The ball and chain was used both as a restraint against escape and a punishment. By various web accounts, the ball weighed between 12 and 30 pounds. Definitely not something anyone would want to drag behind them.
Is it at least partially a collectivist viewpoint to insist that government do what's good for the collective, or in the words from a comment on this post: what's good for "the health of Americans as a whole"? The commenter included a reason why:
most people are stupid and have blind trust in the government to save them fromThe net of this line of argument was that one reason government exists is to protect the health and presumably welfare of its citizens who are too stupid, inattentive, or lazy to protect their own health and welfare.
things that are bad because they don't have the time to look out for themselves
or just aren't smart enough to realize that they are killing themselves
Before slipping on that shackle, let me ask, how much protection is enough? Do you know all 4,000 federal laws, or those of you in Colorado, all 30,000 laws? At what cost are these laws created, and maintained? What services is the government providing us for the roughly 18% of our GDP they take? Is 18% enough of a ball and chain for our economy?
Going one step more, I've seen argued elsewhere that as gene-bearing animals, we are better at distributing our genes when we protect the "weaker" among us with social programs. If you must take this biologically based collectivist position ("tax one for the benefit of all") consider this: how much healthier a species we would be if every member of the herd was strong, healthy, independent, rational, and attentive to the world around themselves? Which collective is thriving best, the one with the resources of 1 in 5 people directed by government directive (force) to inefficient and wasteful programs, or the one with strong healthy individuals trading to meet their needs in a competitive free market?
That ball and chain is so tempting, because, after all, it's "free" money. It isn't free -- we pay for every penny of it and then some. Freedom for the individual is good for the health of the herd.
rootie
5 comments:
> ". . . the objectivists . . ."
Traditionally in the history of philosophy, "objectivists" are those who, in metaphysics (ontology), believe that there is a reality independent of consciousness. That is certainly a tenet of Objectivism, the philosophy which Ayn Rand created. But these objectivists had only that tenet, not a whole philosophy.
My understanding is that some such objectivists also held, in ethics, that values are "objective," that is, independent of consciousness. This is intrinsicism and thus opposed to Objectivism.
I support Objectivism, but I do not support "objectivism."
In reference to Burgess' comment, I'll assume for the sake of argument that you meant Objectivism, and simply made a typo or weren't aware of the distinction.
Proceeding from that assumption, it seems that the point of your post was to ask the question: "Is one of the proper functions of government to enforce a collective idea of 'health' on its citizens?" The rest of your post obviously points to your own answer -- No.
However, in getting there you appeared to accept the premises of the collectivists in arguing that respecting individual rights is "good for the health of the herd". While this is likely true -- though using the concept "herd" muddies your point -- in the absence of a more principled argument, it just sounds like pragmatism. It appears that you're saying that your view of government just "works better" than the collectivist view.
While it is true that a government that upholds individual rights has practical benefits that you mentioned, I think it is more important, and a more persuasive argument, to highlight the fact that it is also the only moral system.
If the point of your post was to come up with an effective argument against the common view that the good of the collective trumps the rights of the individual, I'd recommend starting from fundamentals -- if only to briefly set the groundwork -- and then deal with particulars.
Post updated to replace little "o" with big "O".
Now the bigger question -- have I stepped outside the bounds of an Objectivist viewpoint on this?
C. August: nice catch -- I did deliberately fight collectivism with collectivism, trying to show that a "collective" of strong independent individuals (ignoring the many conflicts in that statement) would be healthier than a collective where some individuals spend precious energy supporting lesser members that provide no return of their own.
The connection to individual contributions derives from the independent individuals in the strong collective, only this would now be an Objectivist society, not a collective in the previous sense.
I'll need to think some on the constructive analysis from individual rights -- I'm wondering if a deconstructive example (from "strong collective" down to individual rights) may be more suitable for some people who think in the good of the collective.
Thanks again for your feedback!
rootie
A very good example of a short, succinct argument against a slightly more benign collectivist can be found on Noodlefood.
Paul Hsieh responds to an LTE in a local Colorado paper with both a moral and practical argument, but one that is written in an "accessible" enough manner to appeal to the audience you appear to be targeting.
I agree that in most cases, an argument should be crafted in such a way that it is more likely to be understood by the recipient; that it should "make a dent". I found Paul's to be quite persuasive in this way.
Post a Comment