Post-Randian Objectivism

[Merton]

Hello, everybody! I've been studying a lot of political philosophy and have combined several elements of various philosophies into one which I think is both reasonable and practical. I'd love to hear constructive criticism, so without further ado:

When asked to describe Objectivism whilst standing on one foot, Ayn Rand broke her philosophy down into four key aspects: rationalism (Epistemology), metaphysical objectivism (Metaphysics), self-interest (Ethics), and capitalism (Economics). I think this simplistic approach is easily digestible and will describe my own philosophy, which I call Post-Randian Objectivism,¹ in the same manner. The biggest differences signified by the adjective "Post-Randian" are complete political devolution^WP, informed by Michel Foucault's work on power structures, and an economic policy built upon a strict adherence to John Locke's definition of property in his second treatise of government^WP.

Rationalism: Knowledge is obtained by comparing theory and observation.

Metaphysical Objectivism (aka philosophical realism): There exists a real world outside of perception, known only through fallible sense data.

Self-Interest Self-Sovereignty (aka autonomy, self-property): Rational² beings have free will (or the illusion thereof), and are the supreme authorities over their individual minds, bodies, and, through the extension of the body via labor, property. This is the basis for natural rights (protection of negative liberties) and is proved via reductio ad absurdum: to lack self-sovereignty is to be a slave.

Capitalism Communalism³ (aka libertarian municipalism): Developed by Murray Bookchin, this philosophy promotes total political devolution (i.e. municipalism) into communities analogous to the poleis of ancient Greece. Administration of the means of subsistence⁴ occurs through direct democracy, as is the provision of services such as education, justice, defense, sanitation, and disease control. These services provide the positive liberties that not only constitute a moral society, but encourage greater productivity as well. If we accept John Locke's formula for property, which is still debated and states that property is created when one mixes labor with natural resources, we come to the conclusion that natural resources (land, air, water, etc.) aren't property. However, I think it has been well illustrated that using natural resources as property is of immense utility. It is therefore my contention that, in order to treat natural resources as property, we must resurrect the social contract.

The social contract binds an individual to the local community, compensating citizens via a ground rent for the restricted access entailed by private ownership. In return, the individual has a means to attain personal wealth and judicial recourse for violations thereof. This contract also accounts for ecological factors such as destruction of habitats and pollution, further funding the aforementioned services. Any discrepancy between the cost of services and received taxes is either saved as a surplus or passed on to the citizenry, to be paid in currency or general labor.

I believe this philosophy creates an ethical society that establishes both negative and positive liberties for the individual, whilst castrating power structures to prevent abuse. Thank you for reading this grandiose monument to verbosity (if you did) and please offer any constructive criticism (as if I need to ask).

--
1. I've considered dropping the label Post-Randian Objectivist due to the oft-understood association with right-wing/conservative ideology.

2. Here, rational refers to a rather fuzzy emergent property of the brain. Other terms that approximate this quality include mindfulness, consciousness, and sapience.

3. I must admit I have only recently learned of Communalism and am not entirely sure my own opinion and Bookchin's are the same; however, the differences are far less than with other philosophies I've studied, and I use the term to denote this similarity.

4. The means of subsistence consist of those resources that an organism requires to satisfy its biological imperative. For example, we humans need food, water, air, and shelter to sustain our lives. Though shelters are man-made, they take up physical space on a natural resource (land), thereby providing the justification for democratic administration.

 

[Piscivore]

Self-Interest Self-Sovereignty (aka autonomy, self-property): Rational² beings have free will (or the illusion thereof), and are the supreme authorities over their individual minds, bodies, and, through the extension of the body via labor, property.

I'm not sure what to make of this. From a purely biological standpoint, it's nonsense. We do not have the "supreme authority" to chose not to breathe or exist without eating or sleeping. We also seem to control very little of what goes on in our "minds". So what exactly do you mean here?

If you just mean in the sense of how much you think other people should be allowed screw with us, that should probably be made clear without the grandiose hyperbole. Not everything in life is a fundamental priciple, Ayn Rand is a poor model to follow in that respect.

This is the basis for natural rights

Ain't any such thing. But go on, name one.

(protection of negative liberties) and is proved via reductio ad absurdum: to lack self-sovereignty is to be a slave.

One can't prove anything by "reductio ad absurdum"- it is a fallacy; a way to be wrong.

It is therefore my contention that, in order to treat natural resources as property, we must resurrect the social contract.

