From: burke@tss.com (Jim Burke)
Subject: Re: Objectivism vs Libertarianism vs Anarchism
Reply-To: burke@tss.com (Jim Burke)
Organization: Teknekron Software Systems. Inc.
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 19:00:59 GMT

In article <1hvme3INNk4o@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, cl836@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Geoff Stark) writes:

|> The ideal political/economic system of objectivism is _full_
|> capitalism.  Individuals should be allowed to trade freely with
|> one another for mutual benefit.  No-one has the right to force
|> his desires on anyone else, physical or ideological.  A
|> government, absolutely necessary under objectivism, cannot
|> interfere with anyone's goals (as long as those goals do not
|> collide with anyone else's individual rights).  The government
|> acts only as a law enforcement agency that protects individual
|> rights and has no influence on the economy or trade.  The
|> government should exist by the will of individuals, as the
|> servant of individuals, and _not_ as an elected social conscious. 

The thing that many Objectivists have trouble with is the fact that our
government does in fact act as the servant of our population.  It does this
according to the miriad wants and desires of many elements of our society,
and a balance is reached in the process.  When things get too far out of
balance to where the majority no longer feel their needs are being met by
the government, they can and do choose another one. 

The Objectivist view tends to be embraced by those who would prosper under
"_full_ capitalism".  In other words, those with greater natural in-born
intelligence and ability, as well as access to capital, know that they would
prosper to a greater extent than those who are less intelligent or capable, or
who were not born with access to capital.  People in the latter category
demand protection of the government from the people in the former category.
The government tries (and often fails) to create a balance between all these
opposing interests.  Not everyone wants all the controls removed - Objectivists
do.  Objectivists want a government that will suit an environment in which
they personally will prosper, whether or not it is at the expense of others.
This is human nature, and I don't blame them for it, I simply point out that
there are others who want other things from the government and they also
get a vote.  Objectivists have not fundamental right to define what the
government should be - everyone has a vote.


|> It necessarily follows that the rights of the individual be
|> inalienable. "Individual rights are not subject to a public vote;
|> a majority has no right to vote away the rights of a minority;
|> the political function of rights is to protect minorities from
|> oppression by majorities (and the smallest minority on earth is
|> the individual)." - Ayn Rand

As a creature of the wild, this is true.  However, in a social setting there
are many cases where this argument breaks down.  The concepts of private
ownership of water and air are cases where the whole property rights / individual
rights argument breaks down under Objectivism.  There are others.


-- 
***********************************************************************
 Jim Burke	"Life is uncertain - eat dessert first!"
 Teknekron Software Systems		... burke@tss.com
 phone:(415) 617-2432			... uunet!tekbspa!burke
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism