What is your view of Libertarianism and Ayn Rand?

[JonBonham]

Ayn Rand, can you elaborate how a society run on Objectivist values would look like? Is everyone free to do as the please in every way as long as it furthers their self-interest or just gifted people and how are they told apart? And if me creating my better products causes harm to others while benefiting myself, would I still be free to do this in an Objectivist free society?

 

[Leoreth]

"Gifted" people are just one advantageous product of a free society - and a very good one. Everyone benefits when first-rate minds invent and design new products, art or buildings [to name a few things] so it's in the interests of all to give as much possible freedom to the most talented members of society.

However, Objectivism is really more about rationality and freedom than it is about elevating a gifted elite. It's quite easy for people to become jealous or resentful of others who have done well, which is one of the major themes explored in Objectivism. But in reality, an Objectivist society should in principle be good for all members, as everyone benefits from better art, better buildings and so on. However, anyone who is rational and lives a good life is potentially a good Objectivist, it doesn't matter how wealthy or "elite" they are.

Okay, thanks for that answer. So do I understand you correctly in that there are no inherently "more gifted" people and that in a completely free society, everyone would be able to realize a beneficial ability?

Because if that's not the case, I wonder what's supposed to happen to those who don't. They have nothing to offer to trade for the wonderful inventions or works of art the elite (let's call them that) produces, so how do they benefit from it? Does the elite share the fruits of their talents for free?

If not, we're back to square one of my question: isn't it in the best self-interest of these less gifted people to set up a system of redistribution?

 

[Ayn Rand]

Ayn Rand, can you elaborate how a society run on Objectivist values would look like?

Well, the first thing any peaceful and democratic society requires is consensus [where most people agree to do things a certain way], and consensus nearly always requires compromise [where people seek the middle ground rather and sacrifice some of their interests in order to gain the cooperation of other people].

So as most people are not Objectivists, an Objectivist society would be almost impossible. Objectivism is not naturally inclined to compromise or consensus-seeking behaviour - although it is peaceful and freedom-seeking.

So realistically, an Objectivist society would probably look like some kind of "enclave" - a special area of some sort which was Objectivist in nature and which practised rigorous free market capitalism, but which is not a direct part of the wider society with which it would presumably be incompatible.

Its main characteristics would be low taxes, strict property laws, a very clear and possibly uncompromising justice system and hopefully high innovation, concentration of capital in private hands and so on. But whether this would even work in practise, never mind what it would look like, is a difficult question to answer.

Is everyone free to do as the please in every way as long as it furthers their self-interest or just gifted people and how are they told apart? And if me creating my better products causes harm to others while benefiting myself, would I still be free to do this in an Objectivist free society?

Objectivits are mincarchists so there would be a system of laws, police and courts to prevent individuals harming one another. Initiation of aggression between individuals would be illegal, as would fraud, breach of contract, theft and so on. So an individual would be free largely in the current sense - you can do what you want as long as it is within the law and harms no other person.

Products that harm others are complex to deal with because of the nature of what economists refer to as externalities, but in principle Objectivism is against the harming of other people without their consent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality

There would not be any kind of State-enforced hierarchy between gifted and non-gifted people. But there would almost certainly arise a "natural hierarchy" of differing economic power - there is a danger that such a hierarchy could get "out of control" with weak and vulnerable people being pushed "into the gutter" and the strong acting with impunity. In such a case, the Utopia would become a Dystopia

 

[warpus]

Its main characteristics would be low taxes, strict property laws, a very clear and possibly uncompromising justice system and hopefully high innovation, concentration of capital in private hands and so on. But whether this would even work in practise, never mind what it would look like, is a difficult question to answer.

Low taxes, so there wouldn't be any universal healthcare or subsidized education? What about public transportation, would that be financed by taxes, by something else, or not exist altogether?

What about stuff like welfare or unemployment insurance?

I guess what I'm basically asking is.. How low would these taxes be, and what exactly would they pay for?

 

[Crezth]

Low taxes, so there wouldn't be any universal healthcare or subsidized education? What about public transportation, would that be financed by taxes, by something else, or not exist altogether?

What about stuff like welfare or unemployment insurance?

I guess what I'm basically asking is.. How low would these taxes be, and what exactly would they pay for?

I could probably field this one.

Ayn Rand herself said that she thought taxes should only pay for a defense force, to protect the country from invaders and the justice system, which would handle civil disputes (not exactly legal issues per se, but when one man uses force against another). You see, the proposed Objectivist system isn't entirely lawless, however it places a strong priority on people having personal responsibility, and punishes those who would break the Objectivist code by employing force against their fellow man.

It goes a little deeper (especially on force and what she thought about it and how she thought forceful individuals would pervert an Objectivist society) but the poster Ayn Rand probably wants me out of this thread so

\/\/\/ pretty much.

 

[MagisterCultuum]

Presumable they would be just enough to pay to enforce property rights. Just cops, courts, and soldiers.


A geolibertarian would not have taxes support those other things either, but would recognize that property rights are a monopolistic privilege that counts as unacceptable aggression unless the landowners pay to compensate the landless. There would thus be a citizen dividend to provide basic income for anyone, which could be voluntarily used to contribute towards healthcare, education, transportation, etc.

(Personally I would support some taxpayer funded free education, up to the level needed to function as and make an informed decision as to whether to become a citizen. There is also no reason for the state not to coordinate infrastructure using donated funds and any unclaimed citizen dividends.)

 

[JollyRoger]

rigorous free market capitalism,

Its main characteristics would be low taxes, strict property laws, a very clear and possibly uncompromising justice system and hopefully high innovation, concentration of capital in private hands and so on.

Taxes, strict property laws (landlordism), and an uncompromising justice system (upholding of privileges) are aspects of capitalism, but not aspects of a rigorous free market.

 

[amadeus]

See, that's part of why I can't embrace Objectivism—they want communist police, communist jails and communist judges!

 

[JonBonham]

So as most people are not Objectivists, an Objectivist society would be almost impossible. Objectivism is not naturally inclined to compromise or consensus-seeking behaviour - although it is peaceful and freedom-seeking.

So realistically, an Objectivist society would probably look like some kind of "enclave" - a special area of some sort which was Objectivist in nature and which practised rigorous free market capitalism, but which is not a direct part of the wider society with which it would presumably be incompatible.

Its main characteristics would be low taxes, strict property laws, a very clear and possibly uncompromising justice system and hopefully high innovation, concentration of capital in private hands and so on. But whether this would even work in practise, never mind what it would look like, is a difficult question to answer.

Most people aren't anything, but a good philosophy/social system is one that would work better than others. For instance, democracy over facism, our current economic model compared to zimbabwe or somalia, our current capitalist-whatever vs planned economy communism etc. all of these systems function on a large country level scale to varying degrees of success regardless of the personal viewpoints and philosophies of 'most people' so for instance if the masses voted for an Objectivist party, how would the Objectivists shape the country and what would that country look like?

I could probably field this one.

Ayn Rand herself said that she thought taxes should only pay for a defense force, to protect the country from invaders and the justice system, which would handle civil disputes (not exactly legal issues per se, but when one man uses force against another). You see, the proposed Objectivist system isn't entirely lawless, however it places a strong priority on people having personal responsibility, and punishes those who would break the Objectivist code by employing force against their fellow man.

It goes a little deeper (especially on force and what she thought about it and how she thought forceful individuals would pervert an Objectivist society) but the poster Ayn Rand probably wants me out of this thread so

\/\/\/ pretty much.

No way! (unless you want to, of course. My thread, Red Diamond, I don't want you or Ayn Rand out of this thread, hopefully you can both address eachother fully and keep the discussion going, but keep the discussion going nonetheless!

See, that's part of why I can't embrace Objectivism—they want communist police, communist jails and communist judges!

So as you know I'm not the most familiar with Liberterianism either and I do plan on getting around to reading up on it (Ron Paul is in your sig so I'm guessing I should click so links eventually) but I would still like to hear yur PoV of in a Liberterian country how the law would work (or lack thereof?) or enforcement and the such?

