Vox Imperatoris wrote:Glass Fractal wrote:Vox Imperatoris wrote:Yes, which is why we try to prevent things like that from happening. We want to eliminate the rule by the stick because goes against the full, natural potential of mankind.
Eliminating rule by force is impossible once you have multiple people interacting (unless you've managed to brainwash them into lockstep adherence to one system of thought, but at that point any system will work). You also can't just declare that "rule by the stick ... goes against the full, natural potential of mankind" without taking time establish why that is true. If I want power over others then the only way to reach my "full, natural potential" is to use force to subjugate those around me.
Jesus Christ. Please don't make me repeat what I've already said at least three times before. Read my other posts, and the other threads which talk about natural rights and why they exist. But to refute you, if you "want power over others", that is irrational, and you should be stopped as an aggressor by force, exactly as I said (that's what the government is for). Your desire is an irrational whim because even if you did accomplish your goal of domination, you would not be as satisfied as if you had put that work towards productive ends.
You cannot prove that I will be happier if I put my work towards productive ends. You cannot define "productive ends" in the first place. Thus you cannot say that my desire is irrational.
Vox Imperatoris wrote:People's true interests are fundamentally in harmony, not conflict. This is the basic point statism gets wrong.
"People's true interests are fundamentally in conflict, not harmony. This is the basic point Objectivism gets wrong."
That was an easy argument to smash into tiny pieces. Let's move on.
Vox Imperatoris wrote:There is a big difference between rule from rational principles which is backed up by force (as all government must be) because it is right and rule by the biggest stick which states that something is right because it is backed up by force. Even snapshot182 is not saying that no force should ever be used (only idiotic intrinsicists, e.g. Jains, would assert that) ; he is saying that rights should be backed up by the private application of retaliatory force.
You're making a non-existent distinction. People who rule through force will always say they are inherently right, there's no meaningful difference between a person who claims "I am right and this gun enforces it" and the Objectivist who claims "nature says I am right and this gun enforces it" (except perhaps that the Objectvist is using the Appeal To Nature fallacy). You can say that if everyone agrees with the Objectivist then there is no conflict but then if everyone agrees with the other person there is no conflict.
Vox Imperatoris wrote:As I have also said repeatedly, the system does not require that everyone make fully informed, rational decisions. It merely says that rational actions taken on the basis of information which is, in fact, true are the means by which we sustain life, and that people therefore ought to be free to take them without interference. They can be irrational, but to the extent that they are, they will justly suffer for it, in the same way the smoker suffers from his irrationality yet is still able to function in society. Even so, there is nothing about the human constitution that fundamentally prevents us from being rational all the time; it is simply difficult. I am not calling for market anarchy, either: snapshot 182 is. I disagree with him.
But in order for your claim about objectively good actions to carry any merit at all there has to be someone with access to perfect information and perfect reason in order to decide what is objectively good. If there isn't then Objectivism is completely dead because no one has the ability to learn what is "good" by your system and the philosophy is useless at every level. Or rather it requires you to redefine "objective" to mean "subjective" and at that point you've either killed language or proven we already had a good term for Objectvism, relativism.