Top Five Questions Statists Can't Answer  |
Monday, January 25, 2016
Saturday, January 23, 2016
My Comments on The Global Bill of Rights Project
I recently read the book: The Global Bill of Rights Project (GBOR?). These are my comments.
Politically I am an anarchist of the AnCap flavor. I learned about Objectivism in the early eighties and I still think it is the most perfect philosophy today. The main (maybe the only) part I disagree with is the belief in the necessity of "government." That might be due to my definition of "government."
GBOR specifies a "voluntary government." One that observes the NAP: no forced taxation, no control of the money supply, and with no sanction of aggression. I would say that such "government" without a sanction on the initiation of force is the same as "no government." To me, "voluntary government" is an oxymoron. But then GBOR speaks of the the sweet spot:
I think Objectivists and anarchists both have the ultimate goal of non aggression (NAP,) but are going at it from opposite ends. The Objectivists want to use "government" to systematically remove its most aggressive powers until all aggression is removed. I, and maybe all anarchists, believe that as long as there is a "government" with sanctioned aggressive powers that it will continue to grow itself in the long run even if temporary constraints are gained. I believe the simplest and quickest approach is to educate enough people of the evils of aggression that we can remove the belief and support of "governments." After all, we are voluntarily supporting it now. There is no way our ruling class could control and rob 300 million of us without our sanction and belief that what they are doing is moral. Once about 10 per cent of the population agree to the NAP the "government" will start falling apart. At the same time the non-aggressors will start filling the needs without force. A good thing is that even members of the ruling class are human, and many of them are capable of learning to reason, and can help speed the process. Without the educating an NAP society would never last long anyway.
I think this is easier because we don't need to create some words on paper explaining how things will work without rulers before getting started. The private sector will have the freedom to solve problems the way they always have. We won't need one centralized "voluntary government." Many different entities can develop independently to take care of the many needs, like farms and grocery stores and transportation companies cooperated to feed people. I am not saying that what we end up with won't look very similar to what GBOR is proposing, but it will be without the necessity to begin with central planning.
I don't see why all groups that believe in the Non-aggression Principle can't work together to achieve that. Yes, I know that Objectivists believe that religion and reason are incompatible. I do too. But most people will never rationally integrate their beliefs anyway, and I think most theists can still see that aggression is wrong even if they can't logically derive the source of rights. I have convinced theists of that, but have never convinced one that religion is incompatible with reason.
Politically I am an anarchist of the AnCap flavor. I learned about Objectivism in the early eighties and I still think it is the most perfect philosophy today. The main (maybe the only) part I disagree with is the belief in the necessity of "government." That might be due to my definition of "government."
GBOR specifies a "voluntary government." One that observes the NAP: no forced taxation, no control of the money supply, and with no sanction of aggression. I would say that such "government" without a sanction on the initiation of force is the same as "no government." To me, "voluntary government" is an oxymoron. But then GBOR speaks of the the sweet spot:
That's the totally sweet spot between the various degrees of forced-collectivism ( loss of liberty ) and anarchy ( so much liberty that people abused it, and it ends up wrapping back around to forced-collectivism ).How can there be too much liberty? How can liberty cause forced-collectivism? I would agree that if the "government" was totally disbanded today before educating the would-be future leaders (not rulers) that there would likely be chaos and power fights. That is not what I advocate.
I think Objectivists and anarchists both have the ultimate goal of non aggression (NAP,) but are going at it from opposite ends. The Objectivists want to use "government" to systematically remove its most aggressive powers until all aggression is removed. I, and maybe all anarchists, believe that as long as there is a "government" with sanctioned aggressive powers that it will continue to grow itself in the long run even if temporary constraints are gained. I believe the simplest and quickest approach is to educate enough people of the evils of aggression that we can remove the belief and support of "governments." After all, we are voluntarily supporting it now. There is no way our ruling class could control and rob 300 million of us without our sanction and belief that what they are doing is moral. Once about 10 per cent of the population agree to the NAP the "government" will start falling apart. At the same time the non-aggressors will start filling the needs without force. A good thing is that even members of the ruling class are human, and many of them are capable of learning to reason, and can help speed the process. Without the educating an NAP society would never last long anyway.
I think this is easier because we don't need to create some words on paper explaining how things will work without rulers before getting started. The private sector will have the freedom to solve problems the way they always have. We won't need one centralized "voluntary government." Many different entities can develop independently to take care of the many needs, like farms and grocery stores and transportation companies cooperated to feed people. I am not saying that what we end up with won't look very similar to what GBOR is proposing, but it will be without the necessity to begin with central planning.
I don't see why all groups that believe in the Non-aggression Principle can't work together to achieve that. Yes, I know that Objectivists believe that religion and reason are incompatible. I do too. But most people will never rationally integrate their beliefs anyway, and I think most theists can still see that aggression is wrong even if they can't logically derive the source of rights. I have convinced theists of that, but have never convinced one that religion is incompatible with reason.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)