Universal Healthcare for all

[The happy Objectivist]

I'll just keep asking since no one wants to address my question. Does this social contract sanction the initiation of force?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I'll just keep asking since no one wants to address my question. Does this social contract sanction the initiation of force?

Typically, yes. There is usually a mandate for the maintenance of a military force to defend the territory, and a police force to protect the safety and property of the citizens. There may also be other lesser provisions for the use of force by other bodies in particular situations social & healthcare, prisons, etc.

These institutions are notoriously open to corruption and abuse, but there is a huge variation between societies both in those problems and the amount of force sanctioned and used in normal circumstances.

 

[The happy Objectivist]

Typically, yes. There is usually a mandate for the maintenance of a military force to defend the territory, and a police force to protect the safety and property of the citizens. There may also be other lesser provisions for the use of force by other bodies in particular situations social & healthcare, prisons, etc.

These institutions are notoriously open to corruption and abuse, but there is a huge variation between societies both in those problems and the amount of force sanctioned and used in normal circumstances.

Well, then it's immoral. There are means of funding those necessary and proper function of government such as the police and the military and the courts that are completely voluntary such as a national sales tax on non-essentials or a fee on money transfers or contracts. No initiation of force is needed, just rational self-interest. Or a fee such as in the case of the courts.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Well, then it's immoral. There are means of funding those necessary and proper function of government such as the police and the military and the courts that are completely voluntary such as a national sales tax on non-essentials or a fee on money transfers or contracts. No initiation of force is needed, just rational self-interest. Or a fee such as in the case of the courts.

OK; like I said, YMMV.

 

[Ponderous Curmudgeon]

Well, then it's immoral. There are means of funding those necessary and proper function of government such as the police and the military and the courts that are completely voluntary such as a national sales tax on non-essentials or a fee on money transfers or contracts. No initiation of force is needed, just rational self-interest. Or a fee such as in the case of the courts.

Well then I think it is time you write a great big treatise on how you see the world should operate and all of the potential problems with appropriate resolutions. Otherwise we will keep plodding along.

 

[The happy Objectivist]

Well then I think it is time you write a great big treatise on how you see the world should operate and all of the potential problems with appropriate resolutions. Otherwise we will keep plodding along.

I don't see why you think that. I would say that the world should operate on the premise that the initiation of force is absolutely wrong and should be absolutely abolished. That would take care of many of the problems we have now. That would be a good start and then we could work on the other problems and keep on improving things. I mean we've been doing things the same basic way for thousands of years. Who was it that said that doing the same thing over and over again but expecting different results is the definition of insanity? On your view, if we can't know instantly how the world should operate perfectly then we should just "plod along". The problem is that we aren't just plodding along. We are heading for disaster if we don't make a change.

Besides, somebody has already written that treatise.

 

[Ponderous Curmudgeon]

I don't see why you think that. I would say that the world should operate on the premise that the initiation of force is absolutely wrong and should be absolutely abolished. That would take care of many of the problems we have now. That would be a good start and then we could work on the other problems and keep on improving things. I mean we've been doing things the same basic way for thousands of years. Who was it that said that doing the same thing over and over again but expecting different results is the definition of insanity? On your view, if we can't know instantly how the world should operate perfectly then we should just "plod along". The problem is that we aren't just plodding along. We are heading for disaster if we don't make a change.

Besides, somebody has already written that treatise.

Well it wasn't Einstein and if somebody wrote that treatise it appears nobody seems to have taken it to heart so maybe you can write a more inspiring version.

 

[The happy Objectivist]

Well it wasn't Einstein and if somebody wrote that treatise it appears nobody seems to have taken it to heart so maybe you can write a more inspiring version.

