Maybe I don't understand Objectivism, but I thought it was more like "Some people are the source of wealth and progress, and they should be left alone to enrich and advane the world."
You have a better understanding of Objectivism than does Bob Wallace. IIRC, Howard Roarke, Hank Reardon, Dagny Taggart and John Galt didn't want to rule over anybody. Plus, how the f*%k can one be a leftist and also support capitalism?
Uh I thought the Objectvist position was that "Taking what someone earns through honest hard work is evil". The sticky widget, as always, with this whole vision conflict is that I and the rest of the Tragicians are fine with the Unconstrainites forming socialist institutions to spread the wealth, so long as they do it with their own voluntary contributions. When they come and take what's mine without consent, then yes, they are evil.
Oh, and if this makes me a believer in a Galtian Utopian then I guess I better go read that book again, since I'm a true believer.
What is the "Galtian Utopia"? The only thing John Galt demanded of anyone was that they get out of his way, to leave him and his stuff in peace. Is it a "mere mistake" to obstruct people in their righful prerogatives, and demand of them their live's time and material wealth?
How *shall* we define evil if not in terms of taking that which is not yours?
Bob Wallace fails in his understanding of Objectivism, but there is a long history of acrimony between big C conservatives and big O Objectivists...this seems an echo of those smoldering embers.
Not really anarchist, no. Objectivisim predicts a period of (near) anarchy as a required transition before the moochers and looters who have ruled the world for centuries can be removed from the equation, but not necessarilly after.
It merely advocates that those in power don't take from those who produce for the mere purpose of giving handouts to those who refuse to produce without any compensation.
(Fair) Payment for services rendered and goods delivered, always.
It is utopian in that it assumes that there's a productive place in society yielding an income that's enough to live on for everyone, always.
It's also utopian in assuming that human nature won't try to revert to the current system of mooching and looting once it's seen how an objectivist society works.
Personally I'm sceptical on both of those positions, though far more so on the second than I am on the first.
Objectivisim predicts a period of (near) anarchy as a required transition before the moochers and looters who have ruled the world for centuries can be removed from the equation
Can you expound on what, specifically "removed from the equation" entails?
I would argue it was a minarcho-capitalist utopia. The last scene in the book has the former judge working on the constitution to remove from it the imperfections that lead to its destriuction. (Approx quote from memory)... The gist I got was that Objectivism takes seriously the premise that governments exist (solely) for the purpose "to secure these rights".
The question as to whether governments *can* "secure these rights" is probably the divisor between myself and the anarcho-cap crowd. I cling, bitterly, to the proposition that they can, a premise that is rejected by the AnCap folk...and believe me, their argument in that matter is strong and seductive.
I read Atlas Shrugged fairly recently, as these things go (about a year and a half ago), and I'd say you have it right, gwa.45.
My take on whether governments can secure those rights is, in effect, "They can...for a while." How long a while depends on how a body feels about the War Between the States, or maybe the Whiskey Rebellion. ;)
Add to the previous: Neither state nor statelessness will achieve Utopia. It's still gonna have people in it either way, and you take the good with the bad. One has to choose between them on some other basis.
...and believe me, their argument in that matter is strong and seductive.
Oh, I agree. The problem is, as you once pointed out, that their model requires the majority of the population to be exceptional, and the bell curve doesn't support that.
AnCap is unworkable for exactly the same reason that Marxism is unworkable - they both require human beings to not act like human beings. And Objectivism - taken to its logical conclusion - is, to me, indistinguishable from AnCap. If it is - always and everywhere - EVIL to tax people, and the government is thus prohibited from doing so, then you end up with no government - anarchy by definition.
If you acknowledge, as I do, that GOVERNMENT IS EVIL BY DEFINITION, but a necessary one, then the AnCap crowd and Objectivists consider you not just wrong, but evil as well.
Government is FORCE, and coercive governments WORK, because human beings act like human beings.
I'm reading Atlas Shrugged (for the second time) now, so this is fresh for me. John Galt, in his radio speech, says that there are three, and only three, valid government functions: 1) Military, to protect the citizens from outside threats, 2) police, to protect the citizens from internal threats and 3) courts, to uphold contracts and mediate disputes between parties in said contracts. Doesn't seem that Ayn Rand is advocating anarchy, and she DOES seem to indicate that people will be people and that defense against evil is needed.
The problem as I see it is that the real-life captains of industry (as epitomized in Atlas Shrugged by John Galt, Hank Reardon and Dagny Taggart) generally don't have the level of purity the characters in the book do. They're prone to seek power too, they're imperfect, they'll try to get something-for-nothing. Stay-out-of-their-way-and-let-them-produce only works if the producers are perfect which, as we've said SO many times here, is not going to happen. Real industrial giants are much more like Donald Trump than Hank Rearden.
Well, as you point out, the necessity of evil is still evil.
But let's examine it for a bt.
Let's posit we can go Full Locke and contruct a revised Constitution that, for all practical purposes, also takes seriously the premise that government exists solely for the purpose of securing one's natural rights. For the sake of argument, let us assume it actually does that, with all the necessary protective and corrective measures in place.
Where are the boundaries of friction? Where are the moral hazards emanating from coercion?
Generally, there are 3:
The use of Force for Police powers: Presuming they are only brought to bear upon transgressors of the rights of others, this isn't really a moral hazard.
Military Discipline: The only morally valid military is a voluntary one. While we have historically provided for conscientous objection, the restrictions on it are too tight, requiring objection to *all* war, and failing to support the individual's potentially principled objection to a *specific* war. Resignation from the military (with possible consequences to benefits, as a matter of contract) should always be valid, except when in actual combat. This system would prevent unpopular military adventurism, yet allow for the possibility.
Taxes: Presumably, a taxpayer would voluntarilly see benefit in paying the taxes that fund the governmnt that genuinely secures one's natural rights. There will be, however, exceptions, both individual in nature (ie: conscientious objection to funding war material) and eventually, taxes to fund items whose connection to natural right security and rule of law grows tenuous (Postal service? roads?) Since the only morally valid taxation system is voluntary, a right of conscientous objection to tax payment must also be respected. If we posit a system in which the taxpayer can selectively with hold portions of taxes for that which he finds objectionable, while funding the rest, we will have an important check upon government reach into the pocket for things of dubious value to the payer.
So, my point is this: yes, government is evil, and there's places where moral hazards are created by coercion, but those hazards can and should be mitigated with a system of supported conscientious objection.
Since the only morally valid taxation system is voluntary, a right of conscientous objection to tax payment must also be respected. If we posit a system in which the taxpayer can selectively with hold portions of taxes for that which he finds objectionable, while funding the rest, we will have an important check upon government reach into the pocket for things of dubious value to the payer.
And this has worked where, exactly? Ken refers to the "free rider" problem. Here you will have it writ large. Once again, for this system to work, the majority of the population must be extraordinary, and that ain't happening.
To repeat:
Reality is the murder of a beautiful theory by a gang of ugly facts.
Theory and reality are only theoretically related.
In theory there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is.
The AnCap theory is seductive and beautiful and logically flawless. So is Objectivism. Unfortunately, humanity doesn't work that way.
Which system do you think will have the bigger free rider problem? An inexpensive minimalist system that fundamentally foreswears the use of force to collect taxes, or an innevitably maximalist system that asserts fundamental right of force to collect taxes for whatever purpose a demagogue can convince 50%+1 that it will benefit them?
To my knowledge, what I've proposed has never been tried. If anything, what I'm doing is advocating that government doesn't get to deploy some right-of-force to carve itself an exemption from free market forces for the service it provides.
What are the failure modes of each of these systems? The risk for the miimalist system is that it will go bankrupt, thus forcing people to either let it expire, (thus, risking anarchy, and the rise of a maximalist system) or reconsider whether it is of value to them. The failure mode of the maixmalist system is what we are living: the system itself asserts more and greater power to grasp to ensure its continued survival.
Conidering that a majority of our population feels fine paying even redistributionist taxes, I don't think the population need be all that extraordinary to pay limited taxes for limited government.
What are the failure modes of each of these systems? The risk for the miimalist system is that it will go bankrupt, thus forcing people to either let it expire, (thus, risking anarchy, and the rise of a maximalist system) or reconsider whether it is of value to them. The failure mode of the maixmalist system is what we are living: the system itself asserts more and greater power to grasp to ensure its continued survival.
You called it: What you are advocating will result in what we are living. It just takes a while. Look at the U.S. prior to passage of the 16th Amendment, and what has resulted since. There's your model.
OK. I get it. You reject anarchy. Check. Me too.
You reject maxarchy...at least from previous writings I gather that. Check. Me too.
You reject minarchy? Really? Or you can't find a distinction between minarchy and anarchy?
At least pruning the bush of state back to its minarchy roots has some hope!
I don't reject minarchy. I see no way of getting there from where we are without going through, not anarchy but chaos. (The AnCaps are quite emphatic about the difference.)
The biggest problem I see is that what comes out of chaos is almost never an improvement over anything but chaos. It almost certainly wouldn't be an improvement over what we have now.
Governments, being made up of human beings (notably ungoverned, as Shepherd Book pointed out) never give up power willingly, and seldom grudgingly. It must be taken from them, often violently. Once violence ensues, chaos waits not far behind, and is exceedingly difficult to avoid. As I have quoted Ambrose Bierce before, "Revolution is an abrupt change in the form of misgovernment."
I saw a sigline once that reasonated. I don't recall the exact phrasing, but it basically said, "If it musthappen, let it happen now so that I may bear the burden and my children and theirs will be spared."
I don't see a way out, Geek. Billy Beck is right: we're not voting our way out of this.
I saw a sigline once that reasonated. I don't recall the exact phrasing, but it basically said, "If it musthappen, let it happen now so that I may bear the burden and my children and theirs will be spared."
* * *
Dunno if this is what you're thinking of, but this is what your words reminded me of:
"Stand your ground; don't fire unless fired upon, but if they mean to have a war, let it begin here." - Cpt. John Parker, Lexington Green
Can the full cost of the postal service be funded through postage? I like where this is going, and I want to be sensitive to the free-rider issue.
Scale, as it so often does, becomes part of the mischief. Where free-riders are relatively more anonymous, it's harder to "voluntarily police" them, to coin a phrase, by shunning. Shunning can be extraordinarily effective in a small enough community.
Perhaps what gwa.45 outlines can be done via contract. It may be easier to work if there's a Coventry or some territories for them as prefer to light out for the territories.
That's the real problem with it, so far as I can see. It pretty much requires some sort of frontier where people who don't wish to pay for things they object to can likewise opt out of the benefits of those things.
"The United States Postal Service (USPS) is an independent agency of the United States government, organized as an "independent establishment of the executive branch", responsible for providing postal service in the United States."
and this:
"Since its reorganization into an independent organization, the USPS has become self-sufficient and has not directly received taxpayer-dollars since the early 1980s with the minor exception of subsidies for costs associated with the disabled and overseas voters. However, it is currently borrowing money from the U.S. Treasury to pay its deficits. The decline of mail volume, due to the increased usage of email, has forced the postal service to look to other sources of revenue while cutting costs to maintain this financial balance."
My older brother has worked for the Post Office for 34 years. His stories make it obvious that the Postal Service could easily be supported by postage alone if it weren't (ahem) managed by buffoons. Generally, managers are recruited from sorters, carriers, and clerks, and usually are promoted to management because they have failed everything else.
Yes, really.
It's quite simple how it works. The Postal Service is heavily unionized, such that people are terminated only for gross rule violations but not for even gross incompetence. So, a manager removes an incompetent sorter, carrier, or clerk via promotion into management, which enables someone else to bid the vacated job, the winner of which just might be a bit more competent. Thus, no training or aptitude for management is required, and it shows.
Wallace's essay was interesting. He was mainly commenting on a book by Thomas Sowell. The book categorizes people as of either the constrained or unconstrained view:
Those who believe in the constrained vision [rightism] dismiss the notion that humanity has the ability to create "solutions" to the problems that are inherent in imperfect human nature. Instead, they generally favor practical trade-offs and support the wisdom inherent in tradition, religion and millennia-old experience, instead of the subjective and ever-changing morality of a self-appointed "intellectual elite." They believe people are inherently flawed. Those who believe in the unconstrained vision[leftism], on the other hand, support a morally superior "intellectual elite" which alone has the ability (and therefore the responsibility) to guide the masses and remake society according to their vision. They believe that human nature is plastic and can be molded according to their wishes. Consequently, they believe in complete free will, something that those who adhere to the constrained vision do not. As a result, they have no problem with destroying societies, believing something better will immediately pop up to take their places.
