Politics

Philosophically, moral values define the good in terms of individuals, political principles define the application of those values to the relationships between individuals in a social context. No social value or political principle can limit, abrogate, or cancel individual moral values. If there is a purpose of a political system, that is, a government, the only legitimate purpose it can have is to preserve or protect individual moral values.

Coercive force is only one way the moral principles which pertain to individuals can be violated. The first political principle, therefore, is the exclusion of the initiation of the use of force in all relationships between all individuals or groups of individuals. The initiation of the use of force is defined as any action or threat of action that intentionally causes real material harm or loss to any individual’s person or property. Property is all that an individual has acquired and possesses by means of his own productive effort, by trading with others, or has received as a free gift from others (such as an inheritance). The use of force in defense of one’s person or property is not an initiation of force.

All popular political theories contradict this first political principle by the assumption of two false concepts: the necessity of government and the notion of rights.

Inevitability vs. Necessity of Government

Political philosophers assume the necessity of government. This is a doubtful assumption, but it is true that governments are inevitable. Personal individual responsibility is the first requirement of living morally and most human beings are terrified of being completely responsible for their own lives and will do almost anything to avoid that responsibility. This is the dominant immoral characteristic of humanity. It is not universal, it is not human nature, it is simply the mode of living freely chosen by the majority of mankind.

“Civilization,” George Bernard Shaw wrote, “is a disease produced by the practice of building societies with rotten material.” Western civilization is undoubtedly the source of the greatest human achievements in human history. It has provided the highest living standards ever enjoyed by mankind, the longest lifespan, best health, and previously undreamed of prosperity. It is, however, anything but an unmixed blessing.

A brief overview of recent history’s wars, atrocities, and intentional cruelties will disabuse anyone of the view that modern civilization is much more civilized than any other period in history.

It seems almost paradoxically true, the more mankind learns, the more he is able to produce, and the more he is able to conquer the threats of disease, poverty, and the vagaries of nature, the more cruel, destructive, and vicious he becomes. This impression is not quite true, however. The cruelty of modern day man is no more vicious than at any other time in history, but his advances in science and technology have certainly enabled him to exercise that cruelty in a much more imaginative spectacular fashion.

The most important aspect of modern civilization is revealed by considering where and under what conditions the benefits of modern civilization, its greatest achievements, highest living standards, and most prosperity, have been realized, compared to where and under what conditions the evils of modern civilization been most prominently in evidence. While the obvious answer points to specific countries, in the abstract, the greatest benefits of civilization are realized where there is the least government while the greatest evils of civilization are where there is the most government. Again, a brief overview of recent history demonstrates most of the evils of modern civilization have been directly perpetrated or caused by governments.

One might expect that with such clear evidence the tendency would be for governments to decrease, but, in fact, just the opposite has happened. The reason is really quite simple, and can be attributed to two facts: 1. most people believe what their religion and their philosophers have taught them, that government is necessary, and, 2. most people want to have and be more than they know they can have or be by their own efforts.

The philosophers essential argument for government is that without government, nothing would keep men in check and they would immediately engage in an orgy of crime, and society would devolve into chaos; this in spite of the fact that where there is the least government, there is the least crime and every benevolent aspect of society is at its highest. Yet, even those who understand the nature of freedom and its necessity for prosperity and progress insist on the necessity of government.

For example, “a society without an organized government would be at the mercy of the first criminal who came along and who would precipitate it into the chaos of gang warfare. But the possibility of human immorality is not the only objection to anarchy: even a society whose every member were fully rational and faultlessly moral, could not function in a state of anarchy; [with no government] it is the need of objective laws and of an arbiter of honest disagreements among men that necessitates the establishment of a government.” –Ayn Rand

What Ayn Rand means by, “fully rational and faultlessly moral,” is not known, because in such a society, how could there ever be a need for men with guns (government) to settle disagreements. If all the members of such a society are fully rational and faultlessly moral, the only disagreements that would be possible would be honest ones, and fully rational men never resort to force to settle their disputes, If they are fully rational, they will always find a way to resolve their differences, equitably, and. usually, with grace and humor. Such a society does not, never has, and never will exist, it is true, but that is not the argument Ayn Rand made.

Ayn Ran knew that such a society is impossible, and no doubt this knowledge is the real reason she believed in the necessity of government. The truth is, even in a society where immorality abounds, government is not necessitated for the reasons she suggested. A society without a government “would not be at the mercy of the first criminal who came along” at all. Individuals are perfectly capable of defending themselves, if they choose to. There is no reason to suppose the first criminal to come along would “precipitate it into the chaos of gang warfare.” That is not what happened in the early years of this country (USA) when there was little or no government.