There would not be any kind of State-enforced hierarchy between gifted and non-gifted people. But there would almost certainly arise a "natural hierarchy" of differing economic power - there is a danger that such a hierarchy could get "out of control" with weak and vulnerable people being pushed "into the gutter" and the strong acting with impunity. In such a case, the Utopia would become a Dystopia

Good to know the state wouldn't enforce any such things, but as naturally not everyone is equal in all aspects nor equal opourtunities available to all (as in, finite resources, industries, land, etc. as well as not everyone is going to come up with great inventions the masses want or need) and so with the weak, vulnerable, and just simply not 'gifted' to create such inventions 'pushed into the gutter' as you say and the strong acting with impunity out of their own personal self-interest as what seems to be author Ayn Rand's view of moral correctness, is this not the ideal outcome of an Objectivist society? Impunity and Dystopia being the natural end of the strong/smart/gifted getting 'out of control' as you said due to the free liberty of the Objectivist society?

 

[Ayn Rand]

Okay, thanks for that answer. So do I understand you correctly in that there are no inherently "more gifted" people and that in a completely free society, everyone would be able to realize a beneficial ability?

Some people are certainly more gifted than others - it's just that one doesn't need to be highly gifted in order to live [or to want to live] a rational life, in a free society.

Every "productive" person would presumably be able to realize a beneficial ability, but as for your next question:

Because if that's not the case, I wonder what's supposed to happen to those who don't. They have nothing to offer to trade for the wonderful inventions or works of art the elite (let's call them that) produces, so how do they benefit from it? Does the elite share the fruits of their talents for free?

If not, we're back to square one of my question: isn't it in the best self-interest of these less gifted people to set up a system of redistribution?

Those who are "non-productive" [disability, accident, bad luck, low skills etc] are going to be in the same situation they are in our current society - they will suffer a varying array of comparative disadvantages which may be serious enough to threaten their well-being in a serious way. There will also be those in a state of complete dependency - people born with incurable illnesses etc.

Objectivism's answer to this problem is private charity - which critics say is far from sufficient. A lot of people think that more certain guarantees [a welfare system] are necessary to look after people who are hopelessly dependent on others for their welfare.

Personally I think private charity is the best option if it can work, but if doesn't work and you have starving orphans or somesuch, then an intelligent society has no choice but to find some other solution as [IMO] a society fails if it can't solve this problem. So yes, at that point it would be in their interests to take steps to get food or welfare etc, as it is possible that people could be left behind in a cold way and unnecessary suffering is not desirable.

Low taxes, so there wouldn't be any universal healthcare or subsidized education? What about public transportation, would that be financed by taxes, by something else, or not exist altogether?

What about stuff like welfare or unemployment insurance?

I guess what I'm basically asking is.. How low would these taxes be, and what exactly would they pay for?

As Crezth posted, the "taxes" [such as they are] would take care of army, courts, police. So a John Locke approach to the State - it is there to protect your person, property and liberty from domestic/foreign aggression, and nothing else.

So there would be no State schools, transport, hospitals, but there would be private ones. This is another area where Objectivism draws criticism - people say that an Objectivist society would have undercapitalised public transport, unfair health system etc - and even possibly a growing class of illiterates.

Objectivists think that these things would not happen and that private enterprise and personal initiative would solve the problems. But there is of course a risk that it may not work too well in practise, given some of the problems involved such as collecting tolls from roads [difficult, so why build a private road?] and such-like.

However, it's also possible that private enterprise might do it better than the State currently does - and we would also have a higher degree of economic and personal freedom, which is highly desirable in itself and may compensate for any potential risks involved in public services.

 

[JollyRoger]

If your enclave is made up of like-minded Objectivists, why would you need courts or police?

 

[Crezth]

No way! (unless you want to, of course. My thread, Red Diamond, I don't want you or Ayn Rand out of this thread, hopefully you can both address eachother fully and keep the discussion going, but keep the discussion going nonetheless!

I like you, Jon Bonham. I hope this forum doesn't crush that tireless enthusiasm for debate out of you.

In some ways, Rand was a pragmatist. It was her opinion that any irrational, amoral character ("evil" people as she brilliantly termed them) would come out on top over a rational, moral character if the two were working together in a cooperative relationship. Because of her definition of cooperation - essentially, anything that isn't coercion - this meant that in an Objectivist society, one bad egg would spoil the bunch.

You'd think this would lead to her admitting that maybe her philosophy isn't that, y'know, practical, but no. She just doubles down on the crazy and says that that's why you need a government. Just, not the kind of government you or I know, Jack. It'd be a collection of oligarchs great men ruling over everyone with a iron fist beneficent palm. They'd be a vanguard party vanguard party for Objectivism to protect it against and eventually stamp out the parasites. This is why I say Rand is authoritarian.

