Objectivism, Modern Politics, and the Non-initiation of Force
A friend made some claims in a friends-only post at LiveJournal, and a disagreement between us ensued. Since it was a friends-only post, I cannot really quote his post here in public.
The issues raised were important ones, however, and ones that require some time to disentangle. So I’m posting my reply here where others may add to, and benefit from, the dialogue if they wish.
It sounds like we agree that the important overall question is “What major party candidate, if any, is most likely to make America a more free country?”
In your original post, you do not answer that question or really provide a logical argument about anything, but you do strongly imply that an Objectivist who supports a major party candidate is insufficiently rigorous, doesn’t understand Objectivism properly, doesn’t advocate freedom consistently. Etc.
While you do not present these comments in the classic ad hominem formulation (”These people don’t understand Objectivism therefore their choice of candidate is wrong”), they certainly match the spirit of arguing against the man, in that they attack the character of the people with whom you disagree, without providing logical support for your assertions.
Regarding my position on the draft, I think you must be mis-remembering. I do not support any draft and do not recall ever making any statements in support of it, or in support of any candidate’s position in favor of it.
Regarding immigration, and many other political subjects, I must dispute your claim that it’s an open-and-shut case on the basis of the non-initiation of force principle. Two people can agree completely about the importance — even the sanctity — of the NIF principle, and still disagree about who is initiating force.
This happens all the time, for example, with abortion. Some people think you’re initiating force when you kill a fetus. Other people think you’re initiating force when you stop someone from killing a fetus. Sorting out who is right requires patience and careful explanations. And, even then, two very reasonable people may not agree. This point is, there can be areas of ambiguity involved.
The question of illegal immigration is similar in this regard. Some people (who may be disposed to see a country as a collection of property owners) believe illegal immigrants initiate force when they cross the border against the will of Americans, insofar as said will is embodied by American law.
Other people (who share your view of America primarily as a collection of free agents rather than as property owners) believe you’re initiating force when you prevent a business owner from hiring an illegal immigrant. I happen to be very sympathetic to your argument here, but I am not sympathetic to your claim that it’s an open-and-shut case that any Objectivist must agree with or leave himself open to charges of intellectual laziness.
As I said before, two people can agree about the importance of the NIF principle, yet still disagree about where the “initiation” part happens. The process of sorting out the support for various arguments, and assigning priority to the competing claims of grievance, can be complicated. Reasonable people can disagree, or they can agree. And often the difference between the two is entirely a function of their willingness and ability to explain.
You seem to share not only Rand’s tendency to see things in fairly black and white terms (to which I’m somewhat sympathetic, at least with some modifications) but also to mar the character of the person you disagree with, without ever really sympathetically investigating the basis for the person’s position. I think that’s something that deserves attention.
So returning to the original question: What major party candidate, if any, is most likely to make America a more free country?
Hi Joshua,
Some quick thoughts.
I’m not sure these are the best examples of hard problems of application of the non-initiation of force principle. With regard to the immigration issue, there is no juxtaposition that I know of, of people who see America as a collection of private property owners vs. people who see America as a collection of “free agents”. Those are the same things.
The contrast I made was a view of America as one giant piece of public property, vs. a view of America as an association of free people / private property owners. The point was that people really only have a legitimate concern about what happens on their property, and have no business meddling in the affairs of others on their own property. That is, it’s no one’s business who I rent to, marry, sell to, hire, etc. It’s a nation of private property owners who can do what they want. The people who take a public property view see America as a thing that can be trespassed upon.
The multi-layered issue of force on immigration usually arises from concerns about welfare, which is of course funded by theft. But the numbers don’t bear that argument out, as far as it goes.
On abortion, the whole issue of force rests on the issue of personhood — that’s where the disagreement is, and there isn’t much of a debate among secular people.
Now, I do think politics can be quite complicated when it comes to strategy and tactics, rather than discrete policy issues. This gets us to the voting thing. I think voting is probably one of the least impactful things we can do to effect change. Asking which major party candidate is most likely to make America more of a free country is like asking which Ford truck will get us to Mars. I think perhaps the best thing we could do at the polling booth is vote Libertarian. Getting a 10% take for the LP would be quite disruptive. Otherwise, I think it’s clear we are simply not accounted for by the major parties — a new party is perhaps the best answer. I’ve been hashing this out.
Beyond that, I’m super cool with getting a tribe to secede, or things like the Free State Project. Or even leaving the USA for a better place.
Joe,
On immigration and abortion, I continue to think there is more room for disagreement — even among reasonable, intelligent people who agree about the NIF principle — than you grant. For example, lots of seculars, even husbands and wives, disagree with one another about when personhood is conferred for a fetus. But let’s set that aside for something more pivotal.
Do you disagree that there are likely to be substantial differences between (say) Mike Huckabee and Fred Thompson in the following areas?
- Whether tax breaks are passed or held in place. Huck has a history of raising taxes, while Thompson has a (very) strong record of advocating and voting for tax breaks.
- Whether social security gets reformed in part or in whole. Every free market economist agrees it’s a huge issue affecting the financial health of the country, but Thompson is the only candidate who has expressed a commitment to working for change in this area.
- Whether school vouchers come into wider use around the country. Huck opposes vouchers and was endorsed by the NEA as a result; Thompson supports them.
- Whether America remains firm in the face of terrorism or succumbs to Carter-esque compromise.
- The number of Americans who could feel inspired by the President’s leadership in a time of national crisis.
To my eye, these are all areas in which:
1. The two candidates have significantly different positions, inclinations, or talents
2. These differences, by virtue of the Presidential office, are likely to have a noticeable impact on our country
3. This impact will move the country more quickly or slowly toward freedom vs. socialism, and prosperity vs. decline
You write: “Asking which major party candidate is most likely to make America more of a free country is like asking which Ford truck will get us to Mars.” I believe this (rather flip) claim is directly contradicted by the points I outlined above.
Obviously, in the modern era, no President will get the power to make radical changes in the size of our government. But a president can still wield some influence over the country’s tax policies, legislative priorities, and new spending initiatives — all of which can have significant effects on our relative freedom and prosperity.
Again, I’m not saying any president has the power to (for example) reverse trends in total government spending; but he certainly has the power to affect how much freedom we enjoy in other areas of our lives and around the country.
If you disagree, I’d be very interested to hear why. At the moment, it’s hard for me to fathom equating candidates like Huck and Fred on important issues like social security, tax cuts, leadership potential, and the like.
Joshua
I think Joshua touched on some very real differences between the candidates, and the effects that each one would have occupying the most powerful office in the world. Lets not be so jaded as to forget that the future of the world hinges on what that office does (as we’ve seen in the last 8 years, for better or for worse depending on your perspective), simply because we can’t put someone in that office that will realize our ideal of 100% freedom.
As Joshua mentioned, the executive branch doesn’t have the power to make extremely radical changes in the overall size of government. But they do have the ability to stop radical expansion of the federal government by the legislative branch, whose job is to write new exciting laws that increase our tax burden. Based on Fred’s highly principled reputation of opposing the expansion of federal government, I would surmise that every new attempt by a Democratic congress to increase the scope of the federal government would be met with a big veto. Huckabee, by contrast, is in love with the nanny/welfare state.
But being able to negate (rather than encourage) the excesses of socialists, fascists and favor-peddlers in Congress is just one major concern — perhaps more important is the issue of character. Presidents have the ability to garner support for their goals, and not just from the people that toe the party line. Recall how a quarter of registered Democrats voted for Reagan during his re-election (and that was only 20+ years ago — can we be so jaded as to have forgotten this already?) Fred Thompson has intellect, conviction, gravitas, humor, a highly-principled reputation and optimism. These are the kinds of qualities that inspire people, beyond just the immediacy of a crisis as Joshua mentioned, in helping to bring about real change. By comparison, Huckabee would inspire no one (though he wouldn’t have to, since a Democratic Congress would feel right at home with him in the Oval Office) — simply listen to what one of his constituents from Arkansas had to say.
Joe, I do feel sympathy with your view that the least effective thing you can do is vote. I think it’s a giant sham (originally the populace didn’t elect the president, as the founding fathers knew that people who worship Paris Hilton maybe shouldn’t choose the leader of the free world, but I digress). But “voting” for a candidate isn’t the same thing as “supporting” a candidate — support means *much* more than voting. It can mean donating to the candidate, telling friends about the candidate, discussing the merits of the candidate in a public forum, or even volunteering to help the campaign.
But again, simply doing nothing means you leave the future of this country, and the world, up to pure chance. That, to me, takes some pretty big balls.