Objectivism and the restoration of slavery.

I have, as it happens, read Ayn Rand and am loosely familiar with her "libertarian" theory.

Its main problem turns around the concept of "free consent". It presents this as an "abstract value" that is de-coupled from the real material world.

Someone "consents" to work for a low wage because the alternative is starvation...this makes a mockery of the word "consent" in any meaningful sense.

Indeed, in the "Randian universe", one could literally sell oneself into slavery. It would be "consensual" and hence whatever minimal government existed would be prohibited from interfering.

In fact, you could even sell your kids into slavery--being minors, they have no "right of consent" and, again, the minimal government could not interfere. There might well be a law that the kids would have to be emancipated by their new owner when they reached the age of maturity...but it's fair to ask why the minimal government would bother to pass or enforce such a law?

It's common among libertarians--including Rand herself--to attribute the growth of "big government" to the "plots and schemes" of bourgeois liberals, socialists, and communists.

That quite ignores the historical and material causes of the rise of "big government".

The initial reason that capitalists required a "big government" was to protect themselves from each other.

Without regulation, the capitalist class creates a "Hobbesian" world of ruthless and unlimited predation. You need not "out-compete" your competitor if you can simply kill the bastard before he kills you. Late 19th century American capitalism and modern Russian capitalism was/is not very far removed from that...blowing up your competitor's factory was/is an "easy" way to "increase market share".

Marx referred to the modern state as "the executive committee of the capitalist class"...and I think that's pretty accurate.

Of course, the one thing that this "executive committee" agrees upon is the need to keep the working class powerless and exploited. They have their disagreements as to the exact mix of stick and carrot to be applied--Sweden and Nazi Germany provide the "polar extremes" of capitalism from a worker's point of view. Sweden was lots of carrots and not too much stick; Nazi Germany was the opposite, of course.

But either way, that "big government" is not present because of "bad ideas" or "moral turpitude"...it's there because the capitalist class needs it.

And it will get bigger.

1st off, a 'big Government' isn't required to defend one's rights. Only a 'small government' is necessary to do this. Blowing up a competitor's factory would be illegal under Capitalism. It is quite legal under statism and mixed economies though- see Microsoft and ATT&T, etc for a quick list of victims- as long as you can convince the state to do it for you.
I suppose it would be legal to sell yourself into slavery, but why would you? I'm sure it would be legal to jab your own penis with a hot poker, too. What's your point?
I don't believe you'd be able to sell your kids into slavery. Your stewardship involves making certain decisions for them and providing a means of survival for them while they cannot do so themselves. It does not involve a wholesale violation of their rights.

Consent- To give assent, as to the proposal of another; agree.

This says nothing of outside issues you need to consider before giving consent. Your survival will always be a force in making your decisions. Your implied definition of 'consent' renders the word completely meaningless as it would never apply. It's be like saying that you cannot consent to have sex with someone because your biological urges pushed you into making the decision to do so. Therefore all sex is rape by both parties upon both parties. This is absurd.

The alternative you offer is robbery by violence. This is not a problem with capitalism; it is the NATURE OF REALITY. If you do not produce, someone else must consent to produce for you. We insist that this must be arranged by consent; you propose that it must be arranged by violence.

That is a misuse of the word slavery.

No, you could not. What makes you think this? Children are not property, they are individuals with a contract of guardianship. The new guardian would have to abide by the terms of guardianship and would not be able to enslave the child.

If you actaully READ Atlas Shrugged, you would see that crooked businessmen who sought the power of state were just as if not more responsible. Rand held them in very low regard. (James Taggert, Orren Boyle, etc)

That's a total non-sequiter. Which Capitalist has advocated the legalization of the initiation of force?

What you are describing is STATISM, used for the benefit of a wealthy aristocracy. NO ONE HERE ADVOCATES THIS. We advocate a system where property rights are absolute and NO committe has the power to "decide" anything.

That is a misuse of the word slavery.

It is a 'little above' slavery then.

So it has similarities with communism where this is also true. Property rights are "asbolute" in the there is no property, and no one has more power than anyone else to "decide" anything.

This claim of familiarity is contradicted by the fact that she wasn't a libertarian.

This issue you have narrowed to the point of absurdity. Of course government is required to protect people from each other- that's it's job. The constant addition of the word "capitalist" is superfluous fluff. A government that protects it's citizens from each other isn't a "big government".

It seems to be clear that the "right libertarian" part of the political spectrum have a "less government" bias with strict boundaries set to government functions and activities.

One of those functions, clearly, must be the "security of property" against any form of "un-consensual" alienation. "Thou shalt not steal" or take by force the property of another.

You may sell or trade your property...or even give it away, but no one is allowed to take it from you. If someone tries to do that, you may call upon the government to supply force in your defense...and/or you may hire specialists in the application of violence to defend your property.

At the base of the "right libertarian" approach is the idea that each individual "owns himself"...he may sell, lease, rent, or even give away any part of himself that he wishes, but no one may force him to labor for another or take from him the "fruits" of his labor.

Very well, under these circumstances, I don't understand why someone could not sell himself or herself into slavery.

It would be "consensual"--no violence or threat of violence would be involved. If you thought the price offered for you was "too low", you could freely refuse the transaction and the "buyer" would have to look elsewhere.

The contract could contain various terms agreed to by both buyer and seller. The new slave could insist on prior approval of any sale of himself to a third party, for example. A time limit could be set on his period of servitude...after which, ownership of himself would revert to himself.

Since we are speaking hypothetically here, I won't go into the reasons why someone would want to do that. But I can't see any principled objection that a consistent "right libertarian" could make. The fact that you would find such a "deal" distasteful does not mean that others could not freely "choose" this alternative. You are free, after all, not to buy slaves if the idea is repulsive to you.

Keep in mind, by the way, that a disobedient or rebellious slave would be in breach of contract and could be subject to fines or even imprisonment.

I can see that "right libertarians" would find it even more distasteful to witness the sale and purchase of children into bondage.

But legal traditions throughout all of recorded history have, in one fashion or another, treated parents as the rightful "decision-makers" for children until they reach whatever the legal age of adulthood is. (There are some modern exceptions--partial ones--to this doctrine, of course.)

Perhaps a "right libertarian" social order would not permit parents to sell their children into slavery...or perhaps it would insist that child-slaves be emancipated on their 18th birthday or 21st birthday or whatever.

But, if consistency were the only factor to be considered, it should permit such transactions. If the parents consent to the sale, that "counts" as consent "by" the kids...under traditional legal norms.

As to how "Hobbesian" capitalism in a "right libertarian" regime would be, I concede that I was speculating...based on actual historical events. The first Rockefeller was well known for blowing up his competitors' oil refineries if they refused to sell out to him, for example.

A large police apparatus and/or the maintenance of private security armies to protect industrial properties from sabotage or theft (or to engage in retaliatory attacks) would be features of a "right libertarian" society...to one extent or another.

Should the workers become unduly restive, private armies are also useful; consult the internet on the 1915 massacre in Ludlow, Colorado, for example.

A "right libertarian" regime could hardly intervene on the side of the workers...that would be "depriving" the owners of property of the "right" to do as they wished with their property.

It would be a tough life...unless you were pretty rich

From ComradeRed

I have seen your "understanding" of Rand on an "essay" on your website. You have a better understanding of my sister's thought than Ayn Rand's.

You have already posted this topic on the "che-lives" forum and someone there, as I will here, point out that the only alternative to self-ownership is to have someone else owning you. We call that slavery. It's no good moaning that you can sell yourself into slavery, if slavery is the only alternative. Not to mention the fact that voluntary slavery is contradiction in terms.

If you are getting paid, then you are not a slave. If you can choose who to work for and leave when you please, you are not a slave. You are indeed misusing the term "slavery".

It is an initiation of force to blow up your competitors and I do believe that this has already been covered once. It would seem that you can only critique capitalism by charicaturing it as some variant of anarchy. You then contradict yourself in the very next paragraph :

I do believe the police are already doing that and have been for some considerable time.

Perhaps you fail to understand the principle behind the the "non-initiation of force". It means "don't do it" full stop. Not "don't do it every other Friday" or "don't do it, unless you are bored" or "don't do it, unless you feel you're not being paid enough".

Aside from the fact that "someone" (you won't tell us WHO) gets to decide what material goods you "need" or don't need...They get decide how much "ability" you have, and what work you should be doing...how much of your time you will sacrifice doing INVOLUNTARY work, cleaning public toilets, working in the sewer system, or doing other unpleasant work for the "common good" without pay. Those who don't agree to work those jobs are threatened with punishment (jail, expulsion from society, starvation, etc)

Obviously SOMEONE has more power than others under your system, and historically this has been massive governments that are a natural outgrowth of your collectivist philosophy.

My friend, you may not realize this, but in the past, people have made the EXACT SAME arguments you are making today. Back in the 1920's, and 30's, 40's...and every decade since, all of your ideas have been taken seriously by leaders and have been implemented across the world, with devastating results. The outcome of these policies has been horrible...in every case, practically the opposite of what was intended. Yet leftists continue living in denial, refusing to connect the dots. 'If only' smarter people were in charge...the argument goes. 'If only' they gave someone else a chance to decide how goods would be distributed...someone enlightened (like you!)...communism could have worked, and 95 million people wouldn't be dead today because of it...People would be truly free...the entire world holding hands, sharing everything, and singing songs together.

Right.

To all the young capitalists here, will you kindly buy a J.R.R. Tolkien book and read it. It will tell you how to spot a TROLL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


This commie has already come here and told us that Hitler was laissez-faire and business was free to disobey him.

There is nothing to be gained from debating with such a liar.

This really isn't a debate any more. I think even Dreaver realizes the truth about his philosophy, and is now struggling to find a way to justify authoritarianism.

ComradeRed has plagiarised virtually all of his posts in this thread from the “RedStar2000 papers”.


Observe:
http://redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.n...rt_from=&ucat=&

Do not reproduce the work of others without full accreditation to the author!

Agreed, Invictus, though you use the term 'work' rather loosely.