From: carruth@mksol.dseg.ti.com (matthew carruth)
Subject: Re: Objectivism vs Libertarianism vs Anarchism
Organization: internet
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 17:08:28 GMT

In article <C0CFHn.315@tss.com>, burke@tss.com (Jim Burke) writes:
|> 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.
|> 


This is silly.  These questions were answered under comman law centuries ago.
If I own  land then I own the water on it and everything below it to the center
of the earth and above it to infinity.  Rights of transit are a separate issue
and in no way interfere with the ownership.
|> 
|> -- 


-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My views are my own and do not reflect those of my employeers....
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism