Ayn Rand and Non-Aggression
"Whatever may be open to disagreement, there is one act of evil that may not, the act that no man may commit against others and no man may sanction or forgive. So long as men desire to live together, no man may initiate—do you hear me? no man may start—the use of physical force against others." -- Galt's Speech.
Recent discussions here in the Gulch included comments from frequent posters who clearly know better but whose ad hoc assertions misstate Rand's claims.
Under "The English Bill of Rights" khalling wrote: "Rand did not support non-aggression. If there are rights agreed upon by foundations philosophically (ideas) then those rights must be enforced. Force is part of the word enforce. There are different ways to enforce those property rights, but I do not consider the enforcement of a contract as initiating force."
Discussing the Online Freedom Academy, Maphesdus and evw had this exchange:
"... I simply point out that her philosophy inevitably leads to anarchy because it is built on the non-aggression principle, which is inherently anarchistic." - Maphesdus
"Ayn Rand's philosophy is not based on 'the non-aggression principle' ... " -- evw
I recommend that anyone who wants a quick answer about something Ayn Rand claimed can find much at http://aynrandlexicon.com/ The quotes there give citations to Rand's works.
"The basic political principle of the Objectivist ethics is: no man may initiate the use of physical force against others. No man—or group or society or government—has the right to assume the role of a criminal and initiate the use of physical compulsion against any man. Men have the right to use physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use. The ethical principle involved is simple and clear-cut: it is the difference between murder and self-defense. A holdup man seeks to gain a value, wealth, by killing his victim; the victim does not grow richer by killing a holdup man. The principle is: no man may obtain any values from others by resorting to physical force."
“The Objectivist Ethics,” _The Virtue of Selfishness_, [page] 32 [edition shown in image].
"A government is an institution that holds the exclusive power to enforce certain rules of social conduct in a given geographical area." -- “The Nature of Government,” The Virtue of Selfishness, 107
"If physical force is to be barred from social relationships, men need an institution charged with the task of protecting their rights under an objective code of rules.
This is the task of a government—of a proper government—its basic task, its only moral justification and the reason why men do need a government.
A government is the means of placing the retaliatory use of physical force under objective control—i.e., under objectively defined laws.", “The Nature of Government,” The Virtue of Selfishness, 109
"No individual or private group or private organization has the legal power to initiate the use of physical force against other individuals or groups and to compel them to act against their own voluntary choice. Only a government holds that power. The nature of governmental action is: *coercive *action. The nature of political power is: the power to force obedience under threat of physical injury—the threat of property expropriation, imprisonment, or death." “America’s Persecuted Minority: Big Business,”, Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, 46
Recent discussions here in the Gulch included comments from frequent posters who clearly know better but whose ad hoc assertions misstate Rand's claims.
Under "The English Bill of Rights" khalling wrote: "Rand did not support non-aggression. If there are rights agreed upon by foundations philosophically (ideas) then those rights must be enforced. Force is part of the word enforce. There are different ways to enforce those property rights, but I do not consider the enforcement of a contract as initiating force."
Discussing the Online Freedom Academy, Maphesdus and evw had this exchange:
"... I simply point out that her philosophy inevitably leads to anarchy because it is built on the non-aggression principle, which is inherently anarchistic." - Maphesdus
"Ayn Rand's philosophy is not based on 'the non-aggression principle' ... " -- evw
I recommend that anyone who wants a quick answer about something Ayn Rand claimed can find much at http://aynrandlexicon.com/ The quotes there give citations to Rand's works.
"The basic political principle of the Objectivist ethics is: no man may initiate the use of physical force against others. No man—or group or society or government—has the right to assume the role of a criminal and initiate the use of physical compulsion against any man. Men have the right to use physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use. The ethical principle involved is simple and clear-cut: it is the difference between murder and self-defense. A holdup man seeks to gain a value, wealth, by killing his victim; the victim does not grow richer by killing a holdup man. The principle is: no man may obtain any values from others by resorting to physical force."
“The Objectivist Ethics,” _The Virtue of Selfishness_, [page] 32 [edition shown in image].
"A government is an institution that holds the exclusive power to enforce certain rules of social conduct in a given geographical area." -- “The Nature of Government,” The Virtue of Selfishness, 107
"If physical force is to be barred from social relationships, men need an institution charged with the task of protecting their rights under an objective code of rules.
This is the task of a government—of a proper government—its basic task, its only moral justification and the reason why men do need a government.
A government is the means of placing the retaliatory use of physical force under objective control—i.e., under objectively defined laws.", “The Nature of Government,” The Virtue of Selfishness, 109
"No individual or private group or private organization has the legal power to initiate the use of physical force against other individuals or groups and to compel them to act against their own voluntary choice. Only a government holds that power. The nature of governmental action is: *coercive *action. The nature of political power is: the power to force obedience under threat of physical injury—the threat of property expropriation, imprisonment, or death." “America’s Persecuted Minority: Big Business,”, Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, 46
Do you not see a contradiction in choosing a government that protects your rights by violating your rights? Even if you had an objectivist government, wouldn't you consider wrong for them to not let a group of people secede from it and form their own? Or none at all? Having an objectvist government would, if I'm not mistaken, allow people to voluntarily and without force create their own anarchist society within it's borders as long as they didn't infringe on the rights of the people choosing to remain citizens of such a government.
I feel like what you are proposing is a government that protects individual rights of its citizens, unless they want to opt out.
1. It's not possible to create an anarchist society anywhere, period. Anarchy is literally impossible.
2. It is not possible for one society to exist within the borders of another, unless the first is subject to the second.
Non-aggression is an ethical principle. It derives from a more basic moral principle. The principle of non-aggression would be meaningless to Robinson Crusoe -- before he met Friday, whom he rescued from cannibals. The principle of non-aggression applies in society. Without it, society ceases.
But it is also true that the egoist morality of Objectivism is not _based_ on the principle of non-aggression. Rand began her line of reasoning by considering one person alone. Absent other people, how do you survive? Recognizing reality and then reasoning about your perceptions is the basis for morality because those actions are necessary (and sufficient) for your survival.
The four main ideological branches of the freedom movement are Objectivism, Libertarianism, Anarchism, and Classical Liberalism. Anyone who had been involved with any one of these four philosophies for any extended period of time should already know what the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP) is and what it entails.
In the course of this debate, khalling and evw both seem to be confusing the NAP with a form of pacifism – that is, not using any force ever period, not even in self-defense – which is not what the NAP is at all. In this very topic, khalling even said that the "Non-Aggression Principle is NOT the same thing as not initiating force," which tells me that khalling isn't familiar with this particular term, because that actually is the exact definition of the NAP.
The Non-Aggression Principle is the idea that physical force should only ever be used in retaliation, and never in initiation. Ayn Rand never refers to the concept by name, but she nevertheless supports it by describing the idea and then saying that it's good. Therefore, to say that the NAP is not part of Ayn Rand's philosophy is totally illogical, and in direct conflict with all the evidence.
The fact that khalling is unaware of this rather surprised me, as she's been involved with the Objectivst movement for far longer than I have. For her to vehemently insist that the NAP is not the NAP comes as a rather huge shock to me. This is one of the basic fundamental ideological concepts which drives a significant portion of the freedom movement, and is one of the central pillars of Objectivist ethics. I don't understand how someone like me could be aware of a concept that a more experienced person would be totally unfamiliar with. I didn't even start learning about Objectivism until the second Atlas Shrugged movie was already in theaters, so I thought people who had been learning about it for longer would have already been familiar with the terminology, especially if they had helped to write a novel based on Ayn Rand's ideas. But apparently that isn't the case. This entire debate has left me incredibly confused about the community here.
Since there is apparently so much confusion about the NAP, here's a link to the wiki page about it on Mises.org:
http://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Principle_of_...
Perhaps this information will alleviate the confusion we're encountering here.
That is not true. Maphesdus is misrepresenting people again.
Maphesdus: "to say that the NAP is not part of Ayn Rand's philosophy is totally illogical"
Maphesdus has repeatedly misrepresented Ayn Rand's philosophy as "based on the non-aggression principle". Maphesdus cannot follow the discussion in even the simplest terms. No amount of explaining has made any difference and most likely never will. It's a hopeless waste of time to try to talk to a stone wall, especially when the wall is someone who doesn't have a clue what Ayn Rand's philosophy is or is about, doesn't know the difference between philosophy and politics, and presumes to "debate" it in the usual manner of a-philosophical rationalizing in a binge of attacking Ayn Rand, her ideas, her knowledge, her life and her accomplishments without knowing what he is talking about.
Rand is very clear on all of this. Ragnar was a pirate. Did he wait until someone hit him over the head? I will post the Playboy Interview for you. She specifically discusses the morality of invading countries whose government does not recognize the natural rights of its citizens.
RAND: Certainly.
PLAYBOY: . . . And that any free nation today has the moral right -- though not the duty -- to invade Soviet Russia, Cuba, or any other "slave pen." Correct?
RAND: Correct. A dictatorship -- a country that violates the rights of its own citizens -- is an outlaw and can claim no rights.
PLAYBOY: Would you actively advocate that the United States invade Cuba or the Soviet Union?
RAND: Not at present. I don't think it's necessary. I would advocate that which the Soviet Union fears above all else: economic boycott. I would advocate a blockade of Cuba and an economic boycott of Soviet Russia; and you would see both those regimes collapse without the loss of a single American life.
http://ellensplace.net/ar_pboy.html
–––––––––––––––––––––––
"The basic political principle of the Objectivist ethics is: no man may initiate the use of physical force against others. No man—or group or society or government—has the right to assume the role of a criminal and initiate the use of physical compulsion against any man. Men have the right to use physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use. [...]"
–––––––––––––––––––––––
Ayn Rand says right there in that exact paragraph that the basic political principle of the Objectivist ethics is the NAP. How can anyone say that she did not endorse the principle when she herself said it was the basic political principle of her ethics?