I don't know what you think a "social contract" is, but it isn't a formal document like the Constitution; it was a theory trying to explain existing, implicit social behaviours.

 

[Dinwar]

It's been a long time since I've seen such a misrepresentation of Objectivism.

Let's examine this more closely:

Rationalism: Knowledge is obtained by comparing theory and observation.

Eh, okay. Not really the O'ist epistemology, but it's not horribly wrong either.

Metaphysical Objectivism (aka philosophical realism): There exists a real world outside of perception, known only through fallible sense data.

You're starting to go a bit sideways here. O'ism holds that reality exists, that our senses percieve the data, and that our mind integrates that knowledge. The emphasis on the fallibility of the senses is inappropriate, as it implies that your epistemology (rationalism) doesn't work.

Self-Sovereignty (aka autonomy, self-property): Rational2 beings have free will (or the illusion thereof), and are the supreme authorities over their individual minds, bodies, and, through the extension of the body via labor, property. This is the basis for natural rights (protection of negative liberties) and is proved via reductio ad absurdum: to lack self-sovereignty is to be a slave.

Okay....The language isi a bit sloppy, but sure, I'll give you this one.

Communalism

Administration of the means of subsistence occurs through direct democracy, as is the provision of services such as education, justice, defense, sanitation, and disease control.

No. No no no no no.

This directly contradicts the "Self-Sovereignty" you substituted for rational self-interest. You're substituting the judgement of the community for your own. You're also substituting collective property ownership (which is what "administration of the means of subsistence" means) for property rights.

If we accept John Locke's formula for property, which is still debated and states that property is created when one mixes labor with natural resources,

I've never heard an Objectivist agree with this. Labor IS NOT considered paramount, like this quote makes it. Labor is necessary--Objectivism is not idealism--but it's not sufficient.

It is therefore my contention that, in order to treat natural resources as property, we must resurrect the social contract.

Social contracts are a form of collectivism, which is anethema to Objectivism.

You've gone so far from what Objectivism stands for that I'm curious as to why you felt the need to tie your philosophy to Rand's. I'm genuinely curious here--O'ism is not a popular philosophy, and many of the more main-stream ones would serve you better.

 

[Merton]

I'm not sure what to make of this. From a purely biological standpoint, it's nonsense. We do not have the "supreme authority" to chose not to breathe or exist without eating or sleeping. We also seem to control very little of what goes on in our "minds". So what exactly do you mean here?

If you just mean in the sense of how much you think other people should be allowed screw with us, that should probably be made clear without the grandiose hyperbole. Not everything in life is a fundamental priciple, Ayn Rand is a poor model to follow in that respect.

Yes, negative liberties means other people should not "be allowed to screw with us." I thought using the terms autonomy and self-property made this clear.

Ain't any such thing. But go on, name one.

These are usually described with the phrase "life, liberty, and property" and refer to one's rights not be murdered, raped, assaulted, etc.

One can't prove anything by "reductio ad absurdum"- it is a fallacy; a way to be wrong.

Not sure where you got that. Reductio ad absurdum is used to argue for a proposition by showing how its negation is impossible and/or undesirable:

Reductio ad absurdum is a mode of argumentation that seeks to establish a contention by deriving an absurdity from its denial, thus arguing that a thesis must be accepted because its rejection would be untenable. It is a style of reasoning that has been employed throughout the history of mathematics and philosophy from classical antiquity onwards.

Source

I don't know what you think a "social contract" is, but it isn't a formal document like the Constitution; it was a theory trying to explain existing, implicit social behaviours.

Yes, the social contract was concocted to justify the supposedly voluntary surrender of rights to the state, for purposes of social cohesion. This is similar, but not quite the same.

 

[Dinwar]

Yes, the social contract was concocted to justify the supposedly voluntary surrender of rights to the state, for purposes of social cohesion. This is similar, but not quite the same.

Yup. Just like the voluntary association that shut down the Pheonix-Durrango Railroad. And how did Rand portray that organization again....?

 

[Piscivore]

Yes, negative liberties means other people should not "be allowed to screw with us." I thought using the terms autonomy and self-property made this clear.

That's the problem with using too many or excessively broad generalities and unique terminologies; one has to be careful about the specifics being snuck in under their skirts.

These are usually described with the phrase "life, liberty, and property" and refer to one's rights not be murdered, raped, assaulted, etc.

