Ask An Objectivist

[barehl]

In the real world when ideas are back up by evidence, that is just called "science".

In what way is Objectivism adding anything new?

 

[jimbob]

Even if everyone behaved according to the precepts of objectivism - society would still be dysfunctional as the narrow self-interest in such a system would include holding everyone else to ransom for everything that you have property rights over.

This criticism is so irrational and violates so many aspects of Objectivism it can only be stated by someone who knows nothing on the topic. "...nor ask any man to live for mine" is right in the oath all the people in the Gulch took. To ignore something the author herself defines as one of the most important aspects of the philosophy is to ignore the philosophy.

Here's the thing: Living in a society is, under normal conditions, GOOD. It helps everyone to live in a society. When other people prosper, it makes my life easier. Therefore I want other people to do well. What possible good would it do me to have a bunch of money and no one to trade with? What possible good would it do to have a whole lot of land but no one to sell crops to? The concept is insane. Am I going to trade what I have for less than its value to me? Of course not; I'm not a sacrificial animal. But neither am I a butcher intent on "getting mine" and damn the cost. I want other people to be able to do great things in their careers--or even modest things--because each time it happens it makes MY career easier.

The problem with your interpretation of Objectivism is that you view self-interest as a narrow range. This is not the way the philosophy works. Self-interest is a long-term concept. What you are describing is ultimately self-destructive. It may help you out for a little while, but in the end it'll come back and bite you, hard. The kind of predatory selfishness you describe is short-sighted in the extreme.

Finally, I love how you smuggled in "ransom" in your description. The only possible interpretation is that you don't view property rights as absolute--were we to accept your description of events, we would have to start with the premise that property is collective, and that ownership as such is somehow a violation of rights. This is not the Objectivist view. If you own something and do not wish to sell it to me, I may be extremely unhappy, even to the point of finding ways to economically ruin you--but in the end, I will respect your right to say "No" to a sale. It's YOUR stuff; I have NO right to it, PERIOD. If you want to sell it to someone else just to spite me, have fun. I may object to it, but I have NO say in what you do with it. Thus, it is impossible for someone to hold their own property for ransom under Objectivism; they can refuse to sell it, they can hoard it, they can destroy it if they wish, but they cannot hold it for ransom because the term "ransom" is inapplicable to one's own property.

Would an Objectivist society be nice? I'm no Utopian; I know it wouldn't be all sunshine and lollypops and unicorns. What it would be is just. And between the two, I would much rather take my chances with the latter.

The first highlighted bit. Very good - however we have seen plenty of people and organisations engaging in monopolistic behaviour.



The second highlighted bit. How will any radio-based system (e.g. cellphones) work economically?

As I see it there are two opposite approaches. Either everyone owns the radio spectrum above their land. In that case Joe Doe has a right to not have your broadcast waves above their land unless he wants to - which could be a rent at a price that he decides. The other approach is that the radio spectrum is owned by nobody. In that situation, what is to stop Joe Doe building a transmitter and jamming your broadcasts unless you pay him money to stop?

The first approach is utterly unworkable.

This is a particular case of the tragedy of the commons, which has been alluded to and specifically raised earlier.

If there is a common resource (say a fishery) with nothing controlling how much people can use it - which would be the case in an objectivist society, then it is rational to get as much as possible before anyone else does. It is not rational to decide that you are going to take a limited "sustainable" amount if nobody else is going to. It is also impossible to even work out what would be a sustainable amount per head per year if you have no idea how many heads there are.

And as Darat pointed out, this is if people are rational actors. They are not. The basic tenets are fundamentally flawed and even if they weren't, would be a recipe for a society where economic power is all.

If such a society was founded, then the rich would very soon be able to buy their version of justice. It would end up like Russia in the early 1990s.

ETA:

Self-interest is a long-term concept. What you are describing is ultimately self-destructive. It may help you out for a little while, but in the end it'll come back and bite you, hard. The kind of predatory selfishness you describe is short-sighted in the extreme.

But if someone else might behave similarly, and as it wouldn't be illegal it would happen, then it is rational to ignore the long term because there is no point in planning for the long term if that means you face short term disaster.