A Debate on Government (and the Nature of Man)

I very much enjoyed watching today's First Principles debate between Ayn Rand Institute President Yaron Brook and Demos President Miles Rapoport on "Government: What is its proper role?". The event was announced, advertised, and livestreamed on Facebook, yet another example of the many benefits of this at times maligned forum.

As an aside, it is interesting to recall that back in the 1980s John Ridpath, Harry Binswanger, and other Objectivists would participate in debates. However, the debates were between Objectivists and Marxists. Watching the debates back then (which were also quite good) I always thought that a much more relevant debate would be between an Objectivist and a welfare-statists, i.e., a liberal. Well, the views of Mr. Rapoport were indeed those of an run of the mill welfare-statist. We have come a long way from debating Marxists.

But something else struck me about this debate. Mr. Rapoport kept coming back to the issue of rich vs. poor. A free society (free of regulations) would allow only a few rich people to flourish. It seems clear that Mr. Rapoport thinks that the majority of individuals in society are helpless without the endless series of government programs and regulations that he supports and would either die or live out their miserable lives in severe poverty unable to rise above subsistence that the only rich might grant them. Yaron Brook had a far more optimistic view of human capabilities.

This contrast reminded me of Dennis Prager's oft repeated contention that one of the basic differences between liberals and conservatives is that liberals think people are basically good, while conservatives are considerably less sanguine about the inherent nature of man. I have never quite accepted that that was in fact the basic difference between these two camps. It always seemed to me there were other, more important issues here. The contrasting views of Brook and Rapoport have given me a lead to what I think is a more basic issue, at least between liberals and Objectivists.

Liberals think man, the individual, is weak and helpless. Yes, there might be a few "supermen" out there who could flourish under any conditions but the vast majority of people cannot fend for themselves or stand up for their rights without the protection of a gang. That gang is government and if one takes altruism as one's basic moral code (as all good liberals do) then government must do everything it can to help the majority weak as against the minority strong. Thus force is necessary to fight off the strong who would otherwise walk all over the weak.

By contrast, Objectivists think that man, at his essence, is strong and capable. Yes, there might be a few men who cannot fend for themselves but they are easily taken care of through the generosity of the vast majority of strong, independent men. Most men will flourish by their own actions and via trade to mutual advantage with other men. The only issue that government must address is the banishment of force from human relations so that only free voluntary cooperation is allowed. The banishment of force, and thus, protection of individual rights, follows naturally from an egoistic ethics in which the moral purpose of each individual is the fulfillment of his life, and therefore the role of government is limited to the protection of the free action of each individual in pursuing of his own happiness.

It is heartening that the debate was well attended online there were upwards of 850 viewers of the live stream. I am very much looking forward to the next debate which will take place on April 7, 2011 and in which the topic will be "Freedom: For Whom and from What?".

Yaron Brook in the Wall Street Journal

Yaron Brook has an excellent column in today's Wall Street Journal which can be found here. The column is entitled "Is Rand Relevant?" and begins as follows:

Ayn Rand died more than a quarter of a century ago, yet her name appears regularly in discussions of our current economic turmoil. Pundits including Rush Limbaugh and Rick Santelli urge listeners to read her books, and her magnum opus, "Atlas Shrugged," is selling at a faster rate today than at any time during its 51-year history.

Around the Web

• Scott Powell's posting on his blog today elaborates on what I discussed yesterday with respect to his view on Turkey, its history and its prospects
• George Reisman analyzes our current "financial house of cards" and suggests that the only long term solution is a return to the gold standard
• A new post on the We Stand FIRM blog by Lin Zinser demonstrates that it is the free market that lowers medical costs, not the government
• Check out the reorganized Ayn Rand Institute web site for the latest op-ed pieces and numerous videos, including several of Yaron Brook's appearances on Fox Business Network
  

Yaron Brook in Forbes

Once again the Ayn Rand Institute's Yaron Brook has published an important article in Forbes Magazine. Dr. Brook attacks the notion of campaign finance laws as a "War On Free Political Speech".

