Objectivism uses coercion just as often as majority rule. Take the drowning man; if he asks for help, the objectivist may sell him the use of a rope for what ever price he wants to ask, and the drowning man will pay it to save his life. That is the coercion of objectivism. I just want you to recognize it for what it is.
What? Are you confusing "Objectivism’ with something else you don’t like? Maybe re-write this into something that makes sense and I’ll respond.
Replace “drowning man” with “sick person without health insurance”, and “man with rope” with “private health coverage provider” and the analogy might be a bit more clear.
Because that’s what has historically happened in places and times that were more like you want things to be. People starved, and were exploited; the magic free market didn’t help them, nor did private charities or anything else. They suffered and died, and in many places became so desperate and angry as to turn to violence.
Have there ever actually BEEN any places that were the way Rand Rover wants them to be?
I can’t think of any modern, industrialized nation-states that gave genuine libertarianism a shot. Actually, I can’t think of any nation-states ever that gave libertarianism (or objectivism, whatever) a shot. Maybe you could argue Hong Kong, where there wasn’t any starvation that I can recall, but it seems too easy to run a city that way as opposed to a whole country.
Where and when were these examples you have in mind?
Do you suppose there is a good reason for that?
Der Trihs, you are looking at places and times where the government didn’t provide these types of services, and then you are saying that things here and now would be the same way if the government stopped providing these services. I don’t think that the second thing follows from the first.
In those places and times, no one helped the poor because they just didn’t want to. We want to here and now, we are just using the wrong tool to do it. Therefore, your argument noils down once again to the assertion that these services won’t be performed if the government doesn’t perform them.
Cite?
Cite for what? I’m just saying that the government is doing what the government is doing. Om not sure how to provide a cite for something so self-evident.
I like what Lincoln said. ““The legitimate object of government, is to do for the people whatever they need to have done, but which they can not do, at all, or can not do, so well, for themselves - in their separate and individual capacities…”
Wow, that pretty much sums up my feelings on the matter. I agree with this statement 100%.
That’s not a terribly clear quote from ol’ Abe. It could be read as supporting my position (ie, because the only things people can’t do, or can’t do as well, in their individual capacities are thingd like the military etc.) or supporting a complete welfare state position (ie, because some people are incapable of taking care of themselves and need the state to do it for them).
I think there’s lots of reasons for it, some good, some bad, some a matter of just the way countries work. That has zip to do with my point, which was not to advocate for any system of government.
Der Trihs claims that places that run the way Rand Rover have been shown through history to result in starvation. **But there AREN’T any such examples. ** So Der Trihs’s claim is absurd. He’s citing as evidence “history” that has never taken place.
Hey Fear Itself (and other proponents of the “majority rules” theory of government): what do you think of the Problem of the Momentary Majority (which I just came up with, so don’t google it)?
Here’s the problem: many government programs are easy to enact and difficult to un-enact (eg, large-scale entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicare). Therefore, the electorate could vote in a group of representatives that passes such a program then immediately vote them out the next election cycle, never to vote them in again. The momentary majority attained by this group can therefore have an influence on government policy that doesn’t truly reflect the will of the governed. Since you believe that the government’s power to do an activity flows from the will of the majority, the program enacted by the momentary majority would become an illegitimate government activity under your thory after this group is voted out.
Therefore, your theory has a problem–a momentary majority has the power to subvert the will of the actual long-term majority by enacting a program that is hard to un-enact.
Here’s one way to solve it: every government program is automatically unenacted after a certain number of years. This automatic sunset would insure that each program continues to refect the will of the majority (unless, I suppose, there is a momentary majority that pops into existence each time a program is about to sunset, which would indicate that such momentary majority isn’t so momentary after all). However, a major drawback would be that it would be difficult to plan for things such as retirement if programs such as Medicare may or may not be in place depending on whether it sunsets or not.
Here’s another solution: limit government activity to only that which is absolutely necessary (ie, to only those things that are legitimate government functions under the Rand Rover theory of government). The less government activity, the less likely it is for the government to do something that is no longer the will of the majority.
IMO, a “legitimate government functionm” is a grat deal like “judicial activism” – while an objective definition may be possible, the term is far more commonly used with an emotional connotation, to describe “what I think is legitimate” as opposed to what those clowns in the other party think is legitimate.
Slaves (most of whom would presumably vote agaisnt it if allowed) were a distinct minority. I know of no reason to suppose that women generally were any less pro-slavery than men generally. Ergo, slavery in the early years of the Republic is a textbook example of a moral evil supported by majority affirmation, and that fact cannot be waved away by pointing out that not all of the governed had the franchise.
This is equivalent to suggesting that laws against theft and assault infantilize the citizen by restricting their freedom to choose those actions.
I don’t buy for one solitary second that major government programs are “easy to enact.” Our whole damned government is built around the idea that it is hard to change things. The only policy I can really think of that is easy to enact, and tough to change, are tax cuts.
I would like you to come up with a list of programs that were “easily” enacted and have been consistently unpopular since enactment. The only programs I can think of are welfare (which was substantially overhauled 15 years ago) or things like foreign aid in which people labor under misconceptions that the programs are much larger than they are.
In my view of things, there are a number of societal requirements which can be more efficiently carried out by the government. The question of the requirements and efficiency obviously changes over time. 100 years ago, there was no requirement for a highway system, obviously; and 50 years ago the efficiency of the health care system was very likely tilted much more in the balance of individual responsibility than it is today.
I cannot help but laugh at the irony of those who bemoan the horrors of state coercion of the people; but then argue that the best function of government is to solely maintain the organs of coercion, such as the police, military, court system, etc.
Steve, he didn’t mean it as a real argument. I’ve said in other threads that long-term entitlement programs for poor people infantilizes them by absolving them of responsibility to take care of themselves and making them dependent on the government. Dear old FI was just going for a gotcha. His post doesn’t make any sense because it was not intended to.
Nonsense. Laws against theft and assault were arrived at through the democratic process as an expression of the will of the majority, and the individual has no expectation of violating the laws imposed by the majority.
On the other hand, the notion that government cannot legitimately force the individual to do anything is a moral absolute that is not an expression of the will of the majority, but simply objectivist dogma that the minority wishes to impose on the majority.
I’m not in the mood to rebut an obviously fallacious hypothetical. Make a real argument and I’ll be all over it.