It is the fact that no human society is ever comprised entirely of “fully rational and faultlessly moral” individuals, and, on the contrary, are comprised mostly of irrational and immoral individuals that make governments inevitable. The immoral and irrational embrace the teachings of the philosophers because it provides the means to their ultimate desire, to have and be what they know they cannot have and be by their own effort. Government is the means to that security that no matter how badly they fail to fulfill the requirements and responsibility for their own lives, somehow, someone will make it alright.

This is why government is inevitable. In another sense, what Ayn Rand said is true if we change a few words, “a society without an organized government would be at the mercy of the first criminal [would-be politician] who came along and who would precipitate it into the chaos of gang [state or government] warfare. This is exactly what happens, and always will, until the majority humanity changes. This is the mistake of the anarchists. If, tomorrow, you could eradicate all governments, the day after there would be governments.

But, inevitability is not necessity. Governments are not necessary, and if a society could be found that was comprised of only rational moral individuals no government would exist. Such a society does not and probably never will exist, so there will always be government. There will always be disease, poverty, and ignorance too. They are also inevitable, but no one is using that argument to promote them.

All politicians are corrupt.

This is a subset of the principle that all government employees are corrupt. No politician can be totally honest and must lie either to his constituents or to himself, and what he must lie about is the nature of government itself and his role in it. The politician exists by means of expropriating the wealth of those who earn and produce it. The politician produces nothing. It does not matter what governmental position the politician holds, from president of the United States to local school board member, what they gain from that position is wealth extorted from others.

The politician claims his entitlement to this unearned wealth is for the services he provides, but all those services amount to interfering in the lives and limiting the freedom of the individuals he, “serves.” Most people believe the most dangerous of politicians are those at the higher levels of government, but the most intrusive and tyrannical of politicians are those at the lower, local, levels of government.

There is no such thing as rights.

If the idea that certain conditions are appropriate to the nature of man, and that, without those conditions, human beings cannot live as human beings, and it were those conditions that were meant by the word, “rights,” the word might have a good and useful meaning.

In that case, the word, “rights,” is superfluous. It is only necessary to state what those necessary conditions are for human beings to live as human beings. For that, we already have the words, freedom and liberty, which means, what human beings require to live as human beings freedom from the interference of other human beings by coercion or threat against their persons or property. If “rights” has a meaning it can only be in the negative sense. If we have rights, they are those things that no other man may rightfully take, harm, or hinder, and they can pertain only to an individual’s person or property. As it is, the word rights always means something else.

Always implicit in any discussion of rights is the idea that individuals have a claim on some things just because they exists. But nothing automatically gives any human being a claim on anything, not even a guarantee that anyone will observe anyone’s rights. Any attempt to provide such assurance or guarantee requires the violation of the very “rights”[freedom/liberty] to be protected.

It is probably better not to use the word rights since every common use of the word is actually an excuse for violating individuals and their property.

The concept of “rights” is very confused. If men are endowed by their Creator with rights, why do we need a government to make sure we get them? We are endowed by our Creator with ears for hearing, and eyes for seeing, and legs for walking, and no government agency is required to make sure we get them. I guess our Creator intended to endow us with rights, but somehow got sidetracked, so now it is up to the government. (That doesn’t seem right, somehow.)

The fact of one’s existence is not grounds for any kind of guarantee or assurance that anything they want is automatically theirs, not life, not liberty, not freedom to pursue happiness, or anything else. Guarantees and assurances must be provided by someone. Life is not, “free of charge.” Liberty is not a, “gift.” Happiness is not, “automatic.”

To live requires food, shelter, clothing and all the other things human life requires and someone must produce them. Liberty requires the means of protecting one’s self from the coercion of others, and however that is accomplished, someone must do it. Happiness requires knowledge of how to live successfully as a human being and the effort to accomplish it, and someone must discover and perform it.

Anyone who enjoys any of these things without personally producing or providing them for themselves, must force someone else to provide them.

If you must have a concept of rights, here is what it must be: rights are what you have if you are the only person in the world, or at least, the only person in a geographical area that no one else can get to. You have a right to do, say, or be anything you want, if you can. You do not have a right to life, only a right to do whatever is necessary to stay alive. You do not have a right to food, clothing, or shelter, but you are free to produce as much of these or any other things as you can.

Without the coercive interference of anyone else, you are free to do anything you want. Without the coercive interference of anyone else, you are free to enjoy the benefits of your efforts to whatever degree you are able. Where coercive force is eliminated, if you fail to produce what you want or need, or if what you do leads to your own harm, you alone bear the consequences of your actions.

The introduction of coercion always limits the freedom of some individuals for the benefit of those who use the force or support those who do. The purpose of a government is the benefit of the government, its employees, and its supporters at the expense of the governed, that is, the decent, self-supporting, moral, tax-paying citizens.