I'm being a little extreme in my characterization of Objectivism here, but it's important to realize Ayn Rand didn't believe in any compromise. At all. So democracy, to her, is an utterly fruitless system, and any cognitive dissonance that may shine through her simultaneous admittance of the inferior practicality of Objectivism versus what she calls "irrational" self-interest* is quickly dismissed as being irrelevant. No, it's very relevant, and in fact is why contemporary critiques like BioShock are so on-the-money.

*To clarify, irrational self-interest would be, say, killing someone if it meant making a clean profit. It's "irrational" because it's employing force against another person, but it's still self-interest. If nobody can stop you - either because they don't know about it or simply don't have the raw ability to stop you - then nobody will. This is also, broadly speaking, one of the main problems with minarchism (although libertarians will tell you that government doesn't mitigate this problem), but that's another topic. Suffice it to say that Rand's philosophy is imbalanced with regard to the necessity of a justice system.

 

[JonBonham]

In some ways, Rand was a pragmatist. It was her opinion that any irrational, amoral character ("evil" people as she brilliantly termed them) would come out on top over a rational, moral character if the two were working together in a cooperative relationship. Because of her definition of cooperation - essentially, anything that isn't coercion - this meant that in an Objectivist society, one bad egg would spoil the bunch.

You'd think this would lead to her admitting that maybe her philosophy isn't that, y'know, practical, but no. She just doubles down on the crazy and says that that's why you need a government. Just, not the kind of government you or I know, Jack. It'd be a collection of oligarchs great men ruling over everyone with a iron fist beneficent palm. They'd be a vanguard party vanguard party for Objectivism to protect it against and eventually stamp out the parasites

But how would these Great Men be chosen to rule the Objectivist society, would the selection process be democratic or, for Ayn Rand the poster, what do you see as the government side of things? And as for making a clean profit, if government is only to protect from foreigners and, say, murderers, (putting aside the clean profit murder aside here for a bit) what if my company employs the less gifted to make my beneficial and profitable products, and after hiring those less gifted run of the mill types, I enact policy that forbids quitting, have the security force to enfore that, and then strip away all wages and just provide the bare essentials for my employees to live, eat and make my product (I don't need to give them to much incentives to do a good job cause it doesn't take any brainpower for these guys to do their jobs, I pay the smart people well, these guys just put the parts together and my security makes sure they do it well). As my self-interest is being met and no one is being harmed (they get food, shelter, job security) is there anything wrong with this from an Objective PoV?

Personally I think private charity is the best option if it can work, but if doesn't work and you have starving orphans or somesuch, then an intelligent society has no choice but to find some other solution as [IMO] a society fails if it can't solve this problem. So yes, at that point it would be in their interests to take steps to get food or welfare etc, as it is possible that people could be left behind in a cold way and unnecessary suffering is not desirable.

I can understand that from a Liberterian PoV (I think...) but isn't charity against what Objectivism is about, if self-interest and rational selfishness is the moral correct way to proceed and if selfishness is a virtue, that produces profit and doesn't harm others, why should that profit be shared via charities and why should ANY charity be expected in an Objectivist society? Would it make the most sense that there is NO charity as charity goes against the Objectivist PoV?

 

[Ayn Rand]

but the poster Ayn Rand probably wants me out of this thread so

I haven't said that, nor do I think it. I value very much the fact that you are here to put another opinion forward

Taxes, strict property laws (landlordism), and an uncompromising justice system (upholding of privileges) are aspects of capitalism, but not aspects of a rigorous free market.

How so? Are you talking about a pure anarchy/communism?

See, that's part of why I can't embrace Objectivism—they want communist police, communist jails and communist judges!

so for instance if the masses voted for an Objectivist party, how would the Objectivists shape the country and what would that country look like?

An Objectivist party wouldn't have the complete freedom to start society again from scratch, so it would concentrate on removing regulations, strengthening rule of laws, dismantling welfare and regulation, lowering taxes and widening the scope for freedom of speech.

It wouldn't look too different from any other developed Western democracy, although over time [assuming they got re-elected] you could expect to see some changes in society in the form [presumably] of greater creativity in the arts, loosening of laws [such as drug laws], possibly increased "inequality" in wealth, reduced government intervention and more self-reliance and individual maturity as people knew they had to take care of themselves economically.

