Objectivism and Anarchism



Uploaded by: XOmniverse
Video Description:
A contradiction in Objectivist ethics and politics.
Further reading:
Nicholas Dykes
http://www.libertarian.co.uk/lapubs/philn/philn079.htm
George H. Smith
http://folk.uio.no/thomas/po/rational-anarchism.html
David D. Friedman
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Academic/Anarchy_and_Eff_Law/Anarchy_and_Eff_Law.html
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Libertarian/Machinery_of_Freedom/MofF_Chapter_29.html


Tags for this video: argument Ayn criticism critics cult Objectivism objectivists philosophy proof Rand

Find more videos in the "People" category
See more videos uploaded by XOmniverse

Related Videos
In Defence of Ayn Rand #2-1 Art, Criteria, and ObjectivismMore on AnarchismIn Defence of Ayn Rand #4: Rand, Anarchism, and Taxes
in-defence-of-ayn-rand-21-art-criteria-and-objectivism.htmlin-defence-of-ayn-rand-21-art-criteria-and-objectivism.htmlin-defence-of-ayn-rand-21-art-criteria-and-objectivism.html
Communism vs AnarchismIn Defence of Ayn Rand #9: The Word "Objectivism"IDOAR #11: Damned to Repeat It, Pt. 2 - Anarchism
in-defence-of-ayn-rand-21-art-criteria-and-objectivism.htmlin-defence-of-ayn-rand-21-art-criteria-and-objectivism.htmlin-defence-of-ayn-rand-21-art-criteria-and-objectivism.html


Share This Video:       StumbleUpon       del.icio.us       Reddit       digg       Furl       Spurl       Simpy       YahooMyWeb


Comments for this video: Show || Hide
Comments for this video on YouTube
Why wouldn't an ... ( 6 months ago by Bellator656)
Why wouldn't an unregulated private defense agency initiate force in favour of, for example, well paying capitalists who wants to enslave all of his workers? Since in anarcho-capitalism, there are no collective democratic institutions (i.e. states) to enforce any laws, who would stop them?
why should we not ... ( 5 months ago by sbrian28)
why should we not act like animals, maybe because we have the mental capacity for abstract thought and a sense of self awareness. thats all i can think of off the top of my head.
Using democracy to ... ( 5 months ago by Samer1988)
Using democracy to achieve your goals is still coercion.
Here's a fairly simple example. We have a referendum over socialized health care. If 60% vote yes and 40% vote no, then forty percent of the voting population is coerced into giving up their tax money to support such a system when they clearly have no desire to do so.
When it boils down to it, not every man will desire what you desire, so you have no right to decide things for him.
Decision making has ... ( 5 months ago by Baculus)
Decision making has to be made in one manner or another if humans are going to have communities. If the minority imposes their will upon the majority as well, it is still coercion, under your description of the hypothetical. And, ultimately, organized society cannot exist without SOME form of organization and decision making, lest we are frozen from an inability to make such decisions.
(TBH, I cannot correctly recall the entirety of your video as well.)
very interesting. i ... ( 5 months ago by fedeman2)
very interesting. i sometimes think about anarchism (though, from the more collectivist perspective) and how it is philosophcally and morally consistant, although i also think it might be esoteric.
The use of force by ... ( 4 months ago by Arbiter099)
The use of force by government is a defensive action, protectiong the rights of those whose rights were violated, under the NAP retalitatory, defensive force is completly moral.
So if two entities ... ( 4 months ago by XOmniverse)
So if two entities attempt to provide this service, which one is the government and which one is just a gang of criminals?
the criminals are ... ( 3 months ago by natdavi)
the criminals are the ones who violated the rights of others by initiating force. the government is the one who uses force to protect rights. not that governments are always moral...
I don't think this ... ( 3 months ago by natdavi)
I don't think this constitutes a contradiction in objectivism b/c it doesn't follow that a government would have to initiate force to prevent competition in the protection racket.
Nothing ethically prevents people from defending themselves or hiring body gaurds or a security agency to do it for them. As long as such security agencies don't break the law the government would have no need to confront them.
So if two ... ( 3 months ago by XOmniverse)
So if two institutions of roughly equal size are enforcing the law, which one is the government and which one isn't?
And don't say "the ... ( 3 months ago by XOmniverse)
And don't say "the one that doesn't violate rights." I could easily suggest a scenario where neither of them is.
I'd say that in ... ( 3 months ago by natdavi)
I'd say that in such a situation it must be that there are two governments enforcing their own seperate sets of laws, which happen to be the same, or they're two agencies of the same government.
Before there can be enforcement of the law there has to be the LAW, and the definition of laws is the legitimate purpose of gvmnt.
Neglect FTSOA that competing gvmnts is contrary to the definition of gvmnt. Esp since we're talking about anarchy, lol! The real answer to your question is: neither.
Suppose govA ... ( 3 months ago by natdavi)
Suppose govA recognizes the right to health-care and govB doesn't. CitizenA gets sick and goes to a Hospital under the jurisdiction of govB where he's refused treatment and dies. Under the laws of govB no rights were violated and under the laws of govA they were.
Contradictory laws are unenforcable. There can only be one set of laws for a given group of ppl to live by. There may be competition among law enforcers, if that's how the gvmnt chooses to function, but not law enforcement.
yay! An objectivist! ( 3 months ago by gumbiproductions)
yay! An objectivist!
Nice video. I ... ( 3 months ago by sherlockfury)
Nice video. I agree that you cannot initiate force on others. The only moral force would be the protection again a force, and I believe it must be non-violent (physical harm - understanding all force is a "violent" act), and only to create an in-action (peace).
Clear, concise, and ... ( 2 months ago by smikro1)
Clear, concise, and well done all around.
Ghs
wasup???? I just ... ( 2 months ago by Belibette)
wasup???? I just tried 2 see this n' there's just a weird "static" sound??
why are my speakers ... ( 1 month ago by elsargente)
why are my speakers taking a shat in my ears?!
Ya, me too. What ... ( 1 month ago by graecoromanus)
Ya, me too. What the fuck is this static?
Alot of older ... ( 1 month ago by Rahab111222)
Alot of older Youtube videos are all static now
remove this shit.. ... ( 1 month ago by dontdewcriz)
remove this shit.. static!!!
The non-aggression ... ( 1 month ago by thinkingisawesome)
The non-aggression principle is something that exists within a society with a state. It's really the fallacy of the stolen concept to advoate anarchism based on it. Anarchism really says nothing, and is really nihilistic, because a true anarchist state has no mechanism of preventing centralized government.
We need a centralized government for objectivity, not gangs.
is the anoying ... ( 3 weeks ago by psytrancegirl)
is the anoying sound fast vid pard of what u meant to do? is all I'm getting , no sound no expresion.
A glowing hot nail ... ( 3 weeks ago by thetinfoilhatter)
A glowing hot nail would find a perfect home residing in the cooking flesh, bone, and cerebral tissue of the she-boy on this screen. In every cosmic sense the nail, the pain, the joy, and the natural progression would be reminiscent of golden aged ethics taking into account all variables.




URL