I've read it and many people have taken it to heart. It's gaining followers particularly in eastern Europe where memories of communism are still fresh. I'm convinced it can save the world. It's called Objectivism: the Philosophy of Ayn Rand by Leonard Peikoff. There is also Philosophy: Who Needs it, For the New Intellectual, Indoroduction to Objectivist Epistemology, The Virtue of Selfishness, The Romantic Manifesto, and Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal By Ayn Rand. If you want a detailed analysis of the Nazis you can read The Ominous Parallels by Leonard Peikoff. If you want to know where the world is headed and why read The DIM Hypothesis By Leonard Peikoff. There is also the Capitalist Manifesto by Andrew Bernstein which is a comprehensive counter to the Communist Manifesto by Carl Marx. There are many more.

 

[Albion]

I don't see why you think that. I would say that the world should operate on the premise that the initiation of force is absolutely wrong and should be absolutely abolished. That would take care of many of the problems we have now.

...until the first person came along who didn't give a fig for those standards. And of course there could be no restraining that person's use of force since doing so would require force.

 

[The happy Objectivist]

...until the first person came along who didn't give a fig for those standards. And of course there could be no restraining that person's use of force since doing so would require force.

I said that there must be a complete abolition of the initiation of force. Retaliatory force is perfectly moral and it is the sole reason to have a government in the first place, not to be meals on wheels and babysitter. The purpose of government is the protection of individuals from the initiation of force. That means those who start its use. When the government takes the rightful property of one man to give to another for the purposes of benevolence, that's initiating force. I believe it was in 1892 in congress where James Madison, the father of the constitution, gave a speech against a proposed bill to earmark $15,000 for French Refugees. He said, "I can not undertake to lay my finger on that article of the constitution which authorizes the Congress to spend, for the purpose of benevolence, the money of the people". OH how far away from that we have come.

 

[Albion]

I said that there must be a complete abolition of the initiation of force.

Very well, but I can see from your reply that "initiation" is relative.

If the government retaliating against the initiation of force by someone--a stick-up man, for instance--is acceptable, the stick-up man would maintain that he was forced to adopt extreme measures in order to feed his family, etc. and so he wasn't the one who initiated but simply was retaliating against the government. It was the government and its policies that put him in this position would be the claim...or else it was particular individuals who had victimized the poor in some way or something else in that vein.

Retaliatory force is perfectly moral and it is the sole reason to have a government in the first place, not to be meals on wheels and babysitter.

 

[GreekOrthodox]

I've read it and many people have taken it to heart. It's gaining followers particularly in eastern Europe where memories of communism are still fresh. I'm convinced it can save the world. It's called Objectivism: the Philosophy of Ayn Rand by Leonard Peikoff. There is also Philosophy: Who Needs it, For the New Intellectual, Indoroduction to Objectivist Epistemology, The Virtue of Selfishness, The Romantic Manifesto, and Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal By Ayn Rand. If you want a detailed analysis of the Nazis you can read The Ominous Parallels by Leonard Peikoff. If you want to know where the world is headed and why read The DIM Hypothesis By Leonard Peikoff. There is also the Capitalist Manifesto by Andrew Bernstein which is a comprehensive counter to the Communist Manifesto by Carl Marx. There are many more.

Or just listen to Rush, which is far better than watching the film version of Atlas Shrugged.

2112 or "Who is John Galt?"

 

[The happy Objectivist]

Very well, but I can see from your reply that "initiation" is relative.

If the government retaliating against the initiation of force by someone--a stick-up man, for instance--is acceptable, the stick-up man would maintain that he was forced to adopt extreme measures in order to feed his family, etc. and so he wasn't the one who initiated but simply was retaliating against the government. It was the government and its policies that put him in this position would be the claim...or else it was particular individuals who had victimized the poor in some way or something else in that vein.

If those extreme measures involve him initiating force then the government has the right, delegated by the people, to stop him and put him in jail. The fact that someone needs healthcare does not give him a right to pull a gun and demand it. The government, according to our founders, derives its power from the consent of the governed. It does not have any special powers over and above the individual. We delegate to it our right of self-defense, which by the way we retain. We don't give it up by delegating it. Government is that institution that has a legal monopoly on the retaliatory use of force and it must do so impartially. But when the government turns its gun on people who have not initiated force then it delegitimizes itself. Have you really read and understood the Declaration of Independence?