Impunity and Dystopia being the natural end of the strong/smart/gifted getting 'out of control' as you said due to the free liberty of the Objectivist society?

It's a possible pathway - I don't think it's the "natural" pathway in the sense of abuse of power or the use of coercion. However, there could be a certain coldness, a certain arrogance even, which could become the norm in a society that defined itself as elitist. But then on the other hand, there would be greater human freedom and potential for people to help one another. It's something that one can only ponder, as it has never really been tried.

If your enclave is made up of like-minded Objectivists, why would you need courts or police?

Well, we still need to find the "impure" and drink their blood!

But how would these Great Men be chosen to rule the Objectivist society, would the selection process be democratic or, for Ayn Rand the poster, what do you see as the government side of things? And as for making a clean profit, if government is only to protect from foreigners and, say, murderers, (putting aside the clean profit murder aside here for a bit)

I contend the view that Objectivism would lead to an actual "oligarchy" ruled by "great men". The point of Objectivism is that there are no Tzars/Kings/Oligarchs.

So an Objectivist society would not be "ruled" in that sense. The author Ayn Rand detested Plato and his philosophy - and one of Plato's ideas is that a society should be divided into "men of gold, men of silver and men of bronze". The men of gold would be philosopher kings, and he described their rule in his work "the Republic".

That kind of vision is totally rejected by us, it is inherently totalitarian. The risks an Objectivist society faces are the risks of freedom, not the risks of tyranny and oligarchy.

what if my company employs the less gifted to make my beneficial and profitable products, and after hiring those less gifted run of the mill types, I enact policy that forbids quitting, have the security force to enfore that, and then strip away all wages and just provide the bare essentials for my employees to live, eat and make my product (I don't need to give them to much incentives to do a good job cause it doesn't take any brainpower for these guys to do their jobs, I pay the smart people well, these guys just put the parts together and my security makes sure they do it well). As my self-interest is being met and no one is being harmed (they get food, shelter, job security) is there anything wrong with this from an Objective PoV?

Rule of law exists, so you would have to employ people by contracts. If you break their contracts, they will take you to court and sue you. Also, you cannot use force to keep people at work - they can leave and go to work for your competitor. They're protected from force and if you coerce them, you'll find yourself on the wrong side of the justice system and thrown into jail like any other criminal.

On top of that, there is political freedom - your workers will probably be members of a trade union. They can also express themselves by, say, joining a worker's or socialist party if they wish to. They can write to newspapers, or go on television, and journalists and academics will be interested in such an abuse.

So yes, there is much, much wrong with what you said - your "original sin" was to initiate aggression against your workers. You denied them their liberty, their freedom to choose and to consider alternatives, and you would be put in jail for a long time

 

[Old Hippy]

...(I don't need to give them to much incentives to do a good job cause it doesn't take any brainpower for these guys to do their jobs, I pay the smart people well, these guys just put the parts together and my security makes sure they do it well). As my self-interest is being met and no one is being harmed (they get food, shelter, job security) is there anything wrong with this from an Objective PoV?



I can understand that from a Liberterian PoV (I think...) but isn't charity against what Objectivism is about, if self-interest and rational selfishness is the moral correct way to proceed and if selfishness is a virtue, that produces profit and doesn't harm others, why should that profit be shared via charities and why should ANY charity be expected in an Objectivist society? Would it make the most sense that there is NO charity as charity goes against the Objectivist PoV?

its all been done before, thats just an old style workhouse, minus the TB and Cholera and Dickens wrote about it , prompting people to make change, yet people still think that private charity guided by self interest can do it better than government

Charity only works effectively when the others interest is put first, thats the real problem with the self interest group

 

[JonBonham]

An Objectivist party wouldn't have the complete freedom to start society again from scratch, so it would concentrate on removing regulations, strengthening rule of laws, dismantling welfare and regulation, lowering taxes and widening the scope for freedom of speech.

It wouldn't look too different from any other developed Western democracy, although over time [assuming they got re-elected] you could expect to see some changes in society in the form [presumably] of greater creativity in the arts, loosening of laws [such as drug laws], possibly increased "inequality" in wealth, reduced government intervention and more self-reliance and individual maturity as people knew they had to take care of themselves economically.

I understand it hasn't been tried and so we can't discuss it as we can with, say, communism in all it's varying forms or feudalism etc. etc. but my intent and questions are not to discuss how Objectivists would 'start' to affect change, but, say, down the road after several windfall elections and support and just change in general, the country gladly embraces Objectivism, how would this Objectivist society look like, in theory then if we can't draw upon practicesed examples?

I contend the view that Objectivism would lead to an actual "oligarchy" ruled by "great men". The point of Objectivism is that there are no Tzars/Kings/Oligarchs.

So an Objectivist society would not be "ruled" in that sense. The author Ayn Rand detested Plato and his philosophy - and one of Plato's ideas is that a society should be divided into "men of gold, men of silver and men of bronze". The men of gold would be philosopher kings, and he described their rule in his work "the Republic".

That kind of vision is totally rejected by us, it is inherently totalitarian. The risks an Objectivist society faces are the risks of freedom, not the risks of tyranny and oligarchy.

But if not ruled by Philosopher Kings, how and who would run the government that enforced the laws and courts? How would they attain these positions and based on what? For instance, as for the laws, is it democracy? So a certain company doesn't like this law but another does, who and how is it decided?

Rule of law exists, so you would have to employ people by contracts. If you break their contracts, they will take you to court and sue you. Also, you cannot use force to keep people at work - they can leave and go to work for your competitor. They're protected from force and if you coerce them, you'll find yourself on the wrong side of the justice system and thrown into jail like any other criminal.

On top of that, there is political freedom - your workers will probably be members of a trade union. They can also express themselves by, say, joining a worker's or socialist party if they wish to. They can write to newspapers, or go on television, and journalists and academics will be interested in such an abuse.

But who makes these contracts if the Government is not to interfere in business? What if my Contract says you're tied in forever and can't come out? Who decides what my business can and cannot put in the contracts I have for my employees? My contract states business policies may change, and I change them so that my company doesn't allow quitting? What government authority has that kind of authority over how I run my business? And my business doesn't allow or hire union members. And I don't care about negative feedback in the media because my business empire is solid and people will buy my products regardless. Keep in mind sweatshops exist all around the world, so it's not like I'm making up extremes here. But right now I'm trying to see what the line between completely unregulated capitalism and government regulation is. Just what does the government regulate besides what I can and cannot put in my businesses contract?

2) What if I allow them to quit if they want but also happen to be the biggest company in the country and the only one hiring? The masses have the choice of trying to get work at these other companies to limited success, unemployment, or work at my massive conglomerate. Since they freely chose to work for me, I am free to just give them room and board in my company lodgings (not the best kept because it makes no financial sense to provide decent housing and with my market monopoly and the demand for employment I have no need to 'entice' people to work for me) and they should be happy that I provide this in return for their work, right? I also don't provide any benefits, vacation days, or any of the like because that hurts production value and I'm really not too concerned with turnover. In other words I run my factories like China and India. Since the employees have the choice to work for me or not, (even though the demand is in my favor) how does Objectivism treat this scenario?

3) Again, for charity taking care of the not-so-gifted, isn't charity against what Objectivism is about, if self-interest and rational selfishness is the moral correct way to proceed and if selfishness is a virtue, that produces profit and doesn't harm others, why should that profit be shared via charities and why should ANY charity be expected in an Objectivist society? Would it make the most sense that there is NO charity as charity goes against the Objectivist PoV?



**I am honestly curious and want to discuss this issue, and hope that this thread doesn't derail like other ones I looked up on this site. To clarify my leanings, I really don't have any as I'm still in highschool, but I am in favor of capitalism, unfond of communism and all it's manisfestations as has been tried, am aware that many claim true communism has never been tried but am doubtful 'true' communism can work, frown down upon the abuse of the welfare system, understand the how/why and benefits that came from unions but view many of them rather distastefully (due to personal experience) so while I don't personally identify as anything I want to assure you I am more right-leaning than left, though I'd say center, and I want to make this clear as earlier a few posters commented on left-leaning trolls ruining discussion. My goal here is get some eye-openings through the opinions I can find on this board while of course aiming to self-educate myself through reading hard materials on these issues. I have thoroughly enjoyed the discussion from all parties and hope it keeps up! Thanks for participating everyone!

 

[JollyRoger]

How so? Are you talking about a pure anarchy/communism?

I'm talking about a rigorous free market:

FREE MARKET: That condition of society in which all economic transactions result from voluntary choice without coercion.

PRIVILEGE: From the Latin privi, private, and lege, law. An advantage granted by the State and protected by its powers of coercion. A law for private benefit.

TAX: That form of coercion or interference with the Free Market in which the State collects tribute (the tax), allowing it to hire armed forces to practice coercion in defense of privilege, and also to engage in such wars, adventures, experiments, "reforms," etc., as it pleases, not at its own cost, but at the cost of "its" subjects.

USURY: That form of privilege or interference with the Free Market in which one State supported group monopolizes the coinage and thereby takes tribute (interest), direct or indirect, on all or most economic transactions.

LANDLORDISM: That form of privilege or interference with the Free Market in which one State-supported group "owns" the land and thereby takes tribute (rent) from those who live, work, or produce on the land.

TARIFF: That form of privilege or interference with the Free Market in which commodities produced outside the State are not allowed to compete equally with those produced inside the State.

CAPITALISM: That organization of society, incorporating elements of tax, usury, landlordism, and tariff, which thus denies the Free Market while pretending to exemplify it.

http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message1675554/pg1

 

[warpus]

As Crezth posted, the "taxes" [such as they are] would take care of army, courts, police. So a John Locke approach to the State - it is there to protect your person, property and liberty from domestic/foreign aggression, and nothing else.

I could probably field this one.

Ayn Rand herself said that she thought taxes should only pay for a defense force, to protect the country from invaders and the justice system, which would handle civil disputes (not exactly legal issues per se, but when one man uses force against another). You see, the proposed Objectivist system isn't entirely lawless, however it places a strong priority on people having personal responsibility, and punishes those who would break the Objectivist code by employing force against their fellow man.

It goes a little deeper (especially on force and what she thought about it and how she thought forceful individuals would pervert an Objectivist society) but the poster Ayn Rand probably wants me out of this thread so

What about the inability to have full liberty due to medical or socioeconomic reasons?

How would the system ensure that these individuals also have access to full liberty?

So there would be no State schools, transport, hospitals, but there would be private ones. This is another area where Objectivism draws criticism - people say that an Objectivist society would have undercapitalised public transport, unfair health system etc - and even possibly a growing class of illiterates.

Objectivists think that these things would not happen and that private enterprise and personal initiative would solve the problems. But there is of course a risk that it may not work too well in practise, given some of the problems involved such as collecting tolls from roads [difficult, so why build a private road?] and such-like.

However, it's also possible that private enterprise might do it better than the State currently does - and we would also have a higher degree of economic and personal freedom, which is highly desirable in itself and may compensate for any potential risks involved in public services.

Oh man.. nevermind my earlier questions.

No offense but what you propose would be a total and full disaster.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Except in that "existence exists,"

Actually, philosophy of science puts very little emphasis on the existence of existence. This is why science isn't interested in "truth" but on "confirmable predictions." Non-belief in existence is totally 100% compatible with science, but materialism runs into trouble.

and punishes those who would break the Objectivist code by employing force against their fellow man.

As an anarcho-pacifist, I have a had time believing that someone could see the compatibility of renouncing the use of force and of capitalism.

 

[Crezth]

What about the inability to have full liberty due to medical or socioeconomic reasons?

How would the system ensure that these individuals also have access to full liberty?

It wouldn't. Ayn Rand neither recognizes nor places any special priority on people having access to full liberty. She argues that all liberty stems from economic freedom, which itself is an idea consistent with much of the new libertarianism. Namely, that economic freedom is the one and only font of liberty.

Actually, philosophy of science puts very little emphasis on the existence of existence. This is why science isn't interested in "truth" but on "confirmable predictions." Non-belief in existence is totally 100% compatible with science, but materialism runs into trouble.

Yes, exactly! It's sort of what I was meaning to say when I said scientific knowledge isn't really objective knowledge. Thanks for clearing that up. ^^

As an anarcho-pacifist, I have a had time believing that someone could see the compatibility of renouncing the use of force and of capitalism.

It should be obvious by now that Ayn Rand (the philosopher) doesn't really understand what free markets and capitalism are.