Those aren't "rights". Those are things you don't want to happen, but no "natural" power in the 'verse will interceed on your behalf to prevent them. Only other humans, who see it in their interest (financial, emotioanl, or otherwise) to interceed or to refrain for depriving you of them make them possible at all. Conversely, if someone wants them bad enough there's not a lot stopping them from taking them from you.

Not sure where you got that. Reductio ad absurdum is used to argue for a proposition by showing how its negation is impossible and/or undesirable:

Source

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum
I guess around here I've not seen it much used in anything but a fallacious way.

Yes, the social contract was concocted to justify the supposedly voluntary surrender of rights to the state, for purposes of social cohesion. This is similar, but not quite the same.

The social contract was "concocted" to explain what was observed, not to justify or prescribe anything.

In your terms "voluntary surrender of rights to the state" happened, the social contract was an attempt to figure out why, not to say it was "right".

 

[Beelzebuddy]

Yup. Just like the voluntary association that shut down the Pheonix-Durrango Railroad. And how did Rand portray that organization again....?

Ooh, I know this one! As cackling, megalomaniacal straw commies worthy of no mention whatsoever in an actual conversation?

Those aren't "rights". Those are things you don't want to happen, but no "natural" power in the 'verse will interceed on your behalf to prevent them. Only other humans, who see it in their interest (financial, emotioanl, or otherwise) to interceed or to refrain for depriving you of them make them possible at all. Conversely, if someone wants them bad enough there's not a lot stopping them from taking them from you.

I suspect he's arguing from the 'ought' sense of rights-based ethics. That is, some rights ought to be considered natural and unalienable, and any violation of them without justification ought to be considered unnatural and criminal. The Declaration of Independence uses similar language, meant the same way.

 

[BNRT]

[...]

First off, I am a little drunk and currently approaching 20 hours awake.

Second, while you say it is a "grandiose monument to verbosity", it is merely some points/hypotheses/assumptions and nowhere near a finished philosophical theory. Stuff like "Knowledge is obtained by comparing theory and observation." is not self-evident and should therefore be defended. This applies to most of your other points as well.

Third, this seems to be a 'philosophy' that would apply to small communities, 'poleis' as you name them. However, that is simply not the reality we live in. There are 7 billion people on this planet and I think most of them live in cities/urban concentrations and wouldn't want to live in small communities. It might be a nice idea, but it's simply unworkable¹ in the reality we live in. Living in small communities would mean a loss of many of the luxuries we (westerners) are used to and don't want to live without.

Fifth, the idea that "[...]shelters are man-made [and] they take up physical space on a natural resource (land), thereby providing the justification for democratic administration." doesn't follow. I mean, what? Why would a democratic administration be justified by how we lived?

Sixth, I don't agree with this:

One can't prove anything by "reductio ad absurdum"- it is a fallacy; a way to be wrong.

It certainly isn't a fallacy. It's completely valid to prove something by "reductio ad absurdum". If you can show that something leads to an inconsistency (something absurd), it must be false.

¹That may be a Dutch term literally translated.

 

[Dinwar]

Ooh, I know this one! As cackling, megalomaniacal straw commies worthy of no mention whatsoever in an actual conversation?

No. Not even close. I pointed out that particular scene for a reason, and it's certainly not because Rand made straw-men out of the characters. In fact, one of them was held up as one of the good guys.

 

[Piscivore]

It certainly isn't a fallacy. It's completely valid to prove something by "reductio ad absurdum". If you can show that something leads to an inconsistency (something absurd), it must be false.

Yes, I was mistaken about that.

 

[BNRT]

Yes, I was mistaken about that.

No matter. It sounds as if it should be a fallacy.

Talking about mistakes, where is that last beer I had?

 

[Beerina]

Administration of the means of subsistence -- presumably by government officials.

Been tried and shown full of fail over and over.

It's because politics is a religion fighting for control rather than a measured science with results predicted and observed accurate over and over again that there's even a "debate".

Politics is akin to the "raging controversy" over evolution. There is no controversy except in the minds of people with massive, lifelong, emotional investments in their big government god.

They don't even realize the idiocy of the exact same heart-tugging assurity modifiers that they're Good People and Onto the One Truth All Should Be Forced To Live By.

Even the recent hyper-asininity by Obama about the primacy of roads over free enterprise in driving creation of wealth for all implicitely acknowledges at least that the wealth is created. It just whines that it wants to take it.