Just War Theory and Practice in Israel

A fascinating article on the current Israel-Lebanon conflict appears in today's Washington Post. The article focuses on the tenacity of Hezbollah and the difficulties the Israelis are having in defeating it. I really do believe that calling Hezbollah a terrorist group is a little bit misleading. Certainly Hezbollah is evil and has engaged in terrorist activity such as kidnappings. Nevertheless, it is really more of a guerilla fighting force and a fairly well trained and equipped one at that. As the Israeli soldiers describe it:

"What we face is an infantry division with state-of-the-art weaponry -- night-vision gear, advanced rifles, well-equipped -- deployed along our border," said Brig. Gen. Yossi Kuperwasser, who until last month was director of analysis for Israeli military intelligence. "They have some of the most advanced antitank missiles in the world."

A terrorist organization is usually a far more limited force and it is a military mistake to underestimate one's enemy's capabilities by assuming it is capable of no more than terroristic attacks. Hezbollah is clearly an enemy army, a branch of the Iranian and Syrian armies and should be treated as such.

The article is also quite revealing with respect to the restraints that Israel is placing on its soldiers. The soldiers are quite candid:

Several soldiers said they felt the army should be striking harder at Hezbollah but was being held back by concern for civilian casualties. Lt. Col. Svika Nezer, the commander of an artillery battery a few miles outside Kiryat Shemona, said his unit was operating at about 20 percent of its firepower.

"We could do much, much more. But the orders we get are limited," said Nezer, a reservist who is a lawyer in civilian life.

Among the main challenges facing Israeli soldiers, they say, is that Hezbollah chooses to fight in and among civilian centers, making it difficult to target its fighters without killing bystanders. Lebanese officials and human rights organizations have criticized Israel for what they term indiscriminate bombing, but commanders say that, if anything, they err on the side of caution when deciding whom to shoot.

"There have been many times when we let go someone whom we knew was a terrorist because we are not sure we could take them down safely," Adam said. "Meanwhile, they try to kill as many of our civilians as they can." [emphasis added]

The above brings to mind the excellent article on Just War Theory in the premier issue (Spring 2006) of The Objective Standard (Anyone who is interested in ideas and has not subscribed yet, should have their head examined). Dr. Brook and Mr. Epstein wrote about precisely such restraints and their source in "Just War Theory". They write:

"In implementing Just War Theory, the less a nation is concerned with the well-being of its own citizens, and the more it is concerned with that of others, the more it proves its “good intentions.”

Brook and Epstein also discuss the limits on the conduct of the war by nation that is subject to this doctrine:

Given that the purpose of war, according to Just War Theory, is the well-being of others (including those who are, in fact, one’s enemies), it is logical that Just War Theory also precludes a nation from waging war in a manner that will destroy its enemies. It is imperative, according to Just War Theory, that war be fought by unselfish, sacrificial means, in which great value is accorded to the citizens of enemy nations. This is the meaning of the requirements of “proportionality” and “discrimination.” Proportionality is the idea that the value gained by the ends a war seeks must be “proportional” to the damage incurred during the war. To advocate that ends and damage be “proportional” presupposes a standard of value by which these are to be weighed. What is the relative weight, for example, that the U.S. government should accord an American civilian and an Iraqi civilian? Since Just War Theory holds that a government’s intentions are “good” to the extent that it places value on other peoples, including enemies, by its standard of value a government of an innocent nation should place equal value on the lives of its citizens and those of enemy nations. On this view, in America’s “War on Terrorism,” we have to “balance” the lives of American soldiers and civilians with the lives of the enemy nation’s soldiers and civilians. According to Walzer, “In our judgments of the fighting, we abstract from all consideration of the justice of the cause. We do this because the moral status of individual soldiers on both sides is very much the same: they face one another as moral equals.”

Ironically, even though Israel is putting its soldiers and even civilian population at risk by fighting very much in a proportionate manner, it is being excoriated for supposed "disproportionality" -- apparently nothing but outright sacrifice of Israel to the Arabs will satisfy the rest of the world. Nevertheless, Israel's current effort seems less than sufficient to its self-defense needs and it is quite obvious that it could do better. Some soldiers remember the Lebanon war in the 80s:

Several soldiers said they were surprised by how long the operation has taken. When Israelis invaded Lebanon in 1982, they reached to within 10 miles of Beirut in two days. In the current conflict, after more than three weeks of fighting, the heaviest ground combat is still in a string of towns along the border.

Unfortunately, given its current political and intellectual leadership as well as its public, I think the future looks rather bleak for the State of Israel. Nevertheless, I hope she will rise to the challenge.

