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?
Originally published at Mudita Journal. Please leave any comments there.