 

[Piscivore]

Administration of the means of subsistence -- presumably by government officials.

Been tried and shown full of fail over and over.

Depends on one's definition of "fail". Seems to work out for the ones in control of the government. Of course, one sees similar results from unrestrained private enterprise too. "Company Towns" and such.

They don't even realize the idiocy of the exact same heart-tugging assurity modifiers that they're Good People and Onto the One Truth All Should Be Forced To Live By.

That goes for ideologists of any and every stripe.

 

[RelativeSpace]

Yours seems to make a little more sense, and at least be a bit more rational than that of Rand... but Ethics based on anything short of altruism is still an oxymoron.

Ethics are about helping (or at least not harming) other beings. Politically, there's nothing in the cards that says people have to behave ethically, but any other framework that does not consider others is really so much self deception, and not in keeping with the meaning of the word.

 

[Dinwar]

Ethics are about helping (or at least not harming) other beings.

No. ALTRUISM is about helping other beings. ETHICS is the philosophical study of how one should behave. You can agree or disagree with all sorts of ethical theories, but that doesn't mean that only your preferred ethical theory gets to be included in the field.

 

[Merton]

It's been a long time since I've seen such a misrepresentation of Objectivism.

I wasn't trying to accurately portray contemporary Objectivist thought; this is a significant departure from Rand's ideology.

You're starting to go a bit sideways here. O'ism holds that reality exists, that our senses percieve the data, and that our mind integrates that knowledge. The emphasis on the fallibility of the senses is inappropriate, as it implies that your epistemology (rationalism) doesn't work.

I don't follow. The term fallible is intended only to show that the individual's perception can be wrong and that objective truth arises from the accumulation of subjective accounts.

No. No no no no no.

This directly contradicts the "Self-Sovereignty" you substituted for rational self-interest. You're substituting the judgement of the community for your own. You're also substituting collective property ownership (which is what "administration of the means of subsistence" means) for property rights.

I don't think this contradicts self-sovereignty, but rather follows from it: self-sovereignty means that the individual is the highest authority over his or her own body, mind, and property... of which these services are neither. I suppose it would violate the ethical dimension if the social contract were compulsory (i.e. coercing tax money to pay for these services), but in order for it to be a valid contract, it must be accepted voluntarily. Those who do not accept it would be practicing anarchists: they can live however they so desire, but their values and practices needn't be recognized by the community.

I've never heard an Objectivist agree with this. Labor IS NOT considered paramount, like this quote makes it. Labor is necessary--Objectivism is not idealism--but it's not sufficient.

I'm a bit confused... you say labor is necessary? Do you mean labor input is necessary to create property? Because that's what I'm saying.

You've gone so far from what Objectivism stands for that I'm curious as to why you felt the need to tie your philosophy to Rand's. I'm genuinely curious here--O'ism is not a popular philosophy, and many of the more main-stream ones would serve you better.

As I said in one of my footnotes, I have thought about dropping the term because of its association with conservative ideology, but I continue to call it Objectivism for a few reasons: 1) Rand got the Epistemology and Metaphysics correct, which comprise the basis for the name; 2) I don't think her Ethics are too far removed from what is described here, except I feel this formulation is less ambiguous; and 3) free markets still "govern" property exchanges, it's only the scope of what is considered property that has changed.

 

[Merton]

Those aren't "rights". Those are things you don't want to happen, but no "natural" power in the 'verse will interceed on your behalf to prevent them. Only other humans, who see it in their interest (financial, emotioanl, or otherwise) to interceed or to refrain for depriving you of them make them possible at all. Conversely, if someone wants them bad enough there's not a lot stopping them from taking them from you.

You are correct, but please see Beelzebuddy's response: we can do better than what is, and we ought to do so.

The social contract was "concocted" to explain what was observed, not to justify or prescribe anything.

In your terms "voluntary surrender of rights to the state" happened, the social contract was an attempt to figure out why, not to say it was "right".

Eh... kinda. Some philosophers may have just been explaining observed social orders, but there are definitely some who assign a moral aspect to it. I'm thinking primarily of John Rawls and his "veil of ignorance."

 

[Dinwar]

I wasn't trying to accurately portray contemporary Objectivist thought; this is a significant departure from Rand's ideology.

As an Objectivist, I would ask you to pick another name for your musings, then. We get enough flak as it is, and if you know your ideas are substantially different from Rand's it doesn't make sense to tie your thoughts to hers in name.

I don't follow.

English is as much about implication as it is about the specific words you use. Without a LOT of explanation your phrasing comes off as being counter to Objectivism in some pretty fundamental ways.

I don't think this contradicts self-sovereignty, but rather follows from it: self-sovereignty means that the individual is the highest authority over his or her own body, mind, and property... of which these services are neither.

The highlighted part direclty contradicts Objectivism.

I suppose it would violate the ethical dimension if the social contract were compulsory (i.e. coercing tax money to pay for these services), but in order for it to be a valid contract, it must be accepted voluntarily.

Again, Rand wrote specifically about this subject, and demonstrated that voluntarily submitting to a commune/collective/group is WORSE than doing so under coersion. At least if you're coerced you didn't do it to yourself, which means you may be a victim. If you do it to yourself you're the perpetrator.

I'm a bit confused... you say labor is necessary? Do you mean labor input is necessary to create property? Because that's what I'm saying.

Labor is necessary to add value to material items, but it is neither sufficient by itself nor is labor necessarily what converts unowned nature into property.

but I continue to call it Objectivism for a few reasons: 1) Rand got the Epistemology and Metaphysics correct, which comprise the basis for the name; 2) I don't think her Ethics are too far removed from what is described here, except I feel this formulation is less ambiguous; and 3) free markets still "govern" property exchanges, it's only the scope of what is considered property that has changed.

I have to ask: which of Rand's works have you read? I'm not asking to be sarcasting or anything--I merely want to know what your understanding of the philosophy is, so that I know where I need to start in showing the errors you're making.

 

[Merton]

Second, while you say it is a "grandiose monument to verbosity", it is merely some points/hypotheses/assumptions and nowhere near a finished philosophical theory. Stuff like "Knowledge is obtained by comparing theory and observation." is not self-evident and should therefore be defended. This applies to most of your other points as well.

Yes, absolutely correct; these things have been rattling around in my brain and I just wanted to know what others thought about them. I glossed over rationalism and metaphysical objectivism because I assumed that those ideas would be already accepted by skeptics.

Third, this seems to be a 'philosophy' that would apply to small communities, 'poleis' as you name them. However, that is simply not the reality we live in. There are 7 billion people on this planet and I think most of them live in cities/urban concentrations and wouldn't want to live in small communities. It might be a nice idea, but it's simply unworkable¹ in the reality we live in. Living in small communities would mean a loss of many of the luxuries we (westerners) are used to and don't want to live without.

Excellent point. I am not sure how this kind of social organization would work in heavily urbanized centers, but I have faith--go ahead and cringe--that free market economics would pick up the slack. Obviously, this isn't evidence that it can work, but it seems logical (to me) that merchantability would provide incomes enough to pay for various services. I will definitely need to do more work in this area!

Fifth, the idea that "[...]shelters are man-made [and] they take up physical space on a natural resource (land), thereby providing the justification for democratic administration." doesn't follow. I mean, what? Why would a democratic administration be justified by how we lived?

I'm saying that because land isn't property (it didn't require labor input to create), it is a public good and therefore subject to the community's judgment. I don't see how it is possible to separate shelters from the land upon which they are built, so I think there's no choice but to resign them to democratic control.

 

[Dinwar]

I'm saying that because land isn't property (it didn't require labor input to create), it is a public good and therefore subject to the community's judgment. I don't see how it is possible to separate shelters from the land upon which they are built, so I think there's no choice but to resign them to democratic control.

Land IS property. It may not take effort to make, but it takes effort to convert to a useful purpose (even if that effort is only to put a fence around it and say "Stay out, I like my woods the way it is"). That effort--ie, making the land useful--is what allows land to become property (the USA did exactly that with the frontear, and while we can certainly debate whether they had the right to do so they did have the right idea for how to determine who owns unowned land).

Besides, by your logic ALL property would be "under democratic control". You can't have a stove without a house--so it's part of the land, by your logic. Can't have a TV without electricity, so it's public property as well. Can't have a bed.....can't have a computer.....can't have a couch.....I'm skeptical as to whether you can have cloths or not. Your line of reasoning will eventually lead to the total collectivisation of all property.

Besides, if the land isn't property neither are crops--which means FOOD isn't property. Neither are mines--which means MINERALS are "under democratic control". That pretty much eliminates all property right there, as all raw materials are either mined or grown. And the idea that you can own property but not the means of production is called "communism", just about as far away from Objectivism as you can get.