I guess I am more of a constrained view in that I believe human beings will always be fallible. Later in the essay, Wallace writes:
I see libertarianism as an ideal, one not attainable because of the imperfections of human nature. Hubris prevents it. The tribal nature of man prevents it. The lust for power prevents it. Blaming others prevents it. Libertarianism is an ideal, one of course always to be striven and fought for, but probably never attained.
I think any this statement is true of any ideal, and there proposed ideal societies. The "Galtian Utopia" is an ideal. Marxism is an ideal. Democracy is an ideal. Minarchism is an ideal. None are achievable so the debate should be not which one is possible but rather which one will do the least amount of damage when it goes off the rails. And perhaps how fast each of them will go off the rails.
Cases on point:
1) The Soviet Union was an attempt to create a marxist ideal. It went off the rails immediately after it was formed and murdered over 30 million people in the process in the 69 years it took to finish its destruction.
2) The United States has lasted 234 years. When it went off the rails (or if it did) is up for debate. It has a few black eyes (slavery, civil war) but doesn't come close to the Sovier Union as far as damage. How much longer it will last is unknown.
I like the idea of minarchist societies or "Galtian Utopias" but their damage potential seems extremely high. An ideal world requires ideal people, which are in short supply.
I didn't think I was going to like the essay (but I did after RTWT) based on the quote's misapplication of the "Galtian Utopia." Reaching way back in my memory, I recall that Galt's Gulch was exclusively a voluntary association of the Supermen. Sure, it would not have worked en masse, but they didn't try it. You had to sign up and you had to be worthy.
I think the quintessential difference between Objectivism and other flavors of the UV is that the Objectivist seeks self-perfection while the others seek to bring their version of perfection to everyone else (with the inevitable horror). I don't see the harm in trying to perfect yourself, especially when that perfection requires that you have no right to rule others (perhaps I'm reading too much into Galt's creed).
I have to stop now because I've defended Objectivism too much and I feel dirty.
Sure, it would not have worked en masse, but they didn't try it.
My observation is that nothing works en masse, at least if what one is trying to work is individual liberty. It's the mass (the scale, to give it its right name) that is the problem, and it's insoluble. Too many opportunities for a man not to have to answer directly for his own mistakes (or perfidy).
The real problem with Galt's Gulch isn't the voluntary association of supermen, it's the fact that those supermen are (by necessity and by definition) a tiny minority of the population, and when the vast majority FINDS THEM it will be ugly. Very ugly. As Heinlein put it long ago,
Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition of man. Advances which permit this norm to be exceeded--here and there, now and then--are the work of an extremely small minority, frequently despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes happens) is driven out of a society, the people then slip back into abject poverty. This is known as “bad luck.”
On the whole, RAH had reality on his side a lot more. But don't forget that Galt's Gulch was protected by magic, so this would obviously not have been a problem for them. :-P
Atlas Shrugged was a beautiful fantasy in its own way. Even inspiring. But it was clearly a fantasy. I just wanted to emphasize the fundamental difference between the collectivist UV and the libertarian/Objectivist one. It's a great thing to believe people can change and to encourage them to do so (in the non-cynical sense of the word) - it's just not a very good foundation for a policy.
I don't care if you're constrained or un constrained, just keep your damn stupid-giant and butt-ugly High-Speed Rail out of my town!
Note:
All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost;
references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>
JS-Kit/Echo comments for article at http://smallestminority.blogspot.com/2010/11/quote-of-day-conflict-of-visions.html (39 comments)
Tentative mapping of comments to original article, corrections solicited.
Maybe I don't understand Objectivism, but I thought it was more like "Some people are the source of wealth and progress, and they should be left alone to enrich and advane the world."
You have a better understanding of Objectivism than does Bob Wallace. IIRC, Howard Roarke, Hank Reardon, Dagny Taggart and John Galt didn't want to rule over anybody. Plus, how the f*%k can one be a leftist and also support capitalism?
Objectivists are idealists who believe in a perfect Galtian Utopia, those who do not are in their minds not merely mistaken, but evil.
That seems pretty plain. And accurate.
