Stephan Molyneux has some good recent vids on how governments maintain their rule horizontally (i.e. through their subjects and prevailing ideology) rather than vertically, a point Etienne de Boetie makes too. Dictators may not suffer the pressure of being re-elected like a president, but they must still rely on the consent of many other individuals to impose their rule. They can only push so far before they risk a revolution, and all the more so than in a democracy because it is clearer who is ruling and who is not.
Ayn Rand is so controversial. May I ask what is a nation? Uh, yeah, a conception of an aggregation of homogeneous individuals. This collective entity is perceived to be able to act on its own; and its action separate from the actions of the individuals that compose it. Accordingly, it also has got a moral character of its own. All this is non-sense. The other controversial thing is Ayn Rand’s idea of the role a State is supposed to perform. If this role should be a “property protector” of the individuals that the State taxes, how does she justify using a piece of these taxes to invade other “nations” that are no threat at all for the property of the taxed individuals???
Hm, good for us that democracies do not enslave their own people.
Yes, to the degree other people tell you what to do you are a slave. But it does not matter whether a single person or a group of people does so. It doesn’t matter whether you had a vote either, except when you agreed to a vote voluntarily. There is no difference in degree between dictatorships and democracies. It’s not that dictatorships are on one end and democracy on the other end (or in the middle) of a spectrum of political liberty. Both are on the entire spectrum, because the system of political representation and the degree of liberty aren’t dependent on each other. Dictatorships just tend to be less liberal. But the argument here is whether they are inherently less liberal. That they are has several reasons, for example when there’s a dictatorship, that is usually because very ruthless individuals took power. When there’s a democracy that’s usually because a country had free markets for a long time (I think political liberty is a side-effect of economic liberty), so people in democracies tend to have a culture of not ruthessly stepping on each others throat. There are many reasons that democracies tend to be more nice, but it’s not the system of political representation that does it. Another reason is that when democracies becomes onerous, they cease being democracies. Japan, Germany and Russia were democracies before world war 2, but it didn’t stick. Democracies don’t work when they are designed, they have to emerge. As such I think democracy is just a symptom of liberty, not a cause of it.
A dictatorship is a system of political representation. Think what democracy is, it is a way to make collective decisions. You wouldn’t want a plurality to tell you what you should eat or where you should pray, those are individual decisions. But when we make decisions collectively we need some way to coordinate the wishes different people. Now you see how the individual isn’t less coerced by a decision that was made by a group of people, by elected representatives or by a single ruler. In either case the individual decision making process is infringed. Progressives such as Teddy Roosevelt (later copied by Italian Fascists) even argued that a single person is a more true representative of the people than elected officials. Even if everybody votes, most people don’t get the official they voted for. So politicians only represent the interests of a minority of the population. Then there’s lobbyists and interest groups that make sure that political representatives don’t have the best of the people in mind. But a dictator would truly represent all people. That was the argument at least. Mind you that lefties think that a benevolent government can exist, so they thought a benevolent dictator could exist. It was only after that blew up in their face that we got this dichotomy where democracy is “for the people” and dictatorships are seen as inherently oppressive. A dictatorship is evil no matter what it does, and a democracy is nice even if it infringes on individual liberty. (E.g. government health care.) They say “the people” aren’t oppressed when a democracy employs force because “the people” voted for it themselves, so it’s voluntary. Of course that’s just a fallacy of collective terms. “The people” is not a acting organism, individuals are oppressed even if “the people” voted for it. The point of all this is that neither system of collective decision making is inherently more liberal. Liberalism is when there is no collective decision making process at all, when individuals get to rule their own affairs. As such I think we should abolish the realm of collective decisions altogether. As an aside, I think environmentalism took off like it did because it is a collective problem by necessity. The collectivists have been losing the battle against individual liberty in the last century, and environmentalism is a way to bring back collectivism that has to be imposed on everyone. Because as long as you live on the planet you can’t say you want to opt out.
I’m having a problem swollowing this. Unless everyone wanted the dictator to be in power, he’s not representing “all people.” He might be imposing his rule on all people… but he’s not “representing” them.
Otherwise we accuse all Iraqis of the horrible things Saddam may have done (like the gassing of the Kurds) because he “represented all people.” They should all be punished for attempted murder… that doesn’t really make sense…
I may be missing something… You’re trying to counter the fact that I believe a democratic organization could be non-aggressive? I’m referring, of course, to things like a board of directors of a business… or a group of neighbors who voluntarily associate and don’t use violence to impose their “organization” upon others. Those things exist today, already… I don’t know why we would assume they are all evil. Is your argument that non-aggressive social order is impossible? 
Unless everyone wanted the dictator to be in power, he’s not representing “all people.”
Unless everyone wanted the elected politicians to be in power, they are not representing “all people.”
Is your argument that non-aggressive social order is impossible?
I guess the point is that non-aggressive state is impossible.
Seems to me like Rand falls for the same kind of collectivist fallacies she was against.
On a side note, how do Objectivists propose we fund their overseas adventurism?
One can still live a good and somewhat free life in a democracy. Not in a dictatorship.
Well, even in a dictatorship, it depends. It depends on where you are, and yourself. It still doesn’t justify the aggression.
You are mistaken if you think I’m arguing in favor of “democracy” as a form of “state.” I oppose “state” just as much as the next guy.
Which totally misses MY point, which is that not all “democratic” organizations are necessarily “states.” I’m trying to figure out if that is what Emperor Nero is suggesting… that they are, in fact, all “states.”
If you’d be so kind as to read my entire post, I did mention a form of “democratic order” that wasn’t inherently “statist.” Unless you care to point out to me where I’m wrong, and they are all necessarily states… which I would greatly appreciate… I’ll just assume that you didn’t read it thoroughly.
This is what I kinda was asking above. According to Rand a State should not utilize tax money for a reason different from protection of “its citizen’s” property. Accordingly it also should not tax additional money for this reason. Maybe she can argue that the State is protecting so-called future property or value. For example, if the USA does not attack Lubya the price of gasoline will rise, hence, US citizens will loose value. This, of course, is illogical.
Well it goes upon the presumption that there are rights in the first place soooo…
I like the part about the part about majorities not being subjected to the dictates of minorities, however there is no purpose in this instance then to speak of “free” countries, they are all the same unless they give almost total individual freedoms.
Whoa whoa, now. Let’s actually read Rand instead of making things up and according them to her, and postulating on what she “could argue.”
First, in the very next two chapters she gives you the answer to how, according to her philosophy, government ought to be funded. The government she considers morally proper is one that does not initiate force, therefore it does tax at all, therefore it is to be funded voluntarily.
From chapter 15 of the Virtue of Selfishness:
“What would be the proper method of financing the government in a fully
free society?”
This question is usually asked in connection with the Objectivist principle
that the government of a free society may not initiate the use of physical
force and may use force only in retaliation against those who initiate its use.
Since the imposition of taxes does represent an initiation of force, how, it is
asked, would the government of a free country raise the money needed to
finance its proper services?
In a fully free society, taxation—or, to be exact, payment for
governmental services—would be voluntary. Since the proper services of a
government—the police, the armed forces, the law courts—are
demonstrably needed by individual citizens and affect their interests directly,
the citizens would (and should) be willing to pay for such services, as they
pay for insurance.
So the answer to “how do these Objectivist want us to fund their overseas adventurism” is: you don’t have to fund government. You might, in their vision, be ostracized by other individuals who feel you are mooching off of their willingness to fund the military, but nonetheless, you will not be taxed.
Now secondly, Rand did not believe the government should engage in “overseas adventurism.” She was against every war she lived through, as a “total isolationist” (Cf. Peikoff’s podcasts.) See for example, such works as “The Roots of War,” and “The Lessons of Vietnam.”
In the section in the OP, some have interpreted it wrong, that she is saying the US ought to invade all dictatorships whenever it feels like, or that war is okay if the enemy is a dictatorship. But we must consider the context and meaning of what she is saying carefully. Remember in this essay, she is attacking the notion of collectivized “rights.” She is dealing with concepts such as “national sovereignty” and the like. The point she is making is that there are no collective morals that would cancel out an actual free nation’s survival and freedom due to the supposed “right of self-determination of nations” or “national sovereignty” or “territorial integrity” of a dictatorship. The premise is that the free must sacrifice to the criminals because of some mystical notion of morality applying intrinsically to governments which is allegedly “higher” than or “above” the lives and liberty of those involved.
Her point in that “dictatorships have no rights” comment is a simple one, and can be looked at as analogous to whether or not a criminal has a “right” not to be apprehended or arrested. If a man steals something from another, he has no moral grounds to claim the police ought not use force against him because it is retaliatory force, she is stating. The same with a government, when it denies all rights and enslaves its own people, it cannot then logically claim that it is any rights whatsoever, including a right not to be invaded.
Now some seem to think this means she is saying the US should invade all dictatorships or collectivist counties, or that it is morally right for the American nation-state to go to war just because its enemy is a dictatorship, but notice that is nowhere logically implied. Rand claims, since rights are not collectivized, a dictatorship cannot claim the moral sanction not to be invaded. But a non-”not to be invaded” is not the same as a positive “ought to be invaded.” That is why, if you pay attention to the next words in her text where she explains this, she says: Whether a free nation chooses to do so or not is a matter of its own self-interest, not of respect for the nonexistent “rights” of gang rulers.
She is here laying the groundwork for what she considers the proper foreign policy basis, which is, in her words, the self-interest of the nation.
Some have asked, doesn’t this mean she is committing the same collectivist fallacies? It must be remembered that she has just explained earlier in the essay that a nation is not an entity unto itself, but merely a group of individual people. What she means by “the self-interest of the nation” is “the self-interest of those individual people inhabiting the nation.” This may raise some addition questions with those unfamiliar with what she means by self-interest, how does she know what the self-interest of these people are, what if their self-interests conflict with one another, etc., but for that, you’d just have to start at the beginning of the book, where she treats these topics (the chapter in question, “Collectivized ‘Rights,’” is after all, chapter 13.) To state briefly, what she means by this phrase is the same as what she previously states that she considers the morally proper end of all political action is, i.e. the lives and liberty of the individual people of the nation (in other words, the freedom to pursue their rational self-interest.) Meaning, her desired government can only use retaliatory force against those who initiate it, therefore only go to war in self-defense.
Another question seems to be of what should we consider a “free nation” to be, since all states initiate force, then there aren’t any. But you have to take in consideration that she has already stated that there are no “fully free” countries (again, fully free according to her views on having a state that does not initiate force), but there is still a clear distinction between those states that initiate force to some extent, and to those states that are completely slave-states. Rand did not consider the US automatically equivalent to a fascist dictatorship just because it violated rights to some extent, and so these more relatively free countries are in other words “more life-affirming” than the dictatorships, and therefore have a clear moral high ground in comparison.
Anyways, hope that clears some things up.
There is, in any case, an issue to be debated from the rational egoist and individual rights point of view regarding the status of non-combatants in the aggressor nation’s territory during a war of self-defense. For that, we have to consult Hugo Grotius and his followers, but that is a different topic.
what exactly are the differences between Dictatorship and Monarchy? Aren’t they both rule by one supreme man? Why is monarchy generally seen as better than democracy in Austrian circles, yet we can all see that Dictatorships are awful?
^That’s not true. I see democracy as better then monarchy.
