utilitarian perspective, dealing with people by force is a practical way for some people to achieve the dominion over others that they crave.

But, from the perspective of what has occurred in places like Soviet Russia or North Korea or Zimbabwe, the underlying impracticality of running the affairs of people solely via force is revealed.

And, in the minarchist versus anarchist threads we've had here, most of the Oists here have been arguing for at least some level of this "impracticality", and have vehemently rejected my assertion that getting rid of such impracticality entirely is not only desirable, but possible.

So, this quote by Ayn Rand, who argues for minarchism, reveals to me a hidden contradiction at the heart of Objectivist thought, unless one advocates for a government run entirely without involuntary taxation or the other nonconsensual aspects of modern (and ancient) governance.

To resolve this dilemma, a new form of governance based entirely on real consent of the governed is called for, an entirely voluntary governance that people willingly join of their own volition, and allow peaceful anarchists to opt out of so long as they do not harm others.

Monday, April 12, 2010 - 10:54am

Great quote! I know I'll use it.

jt

Monday, April 12, 2010 - 11:02am

Jim,

My key point was about the unique nature of humans. We choose. Nothing else does. But you chose to make an argument for anarchy.
------------

Minarchy is based upon human choice. It is there to protect choice. It uses force only in defense or retaliation against initiated force (or one of its variants - threat of intiated force, theft and fraud).

The purpose of minarchy is to maximize choice.

If someone wants more government than a minarchy they are going for less choice. If someone wants less government than minarchy they are going for less choice.
----------------

You wrote, "...a new form of governance based entirely on real consent of the governed is called for, an entirely voluntary governance that people willingly join of their own volition, and allow peaceful anarchists to opt out of so long as they do not harm others."

1.) Minarchy is based upon consent of the governed in the most basic way. It respects and protects all choices except those that would violate the right to choose. I assume that you don't feel like your liberty has been interfered with if I were to tell you that I would use lethal force to defend my house. You would be thinking, "So what, I'm never going to threaten your house." The only person who would be deprived of an action is someone whose action in question would be a violation of rights. You can not consent to a violation of rights - that is an area where, by definition, consent does not live.

2.) If no one has to agree to observe the rules (if there are any in your new form of governance), then there is a severe limit in the "governance" being done. It won't just be the peaceful anarchists that opt out, it will be everyone whose moral scruples don't get in the way of using force, fraud or theft to have their way.

3.) The hidden contradiction at the heart of anarchy is the belief that a free market will be the best way to create and maintain justice, but ignoring the fact that without a proper code of enforced law there is no free market. "Free" has meaning, it means free of initiatory force or the threat thereof.
----------------

If you take away government you create the conditions from which arise the worst of governments, because you have created an environment where initiated force, threat of initiated force, theft and fraud are given equal legal footing with voluntary association and trade.
---------------

p.s., Voluntary taxation is very doable for minarchy. What can't be voluntary is abiding by the laws that prohibit the initiation of force, fraud or theft - why would you even want that?