Uh I thought the Objectvist position was that "Taking what someone earns through honest hard work is evil". The sticky widget, as always, with this whole vision conflict is that I and the rest of the Tragicians are fine with the Unconstrainites forming socialist institutions to spread the wealth, so long as they do it with their own voluntary contributions. When they come and take what's mine without consent, then yes, they are evil.
Oh, and if this makes me a believer in a Galtian Utopian then I guess I better go read that book again, since I'm a true believer.
What is the "Galtian Utopia"? The only thing John Galt demanded of anyone was that they get out of his way, to leave him and his stuff in peace. Is it a "mere mistake" to obstruct people in their righful prerogatives, and demand of them their live's time and material wealth?
How *shall* we define evil if not in terms of taking that which is not yours?
Bob Wallace fails in his understanding of Objectivism, but there is a long history of acrimony between big C conservatives and big O Objectivists...this seems an echo of those smoldering embers.
A "Galtian Utopia" is, insofar as I have been able to determine, an Anarcho-capitalist one. Would you disagree?
Let's start there.
Not really anarchist, no. Objectivisim predicts a period of (near) anarchy as a required transition before the moochers and looters who have ruled the world for centuries can be removed from the equation, but not necessarilly after.
It merely advocates that those in power don't take from those who produce for the mere purpose of giving handouts to those who refuse to produce without any compensation.
(Fair) Payment for services rendered and goods delivered, always.
It is utopian in that it assumes that there's a productive place in society yielding an income that's enough to live on for everyone, always.
It's also utopian in assuming that human nature won't try to revert to the current system of mooching and looting once it's seen how an objectivist society works.
Personally I'm sceptical on both of those positions, though far more so on the second than I am on the first.
Objectivisim predicts a period of (near) anarchy as a required transition before the moochers and looters who have ruled the world for centuries can be removed from the equation
Can you expound on what, specifically "removed from the equation" entails?
I would argue it was a minarcho-capitalist utopia. The last scene in the book has the former judge working on the constitution to remove from it the imperfections that lead to its destriuction. (Approx quote from memory)... The gist I got was that Objectivism takes seriously the premise that governments exist (solely) for the purpose "to secure these rights".
The question as to whether governments *can* "secure these rights" is probably the divisor between myself and the anarcho-cap crowd. I cling, bitterly, to the proposition that they can, a premise that is rejected by the AnCap folk...and believe me, their argument in that matter is strong and seductive.
I read Atlas Shrugged fairly recently, as these things go (about a year and a half ago), and I'd say you have it right, gwa.45.
My take on whether governments can secure those rights is, in effect, "They can...for a while." How long a while depends on how a body feels about the War Between the States, or maybe the Whiskey Rebellion. ;)
Add to the previous: Neither state nor statelessness will achieve Utopia. It's still gonna have people in it either way, and you take the good with the bad. One has to choose between them on some other basis.
...and believe me, their argument in that matter is strong and seductive.
Oh, I agree. The problem is, as you once pointed out, that their model requires the majority of the population to be exceptional, and the bell curve doesn't support that.
AnCap is unworkable for exactly the same reason that Marxism is unworkable - they both require human beings to not act like human beings. And Objectivism - taken to its logical conclusion - is, to me, indistinguishable from AnCap. If it is - always and everywhere - EVIL to tax people, and the government is thus prohibited from doing so, then you end up with no government - anarchy by definition.
If you acknowledge, as I do, that GOVERNMENT IS EVIL BY DEFINITION, but a necessary one, then the AnCap crowd and Objectivists consider you not just wrong, but evil as well.
Government is FORCE, and coercive governments WORK, because human beings act like human beings.
I don't think you're evil, Kevin. You might not even be wrong. ;)
I'm reading Atlas Shrugged (for the second time) now, so this is fresh for me. John Galt, in his radio speech, says that there are three, and only three, valid government functions: 1) Military, to protect the citizens from outside threats, 2) police, to protect the citizens from internal threats and 3) courts, to uphold contracts and mediate disputes between parties in said contracts. Doesn't seem that Ayn Rand is advocating anarchy, and she DOES seem to indicate that people will be people and that defense against evil is needed.