Well, that’s what the Progressives were arguing. I just brought it up to point out that a dictatorship was seen as a system of political representation that wasn’t inherently worse than a democracy. To “represent” the people, the dictator does not need to have the approval of all people. It just means he’s making decisions on their behalf. It’s all about intentions. Democracy, they say, is a corrupt process that does not act on behalf of the people. A dictator was free of corrupted motivations and could truly represent the will of the people. As such it was seen as more “democratic” than the corrupt system of lobbyists and interest groups. It’s like they think that a government monopoly is in the benefit of the public while for-profit businesses are evil, same line of thought.
Democratic organization can be non-aggressive, if they are voluntary. I.e. if you agreed to observe the result of a vote beforehand. My point is that a non-aggressive collective decision making process is impossible. A mandatory democracy is as bad as dictatorship to the individual. In practice democracies tend to produce nicer decisions, because of the kind of people that become dictators and the kind of societies that become democracies. But we shouldn’t confuse cause and effect: They are democracies because they are liberal, not the other way around. These societies would be liberal even if they weren’t democracies. Probably more liberal, because democracy acts as a justification for all sorts of statism.
Think if it this way: What would you think of a democratic process to decide who you should marry? Obviously you would think of it as a horrible idea, that’s not something other people should decide. Now, would it be a lot less horrible if that decision was made by a dictator than by a democratic majority, even if you had a vote? Not a lot, it’s still a collective decision making process, which is worse than a individual decision making process. Collective decision making processes are oppressive no matter who makes them, that was my point.
Do you actually have a valid argument to support these assertions?
Molyneux has become more towards the Voluntarist camp than the Austro-Libertarian/Rothbardian side of things over the least two years. There is a really interesting synthesis occurring with Voluntarists bringing together the legal understandings of Freemen on the Land, Common Lawful Rebellion and No State Projectism, which make up for the deficit of state legal understanding in Rothbardian Ancap, with the basic premise that it is wrong to use aggression when interacting with others.
¨Yes, to the degree other people tell you what to do you are a slave. But it does not matter whether a single person or a group of people does so. It doesn’t matter whether you had a vote either, except when you agreed to a vote voluntarily. There is no difference in degree between dictatorships and democracies.¨
I agree that when you get down to the heart of the matter the franchise does not matter in terms of whether one is a slave or not. When I say degree I mean along the lines of what Hoppe said in an interview a while back; that if given a choice between being a slave on a plantation and being a slave in the Soviet Union he would choose the plantation.
You’re spot on about the common conception of ¨the people¨, but I don´t know if it’s strictly a lefty thing.
Which has been my only point all along…
They are only oppressive when you don’t agree with the collective or are forced/coerced to abide by their decisions. Collective decision making isn’t oppressive if you agree with the decision and agree to abide by it without being forced/coerced to.
My problem here, really, is nothing more than the fact that you (and others) in this thread seem to be implying that all “collective” agreements/decisions are inherenly oppressive/aggressive/slavery/etc… You aren’t adding any qualification at all. ALL STATES are inherently oppressive/aggressive/slavery/etc. by their nature… a state, by definition, uses aggressive force/coercion to achieve its ends. We all agree to this. It doesn’t matter if it is a “democratic” state, a “monarchic” state, or a “dictatorial” state. State = State. The problem is that not all collective decision making is inherently statist, which is what it appears is being suggested in this thread. You agree that this is true in the beginning of your second paragraph, but in the last paragraph you completely contradict that agreement by saying that “collective decision making processes” (which is the very definition of a democratic organization, in my humble opinion) “are oppressive” without qualification. Absent qualification, the implication is that this statement applies to ALL “collective decision making processes,” which again, is incorrect as you, yourself, have even agreed.
Then we agree!
I might have left out the word mandatory there at the end. Certainly if people get together in a group and agree to make decisions by a vote it’s not oppressive. That’s really a individual decision though. The individual chose to participate in that process, so it’s not really what I mean by “collective decision making process”. A collective decision is when a few people draw a plan for all of society to follow. COllective here is used as in collectivism, not just meaning “together”.