objectivism vs UPB/ anarchy?

[cab21]

I am wondering if there are any good articles or compare contrast charts of objectivism and universally preferable behavior?

 

So far i think one difference I see is objectivism calling for a minarchist government while UPB calls for  a free market in dispute resolution organizations.

from reading objectivism writings on voluntary funded government, the articles bring up free markets in other areas of service, but seem to say that services that protect rights must be a monopoly and have a different nature than other free market services, while UPB says that all legitimate services can be free market services.

I have read objectivists saying that anarchy does not defend individual rights at all, to saying that it does not defend individual rights as well as a objectivist government would. I think i have also seen objectivists say anarchy context drops and have false dichotomy's, while anarchists  say the same about objectivism.

[Will Torbald]

I don't think such articles or charts exist because virtually no one outside of FDR takes UPB seriously to even compare it with objectivism, which isn't a popular philosophy either compared to others.

[scottm]

Stef has some vids on this, just not a single one analyzing these ideas together... i don't see how Objectivism has anything to do with minarchism / statism in general, I feel Ayn Rand wasn't able to finish her logical conclusion on it or she'd realize that her theories of Objectivism actually excludes the idea of Government. I'm actually doing a show on this soon, because a friend, among others need to finalize realize reality Look out for my show here: https://www.youtube.com/c/freedomsolutionsdao

 

Stef's vids:

[dsayers]

Gah! Too many labels! Different people see different things in different labels. Let's just talk about reality.

 

objectivism calling for a minarchist government

First of all, there's no such thing as minarchy. Statism is statism. For a convincing argument for this, search YouTube for Larken Rose vs Mark Skousen Debate in Anarchapulco. Secondly, nothing can both be objective AND call for government. They are mutually exclusive ideas because humans objectively do not exist in different, opposing moral categories, which government is predicated on.

 

Similarly, there's no such thing as a voluntarily funded government. Voluntary and government are mutually exclusive, not unlike rape and love-making.

 

anarchy does not defend individual rights

Pants don't nourish you. So what? This does nothing to devalue pants as nourishment is not their purpose. Anarchy means no rulers. I can't think of anything that "defends" individual rights that is not predicated on the acceptance that humans exist in the same moral category (anarchy).

 

When you deal with reality, you get rid of the obfuscations.

[Mister Mister]

Objectivism was Ayn Rand's attempt at reviving Aristotle's philosophy based on reason and objective reality.  Unfortunately, many of her followers have strayed from this methodology and accept her conclusions instead.  Stef and others use the same methodology but have made contributions.  UPB is a more consistent and rigorous approach to ethics than Ayn Rand's "that which furthers man's life is good".

[cab21]

I don't think such articles or charts exist because virtually no one outside of FDR takes UPB seriously to even compare it with objectivism, which isn't a popular philosophy either compared to others.

 

unpopular philosophies do debate each other, as exampled in anarchist/minarchists debates

Stef has some vids on this, just not a single one analyzing these ideas together... i don't see how Objectivism has anything to do with minarchism / statism in general, I feel Ayn Rand wasn't able to finish her logical conclusion on it or she'd realize that her theories of Objectivism actually excludes the idea of Government. I'm actually doing a show on this soon, because a friend, among others need to finalize realize reality Look out for my show here: https://www.youtube....domsolutionsdao

 

thanks for linking the videos

ill watch your episode when it comes out

 

 

Gah! Too many labels! Different people see different things in different labels. Let's just talk about reality.

 

ill try

 

First of all, there's no such thing as minarchy. Statism is statism. For a convincing argument for this, search YouTube for Larken Rose vs Mark Skousen Debate in Anarchapulco. Secondly, nothing can both be objective AND call for government. They are mutually exclusive ideas because humans objectively do not exist in different, opposing moral categories, which government is predicated on.

 

Similarly, there's no such thing as a voluntarily funded government. Voluntary and government are mutually exclusive, not unlike rape and love-making.

 

watched the video

Rand does not call what she advocates for a ruling class. I think it's more along the lines of all are equal and government is a servant to objective law.

some of it seemed like a back and forth of no limited government staying limited, vs no anarchy staying a anarchy. neither rand's nor UPB have real implementation records.

 

if voluntary funding make it not a government, rand calls for objective law, perhaps making it so that DRO's still have objective law, but are like other services of voluntary payments. just as it would violate UPB for a DRO to subjectively have policy, subjective policy violates Rands philosophy.

 

Pants don't nourish you. So what? This does nothing to devalue pants as nourishment is not their purpose. Anarchy means no rulers. I can't think of anything that "defends" individual rights that is not predicated on the acceptance that humans exist in the same moral category (anarchy).

 

When you deal with reality, you get rid of the obfuscations.

 

i'm not sure rands philosophy puts government officials under a different moral catagory, at least she makes it out like they are equal or servant, and servant in the sense of job funtion like a employee to a employer, and not that a government offical would be of a different moral category.

 

subordinating retaliatory force to objective law is not something that i think makes a category that allows some to morally initiate force. although on the anarchy side, i don't think it makes sense to say only a institution called government could implement retaliatory force subordinated to objective law, and i think a free market of the services keeps all in the same moral catagory

 

Objectivism was Ayn Rand's attempt at reviving Aristotle's philosophy based on reason and objective reality.  Unfortunately, many of her followers have strayed from this methodology and accept her conclusions instead.  Stef and others use the same methodology but have made contributions.  UPB is a more consistent and rigorous approach to ethics than Ayn Rand's "that which furthers man's life is good".

 

the methodology comparison between the two is interesting

[EuanM]

Here's an attempt to refute Stefan's refutation of Objectivism. I don't know if I'd call it "good", as I don't think it's successful and I'm not sure the guy completely understood everything that Stef was saying, but it sounds like you might be interested in it. 

 

[Goldenages]

Minute 11, Stefan: I think Rand is very clear on that point. While of course it could be ones goal to supress all around you, the initiation of force is not allowed. You should treat others like a merchant does: with respect, voluntary interaction, no one demands a victim, and no one is victimized.

 

Minute 13, Stefan: "... you dont have to live as a man, but you cannot live as anything else".

I think this sentence of Rand is, hmm, somewhat unlucky.  Cause thus she denies the bad characters in Atlas Shrugged being human.

While in the context of the book I guess its clear how its meant, this is certainly not a good idea.

 

 

I am wondering if there are any good articles or compare contrast charts of objectivism and universally preferable behavior?

 

So far i think one difference I see is objectivism calling for a minarchist government while UPB calls for  a free market in dispute resolution organizations.

from reading objectivism writings on voluntary funded government, the articles bring up free markets in other areas of service, but seem to say that services that protect rights must be a monopoly and have a different nature than other free market services, while UPB says that all legitimate services can be free market services.

I have read objectivists saying that anarchy does not defend individual rights at all, to saying that it does not defend individual rights as well as a objectivist government would. I think i have also seen objectivists say anarchy context drops and have false dichotomy's, while anarchists  say the same about objectivism.

 

 

Til now I did not dig too deep into UPB. What I think is that if the power of central banking is removed from the state, and the state is driven as company, meaning that there is a certain amount of money to fullfill the duties for citizens (police, law, army) and not a cent more (unless voluntarily) the main trouble with state power would be gone.

 

regards

Andi