The Good: The Objective Standard

I recently had the privilege to attend and enjoy Tara Smith's talk on Justice in Irvine where I work. The talk was excellent but ironically it was primarily during the Q&A that Dr. Smith was able to put increased emphasis on the greater need to praise the good. Of course, it is important to identify and judge evil but as anybody who has studied Objectivism in some detail knows, evil is metaphysically impotent -- it is far more important to express appreciation to the good people one encounters as they are the life-givers. Regular readers of this blog know that I spend most of my time criticising what's wrong with the culture. In this post I intend to do the opposite.

I have commented on the new journal The Objective Standard (TOS) briefly on a previous occasion but it deserves a more thorough review. So following in the footsteps of Mike of The Primacy of the Awesome blog, here are my comments on the premiere issue of TOS. I will begin by repeating my earlier comment that "the issue clearly represents a new milestone in Objectivist publications in every aspect." The professional look of journal deserves high praise -- finally an Objectivist publication that does not look like a pamphlet or newsletter. But let me focus on content as that is what's most important. Here there are five excellent essays and I'll take them each in turn.

Craig Biddle has written an elegant introduction to the philosophy behind the journal -- Ayn Rand's Objectivism -- in his essay Introducing The Objective Standard. He labors to distinguish Objectivism from its main philosophical rivals on both the right and the left and lays out an exciting future for the journal. Previous readers of his excellent book Loving Life will once again enjoy his lucid writing style and essentialized presentation of the ideas that will guide the journal.

Director of the Ayn Rand Institute (ARI) Yaron Brook and ARI Junior Fellow Alex Epstein finally put into print the position on the "War on Terror" that Dr. Brook has discussed in several previous talks and op-eds in their essay "Just War Theory vs. American Self-Defense." Now there is a single place where people can see the complete statement of ARI's position on the war with many questions and sub-issues thoroughly addressed, including such issues frequently in the news as the treatment of prisoners of war. The essay is an inspiring example of the power of ideas in action and argues forcefully (and in my opinion successfully) that the current effort allegedly put forth to defend us is misguided and inadequate. An alternative approach to fighting that will lead us to victory is also presented.

After war and peace, we move to education with Lisa VanDamme's enlightening essay "The Hierarchy of Education: The Most Neglected Issue in Education." Mrs. VanDamme is owner and director of the VanDamme Academy, a private school in Laguna Hills, where I might mention my daughter will start school in the fall. Since her experience with homeschooling, VanDamme has been sharpening and developing her views on education, based on the foundation provided in Leonard Peikoff's classic set of lectures "The Philosophy of Education." The result is a fascinating insight into an essential structural component of teaching almost completely overlooked by most of today's educators -- the issue of hierarchy. VanDamme describes her approach to teaching the subjects of science, literature, and history, and where she differs with Montessori education, giving many examples to clearly illustrate her points. In her essay we again see the power of ideas in the application of Objectivist epistemology and its idea of the hierarchical nature of knowledge to issues in education.

As someone who has studied physics in college, I am particularly enthusiastic about David Harriman's essay "Enlightenment Science and Its Fall." Excerpted from chapter 5 of Mr. Harriman's upcoming book The Anti-Copernican Revolution, the essay discusses some of the great scientists and mathematicians of the Enlightenment, including such figures as Euler, Stephen Gray, Charles DuFay, and, of course, Benjamin Franklin, as well as some of the intellectual villains at the time who rejected the greatness and achievements of the age, such as Jean-Jacques Rousseau and, of course, Immanuel Kant, as well as the scientists they both influenced. The result is a fascinating story of both the rise and promise of enlightenment science and its subsequent corruption as a result of philosophy. If this essay is representative, then I, for one, can't wait until Harriman's book is published.

Finally, we have ARI junior fellow Elan Journo's interesting piece on "Exposing Anti-Muslim 'Conspiracies'" where he discusses the unfortunate paranoid delusions prevalent in the Muslim world. Relying on the detailed coverage of conspiracy theories in Daniel Pipes's book The Hidden Hand, Journo takes the reader on a disturbing journey through the irrational world of the Middle East. Journo argues that the bizarre beliefs he sites present ample depressing evidence of the corrupting influence of religious ideas on the local culture and continue to present a threat to the more civilized world.

To have so many high quality essays in a single journal is indeed a rare thing. I am already eagerly awaiting the next issue.