 

[The happy Objectivist]

Or just listen to Rush, which is far better than watching the film version of Atlas Shrugged.

2112 or "Who is John Galt?"

I agree, the film was horrible. But I wouldn't look to a conservative for answers to our problems. They are statist themselves only from the right.

 

[Albion]

If those extreme measures involve him initiating force then the government has the right, delegated by the people, to stop him and put him in jail. The fact that someone needs healthcare does not give him a right to pull a gun and demand it.

All you're saying is that who it is doing the initiating is in the eye of the beholder. I gave one possible example, but there are all sorts of other ones that might prove the point even better.

Instead of a stick-up, let's say it's a man who was reacting to his neighbor having taken it upon himself to cut down trees on the first man's property because they blocked his view of something. So that's force used to retaliate against the use of force, if the idea of the holdup artist was too abstract.

The government, according to our founders, derives its power from the consent of the governed. It does not have any special powers over and above the individual. We delegate to it our right of self-defense, which by the way we retain. We don't give it up by delegating it. Government is that institution that has a legal monopoly on the retaliatory use of force and it must do so impartially.

All this relates to some ideal world but doesn't relate to actual life.

 

[Albion]

I agree, the film was horrible. But I wouldn't look to a conservative for answers to our problems. They are statist themselves only from the right.

Genuine conservatism always supports limited government, one that is no bigger than necessary to accomplish some of what you tried to explain in your previous posts but resorted to the claptrap of Ayn Rand in the attempt.

 

[The happy Objectivist]

Genuine conservatism always supports limited government, one that is no bigger than necessary to accomplish some of what you tried to explain in your previous posts but resorted to the claptrap of Ayn Rand in the attempt.

Well, there are very few true conservatives in the world and I would not call them conservatives but classical liberals.

 

[The happy Objectivist]

All you're saying is that who it is doing the initiating is in the eye of the beholder. I gave one possible example, but there are all sorts of other ones that might prove the point even better.

Instead of a stick-up, let's say it's a man who was reacting to his neighbor having taken it upon himself to cut down trees on the first man's property because they blocked his view of something. So that's force used to retaliate against the use of force, if the idea of the holdup artist was too abstract.


All this relates to some ideal world but doesn't relate to actual life.

No, I'm not. I'm defining initiation objectively as those who start the use of force. In all cases, the start of the use of force is wrong, immoral, evil.

In the case of a man cutting down his neighbors trees, a type of force, then it is the proper role of the government to step in and stop him and make him compensate the owner for the loss. We delegate this power to the government because otherwise, we'd have what primitive tribes have, perpetual violence and warfare. Civilization is the removal of force from human relations, or rather it should be.

 

[Albion]

Well, there are very few true conservatives in the world and I would not call them conservatives but classical liberals.

I'm afraid that that shows a misunderstanding of conservatism, but it's common. There are, incidentally, quite a few differences between conservatism and classical liberalism, but the size of government was the point that was mentioned, so that drew the response.

 

[Albion]

No, I'm not. I'm defining initiation objectively as those who start the use of force. In all cases, the start of the use of force is wrong, immoral, evil.

I cannot dispute that nor do I want to, but it still is the case that in real life it is often just a matter of opinion as to who "started it."

In the case of a man cutting down his neighbors trees, a type of force, then it is the proper role of the government to step in and stop him and make him compensate the owner for the loss.

But government often doesn't do what it is supposed to do. That being the case, the man who retaliates against his neighbor would have to be considered the one retaliating, not the initiator of force, in this incident. So he wouldn't be at fault, according to Objectivism as you explained it here.

We delegate this power to the government because otherwise, we'd have what primitive tribes have, perpetual violence and warfare.

Who says "we delegate this power?" What if I say that I don't choose to delegate it? That should be my decision in the Objectivist thinking. Oh, that's right, the government will use force against me and no one is on hand who can prevent it!