The problem as I see it is that the real-life captains of industry (as epitomized in Atlas Shrugged by John Galt, Hank Reardon and Dagny Taggart) generally don't have the level of purity the characters in the book do. They're prone to seek power too, they're imperfect, they'll try to get something-for-nothing. Stay-out-of-their-way-and-let-them-produce only works if the producers are perfect which, as we've said SO many times here, is not going to happen. Real industrial giants are much more like Donald Trump than Hank Rearden.
That is at least partially because we have allowed conditions to arise in which "farming the government," so to speak, is a payoff strategy.
Indeed, in her non-fiction she was a strong proponent for a state monopoly on force. Not anarchist at all.
Well, as you point out, the necessity of evil is still evil.
But let's examine it for a bt.
Let's posit we can go Full Locke and contruct a revised Constitution that, for all practical purposes, also takes seriously the premise that government exists solely for the purpose of securing one's natural rights. For the sake of argument, let us assume it actually does that, with all the necessary protective and corrective measures in place.
Where are the boundaries of friction? Where are the moral hazards emanating from coercion?
Generally, there are 3:
The use of Force for Police powers: Presuming they are only brought to bear upon transgressors of the rights of others, this isn't really a moral hazard.
Military Discipline: The only morally valid military is a voluntary one. While we have historically provided for conscientous objection, the restrictions on it are too tight, requiring objection to *all* war, and failing to support the individual's potentially principled objection to a *specific* war. Resignation from the military (with possible consequences to benefits, as a matter of contract) should always be valid, except when in actual combat. This system would prevent unpopular military adventurism, yet allow for the possibility.
Taxes: Presumably, a taxpayer would voluntarilly see benefit in paying the taxes that fund the governmnt that genuinely secures one's natural rights. There will be, however, exceptions, both individual in nature (ie: conscientious objection to funding war material) and eventually, taxes to fund items whose connection to natural right security and rule of law grows tenuous (Postal service? roads?) Since the only morally valid taxation system is voluntary, a right of conscientous objection to tax payment must also be respected. If we posit a system in which the taxpayer can selectively with hold portions of taxes for that which he finds objectionable, while funding the rest, we will have an important check upon government reach into the pocket for things of dubious value to the payer.
So, my point is this: yes, government is evil, and there's places where moral hazards are created by coercion, but those hazards can and should be mitigated with a system of supported conscientious objection.
Since the only morally valid taxation system is voluntary, a right of conscientous objection to tax payment must also be respected. If we posit a system in which the taxpayer can selectively with hold portions of taxes for that which he finds objectionable, while funding the rest, we will have an important check upon government reach into the pocket for things of dubious value to the payer.
And this has worked where, exactly? Ken refers to the "free rider" problem. Here you will have it writ large. Once again, for this system to work, the majority of the population must be extraordinary, and that ain't happening.
To repeat:
Reality is the murder of a beautiful theory by a gang of ugly facts.
Theory and reality are only theoretically related.
In theory there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is.
The AnCap theory is seductive and beautiful and logically flawless. So is Objectivism. Unfortunately, humanity doesn't work that way.
Which system do you think will have the bigger free rider problem? An inexpensive minimalist system that fundamentally foreswears the use of force to collect taxes, or an innevitably maximalist system that asserts fundamental right of force to collect taxes for whatever purpose a demagogue can convince 50%+1 that it will benefit them?
To my knowledge, what I've proposed has never been tried. If anything, what I'm doing is advocating that government doesn't get to deploy some right-of-force to carve itself an exemption from free market forces for the service it provides.
What are the failure modes of each of these systems? The risk for the miimalist system is that it will go bankrupt, thus forcing people to either let it expire, (thus, risking anarchy, and the rise of a maximalist system) or reconsider whether it is of value to them. The failure mode of the maixmalist system is what we are living: the system itself asserts more and greater power to grasp to ensure its continued survival.
Conidering that a majority of our population feels fine paying even redistributionist taxes, I don't think the population need be all that extraordinary to pay limited taxes for limited government.
What are the failure modes of each of these systems? The risk for the miimalist system is that it will go bankrupt, thus forcing people to either let it expire, (thus, risking anarchy, and the rise of a maximalist system) or reconsider whether it is of value to them. The failure mode of the maixmalist system is what we are living: the system itself asserts more and greater power to grasp to ensure its continued survival.
You called it: What you are advocating will result in what we are living. It just takes a while. Look at the U.S. prior to passage of the 16th Amendment, and what has resulted since. There's your model.
As opposed to advocating ...what...exactly?
The thing we're already living?
OK. I get it. You reject anarchy. Check. Me too.
You reject maxarchy...at least from previous writings I gather that. Check. Me too.
You reject minarchy? Really? Or you can't find a distinction between minarchy and anarchy?
At least pruning the bush of state back to its minarchy roots has some hope!
I don't reject minarchy. I see no way of getting there from where we are without going through, not anarchy but chaos. (The AnCaps are quite emphatic about the difference.)
The biggest problem I see is that what comes out of chaos is almost never an improvement over anything but chaos. It almost certainly wouldn't be an improvement over what we have now.
Governments, being made up of human beings (notably ungoverned, as Shepherd Book pointed out) never give up power willingly, and seldom grudgingly. It must be taken from them, often violently. Once violence ensues, chaos waits not far behind, and is exceedingly difficult to avoid. As I have quoted Ambrose Bierce before, "Revolution is an abrupt change in the form of misgovernment."
I saw a sigline once that reasonated. I don't recall the exact phrasing, but it basically said, "If it must happen, let it happen now so that I may bear the burden and my children and theirs will be spared."
I don't see a way out, Geek. Billy Beck is right: we're not voting our way out of this.
Keydoke. I wasn't sure where you were coming from.
I saw a sigline once that reasonated. I don't recall the exact phrasing, but it basically said, "If it must happen, let it happen now so that I may bear the burden and my children and theirs will be spared."
* * *
Dunno if this is what you're thinking of, but this is what your words reminded me of:
"Stand your ground; don't fire unless fired upon, but if they mean to have a war, let it begin here." - Cpt. John Parker, Lexington Green
No, but that's a good one.
Well, as you point out, the necessity of evil is still evil.
I always thought Madison disposed of that most neatly:
"If men were angels, no government would be necessary."
Can the full cost of the postal service be funded through postage? I like where this is going, and I want to be sensitive to the free-rider issue.
Scale, as it so often does, becomes part of the mischief. Where free-riders are relatively more anonymous, it's harder to "voluntarily police" them, to coin a phrase, by shunning. Shunning can be extraordinarily effective in a small enough community.
Perhaps what gwa.45 outlines can be done via contract. It may be easier to work if there's a Coventry or some territories for them as prefer to light out for the territories.
That's the real problem with it, so far as I can see. It pretty much requires some sort of frontier where people who don't wish to pay for things they object to can likewise opt out of the benefits of those things.
Which is why there are so many libertarian scifi writers. Get me off this rock.
"Can the full cost of the postal service be funded through postage?"
It almost is. See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Postal_Service
where we find this:
"The United States Postal Service (USPS) is an independent agency of the United States government, organized as an "independent establishment of the executive branch", responsible for providing postal service in the United States."
and this:
"Since its reorganization into an independent organization, the USPS has become self-sufficient and has not directly received taxpayer-dollars since the early 1980s with the minor exception of subsidies for costs associated with the disabled and overseas voters. However, it is currently borrowing money from the U.S. Treasury to pay its deficits. The decline of mail volume, due to the increased usage of email, has forced the postal service to look to other sources of revenue while cutting costs to maintain this financial balance."
My older brother has worked for the Post Office for 34 years. His stories make it obvious that the Postal Service could easily be supported by postage alone if it weren't (ahem) managed by buffoons. Generally, managers are recruited from sorters, carriers, and clerks, and usually are promoted to management because they have failed everything else.
Yes, really.
It's quite simple how it works. The Postal Service is heavily unionized, such that people are terminated only for gross rule violations but not for even gross incompetence. So, a manager removes an incompetent sorter, carrier, or clerk via promotion into management, which enables someone else to bid the vacated job, the winner of which just might be a bit more competent. Thus, no training or aptitude for management is required, and it shows.
Wallace's essay was interesting. He was mainly commenting on a book by Thomas Sowell. The book categorizes people as of either the constrained or unconstrained view:
Those who believe in the constrained vision [rightism] dismiss the notion that humanity has the ability to create "solutions" to the problems that are inherent in imperfect human nature. Instead, they generally favor practical trade-offs and support the wisdom inherent in tradition, religion and millennia-old experience, instead of the subjective and ever-changing morality of a self-appointed "intellectual elite." They believe people are inherently flawed.
Those who believe in the unconstrained vision[leftism], on the other hand, support a morally superior "intellectual elite" which alone has the ability (and therefore the responsibility) to guide the masses and remake society according to their vision. They believe that human nature is plastic and can be molded according to their wishes. Consequently, they believe in complete free will, something that those who adhere to the constrained vision do not. As a result, they have no problem with destroying societies, believing something better will immediately pop up to take their places.
I guess I am more of a constrained view in that I believe human beings will always be fallible. Later in the essay, Wallace writes:
I see libertarianism as an ideal, one not attainable because of the imperfections of human nature. Hubris prevents it. The tribal nature of man prevents it. The lust for power prevents it. Blaming others prevents it. Libertarianism is an ideal, one of course always to be striven and fought for, but probably never attained.
I think any this statement is true of any ideal, and there proposed ideal societies. The "Galtian Utopia" is an ideal. Marxism is an ideal. Democracy is an ideal. Minarchism is an ideal. None are achievable so the debate should be not which one is possible but rather which one will do the least amount of damage when it goes off the rails. And perhaps how fast each of them will go off the rails.
Cases on point:
1) The Soviet Union was an attempt to create a marxist ideal. It went off the rails immediately after it was formed and murdered over 30 million people in the process in the 69 years it took to finish its destruction.
2) The United States has lasted 234 years. When it went off the rails (or if it did) is up for debate. It has a few black eyes (slavery, civil war) but doesn't come close to the Sovier Union as far as damage. How much longer it will last is unknown.
I like the idea of minarchist societies or "Galtian Utopias" but their damage potential seems extremely high. An ideal world requires ideal people, which are in short supply.
I didn't think I was going to like the essay (but I did after RTWT) based on the quote's misapplication of the "Galtian Utopia." Reaching way back in my memory, I recall that Galt's Gulch was exclusively a voluntary association of the Supermen. Sure, it would not have worked en masse, but they didn't try it. You had to sign up and you had to be worthy.
I think the quintessential difference between Objectivism and other flavors of the UV is that the Objectivist seeks self-perfection while the others seek to bring their version of perfection to everyone else (with the inevitable horror). I don't see the harm in trying to perfect yourself, especially when that perfection requires that you have no right to rule others (perhaps I'm reading too much into Galt's creed).
I have to stop now because I've defended Objectivism too much and I feel dirty.
Sure, it would not have worked en masse, but they didn't try it.
My observation is that nothing works en masse, at least if what one is trying to work is individual liberty. It's the mass (the scale, to give it its right name) that is the problem, and it's insoluble. Too many opportunities for a man not to have to answer directly for his own mistakes (or perfidy).
The real problem with Galt's Gulch isn't the voluntary association of supermen, it's the fact that those supermen are (by necessity and by definition) a tiny minority of the population, and when the vast majority FINDS THEM it will be ugly. Very ugly. As Heinlein put it long ago,
Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition of man. Advances which permit this norm to be exceeded--here and there, now and then--are the work of an extremely small minority, frequently despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes happens) is driven out of a society, the people then slip back into abject poverty. This is known as “bad luck.”
On the whole, RAH had reality on his side a lot more. But don't forget that Galt's Gulch was protected by magic, so this would obviously not have been a problem for them. :-P
Atlas Shrugged was a beautiful fantasy in its own way. Even inspiring. But it was clearly a fantasy. I just wanted to emphasize the fundamental difference between the collectivist UV and the libertarian/Objectivist one. It's a great thing to believe people can change and to encourage them to do so (in the non-cynical sense of the word) - it's just not a very good foundation for a policy.
You guys really need to read Democracy: The God That Failed by Hans-Hermann Hoppe. Even the first 30 pages. It will blow your mind.
You guys really need to read Democracy: The God That Failed by Hans-Hermann Hoppe.
"Et's oan my t'do list!" [/shrek]
I don't care if you're constrained or un constrained, just keep your damn stupid-giant and butt-ugly High-Speed Rail out of my town!
Note: All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost; references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>