Objectivism and War

re: Objectivism and War

Orat — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 21:09:47 GMT

I would add an observation of a further collectivist facet of modern neo-con-influenced Objectivist foreign policy. This was already hinted at in the main article, but I'll expound on it a bit more. When modern Objectivists speak of a nation having a "right" to invade a nation that is less free, such as is their rationalization for the present Iraq war and their hoped-for future Iran war, they are not only collectivizing "rights", but given the present fact that our government is funded through coercion, they are asserting that this "right", possessed by the government - not the people, justifies the prosecution of a war at the expense of individuals who disagree with its undertaking. I, for example, do not consent to the war, yet I am taxed to prosecute it. What's more, the retaliation which may come as a consequence may very well be aimed at me. So not only do I bear the cost of the war, but also its consequences. Indeed, I would argue this is what happened in 9/11, which was retaliation for a series of US interventions, including the first Gulf War.

Secondly, what about this idea of a "tyranny" losing its legitimacy and therefore being open-season for "freer" countries? How do we quantify whether a country is, as the neocon-Objectivists put it, a "rights violating" country? I am not an anarchist, but I would assert that every government on Earth today violates the rights of individuals in some way. Even in the freest nations there are EGREGIOUS abuses. So I must assume that these folks don't mean that one country, such as the US, is 100% free while all of its enemies are less so. Rather, I think they probably mean that the US is "more free" than its enemies. But how do we actually measure that to be sure? I mean, in China, I am told it is far easier to start a business (fewer taxes and regulations) than in the US. I am also told that Australia has done away with discrimination law and all minimum wage law. So at least in these areas, these two countries would appear to respect rights which the US does not. So would it be moral for China or Australia to invade the US?

I assert that the only justification for military action is when your country is under direct, imminent and provable threat of attack (such as was the case in the Six Day War).

I am a HUGE fan of Ayn Rand and her philosophy. But this collectivism masquerading as rational egoism is beyond the pale. It is a recipe for disaster.

re: Objectivism and War

ragnar_rahl — Sat, 06 Dec 2008 02:35:27 GMT

Any organization capable of and willing to consistently and successfully defend from/retaliate to those who initiate force is a government, so anarchism (lack of a government) contradicts self-defense.

Further, when one realizes that rand rejected anarchism in favor of a nontaxing government, and opposed not "The state" in general but rather simply it's initiation of force, there is no contradiction there.

As for the status of civilians in totalitarian nations-- They are morally innocent, but metaphysically noninnocent. I.e., their existence lends an aid to the government in question. They cannot be held responsible for this after a successful invasion, they didn't choose it, just like you wouldn't hold someone morally responsible for what they did while sleepwalking-- but, nevertheless, in the course of the action they are still a threat and must be dealt with. It is the totalitarian nation in question, not the country invading it, which violates their rights.

Keep in mind Rand's opposition to, say, Vietnam or Korea was not a fundamental part of her philosophical system, just a guess from her estimate of the nature of the war. She was not a soldier, one can be an Objectivist and yet believe she misjudged the nature of those specific conflicts.

re: Objectivism and War

MhRipley — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 22:15:31 GMT

Hum, whom were you aiming this at, Rodney? If you happen to think this position is entirely mistaken, I'd suggest you try reading ''Objectivist goose-stepping'' and come tell me (or any of us around here) if we're actually being ''contradictory'', ''non-objective'' or even ''disconnected from reality'' afterwards!

Otherwise, no lecturing will be necessary...

N.B: Rand was much more of a conservative, rather than a market anarchist. Can't say I find the contradiction too surprising, anymore.

re: Objectivism and War

rodney203 — Sun, 31 Aug 2008 02:18:47 GMT

People who criticize objectivism just don't understand it. Perhaps they don't even want to understand it. Many people who consider themselves to be objectivists don't even understand it. It usually takes a very special person to "get it" and understand how the ideas all work together.

re: Objectivism and War

Cedrac — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 20:28:22 GMT

I think you have a bit of a skewed sense of objectivism, which I unfortunately see a lot of. One thing is Rand was very explicit in the type of people she wanted called objectivists, which are people who agreed with her philosophy entirely. She was actually quite adamant about this. If you read Rands work's it is very obvious her stance on wars (see the Roots of War). She was against the Vietnam and Korean war etc. So it stands to reason she would more then likely have been against the first Iraq war and this one as well. Second, to be objectivist one can not advocate forced taxation at all, voluntary taxation is the only moral form of taxation Again see some of rands work in The Virtue of Selfishness.

Third, I understand the frustration when it comes to objectivists today, many of them do contradict themselves and their own beliefs in order to try and become more mainstream, but they are not objectivists.

Also, Pre emptive strikes are only legitimite if there is a legitimate threat... in which case it wouldn't really be "pre" emptive. Anything other than that view is not objectivist. Again, Rand was very explicit in Non infringment.

On a side note while I do appreciate your somewhat understanding of the Civil War you are highly mistaken if you think it was a case of a government attacking its own "civilian" population. Let me give you a small timeline of the beginning of the Civil war.

First in January 1861 immediately after Lincoln (who politically was anti slavery) was elected president South Carolina recedes followed by six more states; Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas, and the threat of recession from 4 more states - Virginia, Arkansas, Tennessee, and North Carolina. These 11 states by the way became the Confederate states of America.

Next in Feb. the confederate creates its own government, and in the same month seizes federal forts, which is because the then president (buchanan) refused to surrender southern federal forts (under his control)

March 4th of course Lincoln was Inaugurated. He told his views once again, he would not end slavery where it already existed but he would not accept secession. he was explicit in his not wanting a war however.

The initiation of the war was in April when the SOUTH attacked Fort Sumter. Now remember they had already seceded AND formed their own government, and now they are attacking A U.S. Federal base. No matter where it is located.

what would you have Lincoln do? accept the attacks and say its ok we understand?

re: Objectivism and War

mhRipley — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 19:12:10 GMT

Agree. As much as I dig Objectivism, its political theory is the only thing I find myself disagreeing with most.

A certain man (whose name I can't remember right now) once said that ''Rand's hostility toward the State and taxation sits inconsistently with a rejection of anarchism.'' And, well, he was right. That had to be Rand's own, BIGGEST contradiction. If you read her arguments regarding anarchism, you will see that, while she was right to an extent (i.e.: religion and capitalism don't mix), she otherwise knew little or nothing about anarchism in itself.

And that's why you get things like this, from an otherwise valuable site. Don't be too surprised.