From: brandyn@Apple.COM (Brandyn)
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
Subject: Re: A Warning to the Uninformed
Date: 6 Jan 93 08:11:09 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc., Cupertino, CA

In article <Jan04.200248.57942@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU> sa114984@longs.LANCE.ColoState.Edu (Steven Arnold) writes:

>    Anyway, in response to your post, I think one of the goals of this board
>is to DEBATE Objectivist ideas, to openly disagree with them if so desired, and
>to present counter-philsophies if necessary to do so. Hence, I don't think that
>every assertion needs to prefaced by, "According to Ayn Rand..."  Or Leonard
>Peikoff or Nathaniel Branden or Alan Greenspan or any of the other members of
> any past or future inner circle.

    My point, as I stated, was simply that one shouldn't call something
Objectivism that isn't.  You can debate philosophy without reguard to
particular individuals, because philosphy is the study of the reality which
is common to all.  You can argue whether Objectivism is right or wrong, because
you can compare it to reality.  But you can't argue what is and is not
Objectivism without going back to those who defined Objectivism -- Objectivism
is a proper noun, and it defines a system that is someone's particular
formulation.  As it stands today, whatever Leonard says is Objectivism is
Objectivism, and that's that.  Whether what Leonard says relates to reality
or not is a different issue (and this is, I agree, the place to debate that).

    The reason it is important to make it clear which ideas are from
Objectivism and which are from your own head is this:  People unfamiliar
with Objectivism will judge it's general worthiness according to what they
come to beleive it represents (this is obvious).  If it is misrepresented to
them, they may find it inconsistant or plainly false, in which case they'll
likely dismiss the entire philosophy as unworthy of furthur study.  This, I
assume, is not the intent of this news group.

    Objectivism is a very clean heirarchy of observations, derived from the
bottom up and therefor relatively devoid of the common misconceptions that
plague most philosophies.  I've seen alot of apparently "innocent" additions
expressed in this news group which are wholey inconsistant with the underlying
premises of Objectivism.  These additions, if accepted, will eventually lead
to a provably bad philosophy -- a philosophy that differs from Objectivism
only by some false premise long forgotten (but accepted and built upon) by
the time the problems become apparent.

    For instance:

>    Second, I think that government can provide some services beyond those
>Rand mentions without violating the right to property.

    There is an implication that preceeds even this initial assertion:  That
"property rights" is what the government should not violate.  If we accept
just that, the rest of what you say makes sense.  However, the right to
property is just a derivative of the right to act free of physical coercion.
It is this latter right that the government must protect.  The furthur the
case is carried from this point, the more the two perspectives diverge in
their conclusions:

>    First, a service must benefit the one who pays for it, in approximate
>proportion to the amount he pays. Second, EXCEPT WHERE IMPOSSIBLE, people ought
>to have the right to refuse the service and refuse to pay. But in some cases it
>is impossible to have a service at all in a country where everybody does not
>simultaneously benefit. [...]

    Even though you would allow people to "refuse to pay", there is still this
implication that you have preserved someone's "property rights" if you give
them something in exchange for what you have taken.  Your property right is
your right to control that which you create, and to decide if, when, and
for what you are willing to trade such creations.

    I realize your argument rests on the premise that you have "chosen" to
stay in this country, and have therefor willfully given your property away,
etc..  etc...  And that is a whole different discusion, so I'll continue:

> [For example] national roads (a service not mentioned by Rand
> above).  It is virtually impossible to live in this country and not benefit
> from the roads.  [...]
> [People are] obligated by merely living
> in this country and benefitting from the road system to pay taxes for the
> roads.

    Voila: you already have a government that is initiating the use of force
on it's citizens.  Whether they're getting their share of road usage is
meaningless once you've eliminated their choice in the matter -- maybe they
have asphaultophobia and would rather the world be run by horses and planes.
Objectivism ommits public roads on purpose; and public parks, and public
utilities, and public radio, and, and, and... all of which could be arguably
"unavoidable" and therefor obligatorily-paid-for services.

    The services that Rand set for government constitute the minimal set
necessary to protect man's right to freedom from physical coercion, and
nothing more.  Any furthur "service" would involve the government initiating
the use of force itself and violating it's own primary (and only) purpose.

    -Brandyn (brandyn@apple.com)

Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism