David Kelley hits new low
Brad Aisa
Those who recognized that David Kelley had reached an unspeakable new low
last year, by having Nathaniel Branden speak at his summer conference, will
be sorry to discover that no low may be too low as far as Kelley is
concerned, if the program for his summer conference this year is any
indication. (all citations below from the IOS summer 1998 conference
program: http://www.ios.org/sem98pro.html)
DISCOVERING YOUR INNER SCHIZOPHRENIC
Not only is Nathaniel Branden back, but his ideas are loopier than ever.
This year, he will be explaining how schizophrenia is man's natural
condition; that he and his wife have been schizophrenic for years; and will
conduct a seminar to help participants find the *inner schizophrenic*
lurking inside them.
Uh, huh.
(For those savvy enough to ignore the preposterous nature of Branden's
theory, and who want to get right to the bottom line -- the "Toohey" payoff
-- ask yourself how conveniently exculpatory is a theory which lets the
proponent say, "Oh, that wasn't me/now-me who did such awful things back
then -- that was the not-me/other-me/pre-me doing those awful things!)
[ref: Psychology of Subpersonalities, Nathaniel Branden]
ANARCHY GIVEN ITS DUE
Apparently, David Kelley is concerned that anarchism has not been given it
rightful due, since he will be "discussing" the issue of rights (!) with
anarchist George H. Smith.
Now, one might say (and many do), that Objectivists should engage their
intellectual opponents in debate. Why? If anarchists are to be invited to
share the stage with (allegedly) Objectivist intellectuals at Objectivist
conferences, why stop there? Why not have pedophiles, mystics, communists,
dictators -- *anyone* who is at odds with Objectivism (which presents a
long list of eligible contenders.)
There can be value, at times, in debating plausible, intellectually
reputable opponents, in fair and neutral forums -- and *if* there is some
benefit to be had in participating. There is no value in inviting one's
intellectual enemies to a conference of one's allies, giving them a forum
and audience they could never have gained on their own, and giving their
ideas a status and importance they do not deserve.
[ref: The Natural Basis of Rights, with David Kelley and George H. Smith]
The next two complaints are more marginal, but are still reasonable
indictments of the disreputable, compromising direction Kelley has
taken the conception of "Objectivist Intellectual"...
EVOLUTIONIZING SCHEMAS: TOWARDS A[NEO-] (O/o)BJECTIVIST HERMEUNETICS
Two of the blurbs indicate the kind of modern "postmodernistic" and "new
agey" practices that reputable Objectivists should be opposing. That some
editorial assertiveness was not exercised, indicates the kind of
intellectually negligent, licentious "openness" that passes for
intellectual toleration amongst Kelley and his admirers.
The following seminar is notable, for its silly, postmodernistic title, as
well as the highly questionable nature of its thesis:
>Richard A. Warshak, Ph.D.
>One Dark (K)night: Trauma, Sense of Life, and the Origin of a Superhero
>Psychological trauma can instantly shatter a benevolent sense of life and
>influence artistic creation and appreciation.
A "sense of life", according to Objectivism, is an integrated sum of one's
view of existence, and is not something that can be "shattered" by some
single event, even a traumatic one. (For instance, I have personally been
subject to several traumatic events, including being attacked and beaten by
a crazed mob, and being mugged at knife-point by a deranged drug addict,
and my sense of life was not "shattered".)
(I will note, to be fair, that two sessions by another scholar are devoted
to an analysis of post-modernism, so I am not accusing Kelley et. al of
endorsing postmodernism, but only of a certain kind of unseemly negligence
or toleration.)
OBJECTIVISM MEETS NEW AGE
The New Ager's, no doubt feeling left out of the Objectivist party in the
past, may now be able to feel properly tolerated and included. I quote from
one of the seminar blurbs, without comment, save for directing the
objective reader's attention to the absurd neologism "bodymind", and the
lack of any real, tangible meaning conveyed in the opening word salad:
>Carol Low, Psy.D.
>Bodymind in Daily Life
>The continuity between body and brain presents a means of interpreting and
>hence affecting the interaction between cognition, emotion, and behavior.
By aggressively seeking to "tolerate" and collaborate with intellectuals of
highly dubious credentials, and outright creeps like Nathaniel Branden,
David Kelley is alientating the most reputable of his associates and
admirers. Last year, for instance, the inclusion of Branden was apparently
too much for the Blumenthals, who quit the board of his institute. I would
urge those who have been supportive of Kelley in the past to ask themselves
to what degree Kelley can diverge in both ideology and demeanour from that
of Ayn Rand and her associates, and still be considered even plausibly
representative of Rand's ideas.
Or maybe, stupid me, fidelity to Rand's vision of man and truth has never
been their goal at any time...
--
Brad Aisa web archive: http://www.interlog.com/~baisa/
email (anti-spam encoded): baisa"AT SYMBOL"interlog.com
*** STOP the persecution of Bill Gates and Microsoft ***
Get the facts and sign the online petition:
http://www.capitalism.org/microsoft/
Alex
On 21 Mar 1998 20:30:17 GMT, Brad Aisa <ba...@ERASETHISinterlog.com>
wrote:
>ANARCHY GIVEN ITS DUE
>
>Apparently, David Kelley is concerned that anarchism has not been given it
>rightful due, since he will be "discussing" the issue of rights (!) with
>anarchist George H. Smith.
>
>Now, one might say (and many do), that Objectivists should engage their
>intellectual opponents in debate. Why? If anarchists are to be invited to
>share the stage with (allegedly) Objectivist intellectuals at Objectivist
>conferences, why stop there? Why not have pedophiles, mystics, communists,
>dictators -- *anyone* who is at odds with Objectivism (which presents a
>long list of eligible contenders.)
Again, there is nothing at odds with anarchism and Objectivism --
indeed, Objectivism _is_ anarchism. Although, there is much at odds
with Objectivism and government.
****
@N@RCHOC@PIT@LI$M
a finely crafted heresy
David Friedman
In article <6f1807$i6e$1...@news.interlog.com>, Brad Aisa
<ba...@ERASETHISinterlog.com> wrote:
>By aggressively seeking to "tolerate" and collaborate with intellectuals of
>highly dubious credentials, and outright creeps like Nathaniel Branden,
>David Kelley is alientating the most reputable of his associates and
>admirers.
It seems a bit odd for a follower of a "philosopher" who had no
credentials in philosophy--neither academic training beyond the
undergraduate level nor publications in academically respectable
journals--to take such a strong position in favor of credentialism. Off
hand, the only members of the older generation of Objectivists I can think
of with significant academic credentials are Kelly and Reisman--both of
whom have been expelled from Brad's preferred faction.
--
David Friedman
DD...@Best.com
http://www.best.com/~ddfr/
"No man is secure in his life, liberty or property
while the legislature is in session"
James E. Prescott
On 3/22/98, David Friedman <DD...@best.com> wrote:
> [...] Off hand, the only members of the older generation of Objectivists I
> can think of with significant academic credentials are Kelly and
> Reisman--both of whom have been expelled from Brad's preferred faction.
Don't forget Branden!
Best Wishes,
Jim P.
Steve Reed
In article <6f1807$i6e$1...@news.interlog.com>, Brad Aisa writes:
... No, I must amend that. In this posting, Brad Aisa misrepresents, slanders,
gets more than usually hysterical -- and that's saying something -- but to
"write" implies some modicum of original thought. He's simply choosing to be a
screaming parasite for the sake of screaming.
Be that as it may, he decides to rewrite the topic descriptions from the
Institute for Objectivist Studies Summer Seminar program. The full program is
indeed, as he notes, available at http://ios.org/sem98pro.html
I'll take the liberty of noting the actual descriptions here. Judge the ways
that these are expressed for -yourself.- (One example, about someone I've long
known, demands a personal response, however.)
First off, we have, from the actual IOS seminar program:
"Nathaniel Branden, Ph.D. * Psychology of Subpersonalities
"The idea of subpersonalities, which is almost as old as psychology itself, is
that individuals have more than one personality -- more than one set of
values, perceptions, and responses. Nathaniel Branden will share the
psychotherapeutic experiences that led him and his wife and partner Devers to
the conclusions they have evolved over the years. He will elaborate on the
practical value of this way of interpreting human behavior.
"Following his lecture, Dr. Branden will conduct an experiential workshop
on subpersonalities. Workshop attendance will be limited to 75. To be
considered for attendance, indicate your interest on the registration form.
Participants will be selected on a first come, first served basis."
This topic, fairly obvious in its interest when one considers the mechanisms
of emotional repression -- one of Branden's long-time writing and research
topics -- gets blithely transmuted, under Aisa's well-known furious hatred of
Branden, into:
>DISCOVERING YOUR INNER SCHIZOPHRENIC
>Not only is Nathaniel Branden back, but his ideas are loopier than ever.
>This year, he will be explaining how schizophrenia is man's natural
>condition; that he and his wife have been schizophrenic for years; and will
>conduct a seminar to help participants find the *inner schizophrenic*
>lurking inside them.
What makes such inner fury? I find that to be a subject of detached clinical
interest, much as I did in once witnessing an autopsy. It would make me sick
enough to run to another room to puke, if Aisa's contribution to rational
thought here were worth a pile of dead skin cells.
Next, we have a seminar topic that, in this setting, is one dealing with
fundamentals of political philosophy, not the setup or operation of larger
institutions, as some have noted already:
"David Kelley, Ph.D., and George H. Smith * The Natural Basis of Rights
"The Objectivist political philosophy is based on individual rights to life,
liberty, and property -- a position drawnfrom the natural rights tradition.
In what sense are rights -natural?- Do they exist independently of government?
Of all social institutions? George Smith and David Kelley will discuss the
status of rights as principles protecting individual freedom."
Which is mashed in Aisa's blender into:
>ANARCHY GIVEN ITS DUE
>Apparently, David Kelley is concerned that anarchism has not been given its
>rightful due, since he will be "discussing" the issue of rights (!) with
>anarchist George H. Smith.
And tosses off any interaction with others who may have different takes on
justifying or validing the same subject. He sees Smith as being an example of
>inviting one's intellectual enemies to a conference of one's allies,
>giving them a forum and audience they could never have gained on
>their own [...]
Once again, stuffed with Aisa's usual fury, and nothing else -- as anyone who
has read Smith's two published books, on epistemology ("Atheism: The Case
Against God") and intellectual movements ("Atheism, Ayn Rand, and Other
Heresies") would be aware.
The next item notes, in full, the actual description that Aisa did decide to
quote, but only in part:
"Richard A. Warshak, Ph.D. * One Dark (K)night: Trauma, Sense of Life, and
the Origin of a Superhero
"Psychological trauma can instantly shatter a benevolent sense of life and
influence artistic creation and appreciation. Clinical and research
psychologist Richard A. Warshak illustrates this process by investigating
the link between trauma and the origin, evolution, and appeal of a legendary
superhero. Dr. Warshak has over 20 years of experience treating trauma
victims. He is a professor of psychology at the University of
Texas Southwestern Medical Center."
Presumably, discussing Bob Kane's creation of Batman, and its resonance
(including the back-story, very much one of trauma) in popular culture. Aisa
uses this to somehow claim its underlying ideas as, in a transformation that
has thoroughly stumped me in what dementia he's using:
>EVOLUTIONIZING SCHEMAS: TOWARDS A[NEO-] (O/o)BJECTIVIST HERMEUNETICS
Aisa screams about a "silly, postmodernistic title," something the actual
session does not have, and yet provides one of these himself. Wasn't he
talking about schizophrenia earlier?
This is a seminar among several that deal with -the arts.- If the process of
abstraction that, to pick someone purely at random, an Ayn Rand could praise
in the writings of Dostoevsky is itself not worth considering ... well, then,
what's to be -done- to -apply- Objectivist esthetics?
>A "sense of life" [...] is not something that can be "shattered" by some
>single event, even a traumatic one.
That -you- did not experience such a consuming blow doesn't rule out its
happening to others, who may not have the resources of spirit or other
support to recover. This is not difficult logic to understand.
We have, finally, an IOS session on cognitive processes, its description
quoted here (as Aisa does not) in full:
"Carol Low, Psy.D. * Bodymind in Daily Life
"The continuity between body and brain presents a means of interpreting and
hence affecting the interaction between cognition, emotion, and behavior.
Carol Low will discuss recent research regarding the transmission
of information throughout the human bodymind, and will show how this knowledge
can be used to enhance the individual s ability to -integrate reason and
emotion- and feel more in control of his or her destiny. Dr. Low, a licensed
clinical psychologist, is co-founder of the Center for Conscious Living. She
specializes in treating physical problems via psychological modalities. She
has written on topics such as the holistic treatment of chronic pain and adult
attention deficit disorder." (Emphasis added.)
To -integrate.- Rand saw those who proclaimed a -disintegration- of mind and
body as those who tossed the philosophic enterprise out the window, and who
make rational thought applied to -this world- impossible. Very much a topic in
the pattern of what animated Rand's own concerns. The physiology and behavior
studies that have blossomed in recent years have pointed out how we are
integrated beings, reversing decades of disintegration in science. Low is
bringing this research together for commentary.
Aisa blithely twists all this into:
>OBJECTIVISM MEETS NEW AGE
>The New Agers, no doubt feeling left out of the Objectivist party in the
>past, may now be able to feel properly tolerated and included. [...]
And he calls the first sentence of the actual quote above, without -proving-
his point, a "word salad". I can agree that "bodymind" is a neologism -- but
so once were many other words that have been coined to meet a genuine
cognitive need. Where is -your- substitute word, Braddie, to denote the
integrated being that Rand talked about?
Beyond this, Aisa enters yet another smear mode by saying that Kelley is
>aggressively seeking to "tolerate" and collaborate with intellectuals of
>highly dubious credentials, and outright creeps like Nathaniel Branden [...]
The others noted above will undoubtedly speak for themselves, if they choose
to -- but whether she does so or not, I will respond more personally to the
last above of Aisa's rhetorical slimeballs.
I have known Carol Low as a friend for over 12 years. We both have served as
editors of the (now defunct) magazine "Nomos," have jointly worked on a host
of libertarian activities (small-l) and Objectivist meetings, and have been
intellectual sparring partners and fellow Mensans. She earned her doctorate
-and- two masters' degrees while home-schooling her three children as a single
mother. She has a thriving practice in cognitive psychology in Chicago. It has
been an asset to my life to know this courageous and tenacious woman.
Carol Low has been an Objectivist and has written on the topic, along with a
host of rational takes on psychology, education, and personal responsibility,
for more than 20 years. Further from the anti-rational outlooks of the "new
agers" one could not get. She is lucid, intelligent, and will brook no cant
from anyone, while nonetheless charming anyone whom she talks to with one of
the widest smiles east of the Mississippi River.
In terms of demeanor, savvy with the English language, and personal spirit,
Carol could eat your cojones for breakfast, Brad -- but that's not something
she'd bother to do.
Instead, she simply provides lucid insights in venues that are lucky to have
her, such as Kelley's IOS soiree in Colorado. And leaves you, as we all should
do -- and in how she's smarter than I am -- choking on your own vehemence.
A computer lets you make more mistakes faster than
any invention in human history, with the possible
exceptions of handguns and tequila. -- P.J. O'Rourke
Jim Klein
In <DDFr-21039...@ddfr.vip.best.com> David Friedman
<DD...@best.com> writes:
>It seems a bit odd for a follower of a "philosopher" who had no
>credentials in philosophy--neither academic training beyond the
>undergraduate level nor publications in academically respectable
>journals--to take such a strong position in favor of credentialism.
There you go again---taking Brad at what he says, rather than what he
means. When someone says something correct, their credentials supply
additional evidence of their veracity. Damn, if the credentials are
the right kind, they alone PROVE the truth of the claims. OTOH, when
someone says something false, their credentials are proof of fallacious
argument from intimidation. Life is much simpler that way, plus you
don't even have to read---let alone understand---those arguments which
are false, whether their authors are credentialed or not.
Personally, I find more interest in Brad's contention that what Rand
DIDN'T favor---nonconsensual monopoly government---IS a fundamental
part of Objectivism; but what she DID say---about as basic a feature
of our existence as sexuality---isn't.
And he guffaws for Kelley even discussing the subject of schizophrenia!
Well, there's at least one thing for which you can always count on Brad
and his ilk---bizarre irony.
jk
David Friedman
In article <N.032298.065728.88@fox>, James E. Prescott <jep...@uriel.net>
wrote:
I wasn't.
I haven't read his CV so might easily be wrong, but I thought that
although he had a degree in psychology his publications were all popular
works and Objectivist essays, rather than academic articles. In the
academic context, having a doctorate, by itself, is not what I would
describe as "significant academic credentials."
Jack n' the box
On 21 Mar 1998 21:35:06 GMT, Alex <n...@spam.com> wrote:
>Again, there is nothing at odds with anarchism and Objectivism --
>indeed, Objectivism _is_ anarchism. Although, there is much at odds
>with Objectivism and government.
Objectivism incorporates an internal code of values designed to
restrain immoral behavior.
What restraints on behavior, either internal or external, does
Anarchism profess to follow?
-jack
Tony Donadio
>Again, there is nothing at odds with anarchism and Objectivism --
>indeed, Objectivism _is_ anarchism.
I certainly hope this is a joke. If you believe this, then I have
some swampland in Arizona for you...
--
Tony Donadio
-------------------------
STOP the DOJ's Persecution of Microsoft
http://www.capitalism.org/microsoft
Alex
On 22 Mar 1998 07:05:23 GMT, Jack n' the box
<hask...@dennj.meitech.com> wrote:
>Objectivism incorporates an internal code of values designed to
>restrain immoral behavior.
That is not true. Rand herself found certain behavior to be immoral
though not proper to restrain. Initiation of force is the only
behavior which is proper to restrain in the Objectivist ethics.
>What restraints on behavior, either internal or external, does
>Anarchism profess to follow?
Only one: no government.
Anarchism isn't necessarily Objectivism (as one can be an anarchist
and not value nonaggression). Although, Objectivism unavoidably is
anarchism (as nonaggression unavoidably results in anarchy).
Alex
On 22 Mar 1998 07:05:28 GMT, "Tony Donadio" <tdon...@monmouth.com>
wrote:
>>Again, there is nothing at odds with anarchism and Objectivism --
>>indeed, Objectivism _is_ anarchism.
>
>I certainly hope this is a joke.
Actually, I didn't offer it as a joke. But, as they say "it's funny
because it's true".
>If you believe this, then I have
>some swampland in Arizona for you...
I do believe it. But what I believe about it is immaterial, as it is
demonstrably provable independent of what I may say or think about it.
Does this now then mean that you have some swampland in Arizona for
me?
David Friedman
In article <3514b667...@client.ne.news.psi.net>, Jack n' the box
<hask...@dennj.meitech.com> wrote:
>On 21 Mar 1998 21:35:06 GMT, Alex <n...@spam.com> wrote:
>
>>Again, there is nothing at odds with anarchism and Objectivism --
>>indeed, Objectivism _is_ anarchism. Although, there is much at odds
>>with Objectivism and government.
>
>Objectivism incorporates an internal code of values designed to
>restrain immoral behavior.
>
>What restraints on behavior, either internal or external, does
>Anarchism profess to follow?
Most libertarian anarchists I know of are in favor of the same internal
constraints on how you treat other people as most Objectivists--no
initiation of force. If you are curious about the external constraints,
you will find some discussion of the subject on my web page. Or you could
read my _Machinery of Freedom_ if you can find a copy. Anarcho-capitalist
envision a society in which bad things happen to people who violate
rights. The difference between the anarchist and the minarchist position
is in how the institutions that make sure that happens are structured--a
single monopoly government or a collection of rights enforcement agencies
and private courts, linked by a network of contracts.
R Lawrence
David Friedman <DD...@best.com> wrote:
>Brad Aisa <ba...@ERASETHISinterlog.com> wrote:
>
>>By aggressively seeking to "tolerate" and collaborate with intellectuals of
>>highly dubious credentials, and outright creeps like Nathaniel Branden,
>>David Kelley is alientating the most reputable of his associates and
>>admirers.
>
>credentials in philosophy--neither academic training beyond the
>undergraduate level nor publications in academically respectable
>hand, the only members of the older generation of Objectivists I can think
>of with significant academic credentials are Kelly and Reisman--both of
>whom have been expelled from Brad's preferred faction.
I suspect that when Mr. Aisa wrote of "highly dubious credentials," he did
not mean that they lacked adequate academic training. Rather I think he
probably meant that they lacked any credentials that showed that they had
knowledge of Objectivism. That is merely my speculation about what he
meant, however -- what he actually wrote could be interpreted either way.
Robert Kolker
Jack n' the box (hask...@dennj.meitech.com) wrote:
......................snip........................
>
> What restraints on behavior, either internal or external, does
> Anarchism profess to follow?
>
effective in small closed communities. Unfortunately
when you get to communities or societies where people
only know a few others by sight, it becomes necessary
to enforce customs and usage by more vigorous means.
A good example of a society that made a transition from
anarchism (distributed authority and custom) to monarchy
is that of ancient Israel prior to the time of King
Saul (the first King of Israel). That would be around
900 B.C.E. The Israelites left Egypt about 1200 B.C.E.
and lived w.o. a centralized government for 300 years.
Bob Kolker
Ken Gardner
In article <3514c3fb...@news.infi.net>, Alex <n...@spam.com> says...
> That is not true. Rand herself found certain behavior to be immoral
> though not proper to restrain. Initiation of force is the only
> behavior which is proper to restrain in the Objectivist ethics.
This statement is inaccurate. Specifically, you should have used the
word "politics" rather than "ethics." According to Rand, and according
to Objectivisism, it is for the purpose of prohibiting the initiation of
force or fraud, and thus securing individual rights, that we need
a proper government.
[Portion omitted]
> Anarchism isn't necessarily Objectivism (as one can be an anarchist
> and not value nonaggression). Although, Objectivism unavoidably is
> anarchism (as nonaggression unavoidably results in anarchy).
Not exactly.
Ken
JLH1942
Jack,
Anarchism is a political philosophy and not a moral code. Their is a moral
code that supports anarchism and that is selfishness.
Tony Donadio
>...Objectivism _is_ anarchism.
>I do believe it. But what I believe about it is immaterial, as it is
>demonstrably provable independent of what I may say or think about it.
What is demonstrably provable is that Objectivism and anarchism are
complete, incompatible opposites. You can posture all you want to the
contrary, but won't give what you say any truth standing whatsoever.
If you really think you can demonstrate this, let's hear your argument.
Dena L. Bruedigam
I have to say that it is indeed interesting to see Objectivists in the hot
seat, defending themselves against the very thing they have faulted me
(and other Libertarians) for so many times -- consorting with anarchists
-- it does bring a question to my mind.
Why the apparent Objectivist obsession with anarchism? Is this truly the
the most evil idea on earth -- one that not only must the people who hold
it be heartily condemned, but so evil that even those who interact with
anarchists must be condemned also?
Frankly I can think of a lot more evil ideas that have a much greater
negative effect on my live as man qua man than anarchy. Socialism, for
one. And it's being implemented. And as far as Objectivists coming to
incorrect conclusions, I find the fact that Objectivist leaders have
concluded that an individual should not be allowed to own an assault
weapon far more threatening to my freedom than David Friedman's book.
Alex
On 22 Mar 1998 17:19:55 GMT, Ken Gardner <ke...@dallas.net> wrote:
>In article <3514c3fb...@news.infi.net>, Alex <n...@spam.com> says...
>
>> That is not true. Rand herself found certain behavior to be immoral
>> though not proper to restrain. Initiation of force is the only
>> behavior which is proper to restrain in the Objectivist ethics.
>
>This statement is inaccurate.
It is accurate.
>Specifically, you should have used the
>word "politics" rather than "ethics."
I don't think you know what "ethics" here means. I shan't have used
none other than the words I did.
>According to Rand, and according
>to Objectivisism, it is for the purpose of prohibiting the initiation of
>force or fraud, and thus securing individual rights, that we need
>a proper government.
>
>[Portion omitted]
>
>> Anarchism isn't necessarily Objectivism (as one can be an anarchist
>> and not value nonaggression). Although, Objectivism unavoidably is
>> anarchism (as nonaggression unavoidably results in anarchy).
>
>Not exactly.
Not "not" but "yes" exactly.
James E. Prescott
On 3/22/98, David Friedman <DD...@best.com> wrote:
> I haven't read [Branden's] CV so might easily be wrong, but I thought that
> although he had a degree in psychology his publications were all popular
> works and Objectivist essays, rather than academic articles. In the
> academic context, having a doctorate, by itself, is not what I would
> describe as "significant academic credentials."
You're right. Sorry.
Best Wishes,
Jim P.
Alex
On 22 Mar 1998 19:20:35 GMT, "Tony Donadio" <tdon...@monmouth.com>
wrote:
>>...Objectivism _is_ anarchism.
>
>>I do believe it. But what I believe about it is immaterial, as it is
>>demonstrably provable independent of what I may say or think about it.
>
>What is demonstrably provable is that Objectivism and anarchism are
>complete, incompatible opposites.
I have never seen a demonstration of this. Although, I have seen
contrary demonstrations.
>You can posture all you want to the
>contrary, but won't give what you say any truth standing whatsoever.
>
>If you really think you can demonstrate this, let's hear your argument.
It is demonstrably provable that government cannot exist without
initiating force: for government inherently can only exist by
initiating force -- a government ceases to exist when it ceases
initiating force. Those who support the prohibition on initiation of
force, such as libertarians and Objectivists, and yet who also
advocate government, put themselves in a position which is
self-contradicting and impossible to solve.
As government, by definition, must involve one or both of the
following (historically speaking, almost always both):
1) Coercive tax levy.
2) Coercive monopoly on the rule of law (i.e., on the courts and
police etc.).
Both of which initiate force. And if it does not involve either of
those, then quite simply, it is not a government. Thus, those who hold
the nonaggression principle (i.e., Objectivists and libertarians) and
yet who also advocate government (even "minimal" government) find
themselves in an insoluble contradiction.
As far as #1, this can be gotten around by simply maintaining that
enough people would just give their money to government.
But #2 is insoluble. For example, if a corporation were to setup
their own defense and court services without initiating force, and
government were to use force to stop them, then, by definition,
government would be initiating force. If government does not stop
them, then it would cease being a government: for no longer would it
have a monopoly on the rule of law -- but instead, it would just be
another private protection agency. There is no way around this; either
the government initiates force against the corporation, thereby
maintaining its monopoly on the rule of law, and hence its status as
government -- or the government refrains from initiating force against
the corporation, thereby losing its monopoly on the rule of law, and
hence losing its status as government, to become instead just another
private protection agency.
The above argument shows that there can be no such thing as a
government which does not initiate force. And thus also, nonaggression
unavoidably leads to anarchism.
Lance Neustaeter
Jim Klein <rum...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> Personally, I find more interest in Brad's contention that what Rand
> DIDN'T favor---nonconsensual monopoly government---IS a fundamental
> part of Objectivism; but what she DID say---about as basic a feature
> of our existence as sexuality---isn't.
I think you mistyped something there. Perhaps you meant "...that what
Rand DID favor--"?
Lance
--
The more laws and order are made prominent, the more thieves and
robbers there will be. -- Lao Tsu
Lance Neustaeter
Jack n' the box <hask...@dennj.meitech.com> wrote:
> On 21 Mar 1998 21:35:06 GMT, Alex <n...@spam.com> wrote:
>>Again, there is nothing at odds with anarchism and Objectivism --
>>indeed, Objectivism _is_ anarchism. Although, there is much at odds
>>with Objectivism and government.
> Objectivism incorporates an internal code of values designed to
> restrain immoral behavior.
Actually, the first order of business of Objectist *ethics* is to
provide principles for living the moral life (avoiding immorality is a
necessary *part* of that--but emphasizing the positive is more
fundamental than avoiding the negative).
> What restraints on behavior, either internal or external, does
> Anarchism profess to follow?
Category error. Anarchism is a political philosophy. It does not
denote ethics, epistemology nor metaphysics. The same category error
can be directed back at you: what restraints on behavior does
capitalism profess to follow?
The *most* you could get out of that is "non-aggression"--but that's
not all of ethics, is it? To complain that a political philosphy does
not provide comprehensive ethical guidance is a category error. This
problem is simply a recasting of the libertarian vs. Objectivist
"debate".
Lance
--
As long as you can still be disappointed you are still young.
Chris Wolf
David Friedman writes:
>Anarcho-capitalist
>envision a society in which bad things happen to people who violate
>rights. The difference between the anarchist and the minarchist position
>is in how the institutions that make sure that happens are structured--a
>single monopoly government or a collection of rights enforcement agencies
>and private courts, linked by a network of contracts.
The problem, of course, is that when there is no single, monopoly government,
then every individual citizen has the right to become a "rights enforcement
agency," and retaliatory force becomes indistinguishable from whim.
*********************************************
Chris Wolf
cwo...@nwlink.com
Check out the World's Fastest Keyboard!
http://www.jeffcomp.com/jcp/
What's REALLY wrong with Objectivism
http://www.jeffcomp.com/jcp/faq/
Ayn Rand On Emergencies
http://www.jeffcomp.com/jcp/faq/murder.html
*********************************************
Chris Wolf
Alex writes:
>On 22 Mar 1998 19:20:35 GMT, "Tony Donadio" <tdon...@monmouth.com>
>wrote:
>>You can posture all you want to the
This whole idiotic argument is completely destroyed by the fact that a
government is not initiating force when it prevents individual citizens from
taking the law into their own hands. The government is, in fact, simply
defending the rest of the citizens from those anarchists who would unleash
retaliatory force at the drop of a whim.
Alex
On 23 Mar 1998 00:40:30 GMT, Chris Wolf <cwo...@nwlink.com> wrote:
>This whole idiotic argument is completely destroyed by the fact that a
>government is not initiating force when it prevents individual citizens from
>taking the law into their own hands. The government is, in fact, simply
>defending the rest of the citizens from those anarchists who would unleash
>retaliatory force at the drop of a whim.
So the government will initiate force to prevent others (who have
themselves not initiated force) from using the retaliatory force that
it itself uses.
Jaffo
In humanities.philosophy.objectivism, on 23 Mar 1998 01:31:44 GMT,
Alex said:
:So the government will initiate force to prevent others (who have
:themselves not initiated force) from using the retaliatory force that
:it itself uses.
But who defines retaliatory vs. initiation?
And who decides what degree of force is appropriate to use in
retaliation?
I don't have a problem with private enforcement agencies operating
under charter from a centralized body, but I'm suspicious of agencies
that would create their own laws and enforce them according to the
desires of their customers.
Who says that my selling pornography in my general store is "legal" or
"illegal?"
If a group of customers in an area decides that my action is immoral,
they can authorize the use of force against me for violating their
laws and imprison me or confiscate my property.
I'm all in favor of arbitration agreements and security services, but
I'm not convinced that law can be created by the marketplace without
leading to even more rights abuses than we live with now.
Jaffo
--
Jaffo's Home Page has moved to: http://www.connect.net/jaffo/
Please update your links!
Jaffo's New Email Address is: ja...@connect.net
Tony Donadio
> It is demonstrably provable that government cannot exist without
>initiating force: for government inherently can only exist by
> As government, by definition, must involve one or both of the
>following (historically speaking, almost always both):
>
> 1) Coercive tax levy.
Objectivists advocate voluntary government financing, not
coercive taxation. A number of ways to implement this have
been proposed. For details, see Rand's article "Government
Financing in a Free Society," in _The Virtue of Selfishness_.
Next objection?
>2) Coercive monopoly on the rule of law (i.e., on the courts and
>police etc.).
>
>Both of which initiate force.
The latter claim is simply not true. When a vigilante sets out to
execute his own brand of justice, _he_ is the one initiating
force; the government that stops him is using _retaliatory_
force. When someone sets himself up as personal arbiter of
his own brand of law and justice, and uses or threatens to use
force to enforce it, by that act he has initiated force, and has
become an objective threat to other men. They, through the
government they have formed for this purpose, have every
right in self-defense to use force to bring him under control.
> But #2 is insoluble. For example, if a corporation were to setup
>their own defense and court services without initiating force, and
>government were to use force to stop them, then, by definition,
>government would be initiating force.
NO, SIR, IT WOULD NOT. By establishing their own agency for
resolving disputes by force, and threatening to use force in that
capacity, the company would be the one initating force. In
stopping them, the government would be exercising retaliatory
force.
So much for the silly idea that "anarchism is Objectivism."
Alex
On 23 Mar 1998 03:14:05 GMT, "Tony Donadio" <tdon...@monmouth.com>
wrote:
>Objectivists advocate voluntary government financing, not
>coercive taxation. A number of ways to implement this have
>been proposed. For details, see Rand's article "Government
>Financing in a Free Society," in _The Virtue of Selfishness_.
>Next objection?
I said it could be gotten around by simply maintaining that enough
people would just give their money to government (however fanciful
that is).
>The latter claim is simply not true.
My argument was "if a corporation were to setup their own defense and
court services without initiating force, and government were to use
force to stop them, then, by definition, government would be
initiating force". Now what about this claim is untrue?
>When a vigilante sets out to
>execute his own brand of justice, _he_ is the one initiating
>force;
Not if he doesn't initiate force.
>the government that stops him is using _retaliatory_
>force.
They are if he initiated force. If he hasn't initiated force, then, by
definition, government would be initiating force.
>When someone sets himself up as personal arbiter of
>his own brand of law and justice, and uses or threatens to use
>force to enforce it, by that act he has initiated force,
Not if he doesn't initiate force or threaten to initiate force.
>and has
>become an objective threat to other men. They, through the
>government they have formed for this purpose, have every
>right in self-defense to use force to bring him under control.
Still, if he hasn't initiated force, and government uses force against
him, then, by definition, government would be initiating force.
>NO, SIR, IT WOULD NOT. By establishing their own agency for
>resolving disputes by force, and threatening to use force in that
>capacity, the company would be the one initating force.
But they only use retaliatory force.
>In
>stopping them, the government would be exercising retaliatory
>force.
If the corporation initiates force, and government uses force to stop
them, then government would be using retaliatory force. If the
corporation has not initiated force, and government uses force to stop
them, then, by definition, government would be initiating force.
>So much for the silly idea that "anarchism is Objectivism."
You still have yet to show how when government uses force against
someone -- who himself has initiated force against no one -- that the
government is then somehow not initiating force.
Lance Neustaeter
Chris Wolf <cwo...@nwlink.com> wrote:
> This whole idiotic argument is completely destroyed by the fact that a
> government is not initiating force when it prevents individual citizens from
> taking the law into their own hands. The government is, in fact, simply
> defending the rest of the citizens from those anarchists who would unleash
> retaliatory force at the drop of a whim.
Chris, you're just not getting it. The only people who can be
defended from retaliatory force are criminals. Your point is that
minarchy is good for criminals? It is quite impossible for innocent
bystanders to be threatened by retaliatory force.
Your undefended (and somewhat implicit) premises remain:
1) That anarchy would result in *more* aggression (dressed up--on a
whim--as lawful "retaliation") than minarchy, and 2) that a coercive
monopoly over retaliation is necessarily more rational, stable, and
objective than retaliative agencies in a free market.
Lance
--
The first rule of magic is simple. Don't waste your time waving your
hands and hoping when a rock or a club will do. --McCloctnik the Lucid
Lance Neustaeter
Tony Donadio <tdon...@monmouth.com> wrote:
> [...]
> So much for the silly idea that "anarchism is Objectivism."
Tony, you're not serious, are you?
Is this an example of what the vocal minarchists around here have in
mind when they claim that "anarchy has been disproven many times here
in HPO"? Your whole post was merely a repetition of the unabashed
assertion that aggression is not aggression when done by the
gov't--period.
And you truly do believe "so much for anarchy..." don't you?
Absolutely amazing self-deception.
Lance
--
Don't confuse me with the facts - my mind is made up.
Jim Klein
In <499.385T24...@portal.ca> "Lance Neustaeter"
<la...@portal.ca> writes:
>
>Jim Klein <rum...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>> Personally, I find more interest in Brad's contention that what Rand
>> DIDN'T favor---nonconsensual monopoly government---IS a fundamental
>> part of Objectivism; but what she DID say---about as basic a
feature
>> of our existence as sexuality---isn't.
>
>I think you mistyped something there. Perhaps you meant "...that what
>Rand DID favor--"?
Not at all. Rand expressed her obvious preference for monopoly
government, and presented a pretty good (if not complete) case for it.
But her derivation was BASED on the idea of consent---that without
individual consent, no government (monopoly or otherwise) could have
any legitimacy whatsoever. And the rest of her philosophy, concerning
volition and the "man qua man" stuff, makes it pretty clear exactly
what she meant by consent, and what sort of entity engages in it.
I guess I just take her at her word. When I read "The Nature of
Government," I see a strong and unequivocal demonstration of the
necessity of "consent of the governed," built upon the nature of man;
and a short and relatively weak argument why monopoly government is
necessary for the protection of individual rights. It may be true that
I'm reading what I want into it, but surely no less so than the
supporters of _nonconsensual_ monopoly government. To me, it's
abundantly clear that _consent_ and volitional behavior are the
foundations of her argument, and monopoly government a conclusion.
Plus, I don't think she was a stupid lady, and I doubt that she thought
the "A,B,C" scenario fully exhausted the arguments against monopoly
government. IMO, her support of voluntary funding lends credence to
this, since presumably the monopoly government wouldn't be very strong,
if nobody saw fit to pay for it. And she _clearly_ left open that
possibility.
Then of course, there's the question of the government of her idealized
society---the Gulch. Brad says they had laws there, but he hasn't
posted any of them yet. Myself, I can't think of one, at least in the
ordinary meaning of "laws," i.e., statutes. I don't recall any
punishment mechanism, nor any means of defense except the ad-hoc
abilities of the participants (which DID end up being used). It's true
there was a dispute resolution mechanism, in the Judge by agreement,
but one dispute settler does not a government make, does it?
Unless Brad backs up his fanciful claims, I think to see a centralized
monopoly government in the Gulch takes some reading between the lines.
Literally.
jk
Alex
On 22 Mar 1998 19:20:35 GMT, "Tony Donadio" <tdon...@monmouth.com>
wrote:
>>...Objectivism _is_ anarchism.
>
>>I do believe it. But what I believe about it is immaterial, as it is
>>demonstrably provable independent of what I may say or think about it.
>
>What is demonstrably provable is that Objectivism and anarchism are
>complete, incompatible opposites.
Then please give me your demonstratable proof of how, in your words
"Objectivism and anarchism are complete, incompatible opposites."
I have shown you mine, now please show me your's. Further, I found it
interesting that in your reply to my demonstration, not only did you
fail to refute it, but in addition you did not at that time offer a
demonstration of your claim.
>You can posture all you want to the
>contrary, but won't give what you say any truth standing whatsoever.
Now you wouldn't by chance be the one who is posturing?
Chris Wolf
Alex writes:
>On 23 Mar 1998 00:40:30 GMT, Chris Wolf <cwo...@nwlink.com> wrote:
>
>>This whole idiotic argument is completely destroyed by the fact that a
>>government is not initiating force when it prevents individual citizens from
>>taking the law into their own hands. The government is, in fact, simply
>>defending the rest of the citizens from those anarchists who would unleash
>>retaliatory force at the drop of a whim.
>So the government will initiate force to prevent others (who have
>themselves not initiated force) from using the retaliatory force that
>it itself uses.
Only against others who have THREATENED to use retaliatory force against the
citizens.
Once a government has been formed to place the use of retaliatory force under
objective control, no one else has the right to engage in retaliatory force.
The government may properly use force to prevent anyone else from engaging in
retaliatory force. In doing so, the government is guaranteeing to the citizens
the right to be free from having arbitrary force used against them by so-called
"private justice agencies."
Alex
>>I do believe it. But what I believe about it is immaterial, as it is
Alex
On 23 Mar 1998 05:00:51 GMT, Chris Wolf <cwo...@nwlink.com> wrote:
>Alex writes:
>>So the government will initiate force to prevent others (who have
>>themselves not initiated force) from using the retaliatory force that
>>it itself uses.
>Only against others who have THREATENED to use retaliatory force against the
>citizens.
The corporation in my example not only threatens to use retaliatory
force, but actually uses it (assuming that there is initiation of
force to retaliate against).
>Once a government has been formed to place the use of retaliatory force under
>objective control, no one else has the right to engage in retaliatory force.
>The government may properly use force to prevent anyone else from engaging in
>retaliatory force.
[. . .T]he government acts as the agent of man's right of
self-defense, and may use force only in retaliation and _only_
against_those_who_initiate_its_use_. . . [emphasis mine]
-- Ayn Rand, from chapter 1 in "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal"
entitled "What Is Capitalism", pg. 19.
>In doing so, the government is guaranteeing to the citizens
>the right to be free from having arbitrary force used against them by so-called
>"private justice agencies."
Who are you quoting? I have used the term "private protection agency,"
but never "private justice agencies" (not that I disapprove of the
term, I'm just wondering who it is you're quoting).
And as I have said before, retaliatory force can never be "arbitrary,"
for, by definition, it can only come in response to initiation of
force. Now, if my hypothetical corporation were to initiate force,
then the government could use force against them and it would be
retaliatory force. But if government were to use force against them
when they haven't initiated force, then the government would then be
initiating force.
David Friedman
In article <6f3o95$hn4$1...@news.monmouth.com>, "Tony Donadio"
<tdon...@monmouth.com> wrote:
>What is demonstrably provable is that Objectivism and anarchism are
>complete, incompatible opposites.
An interesting claim. I assume we would both agree that Objectivism is not
merely a political philosophy, but a complete philosophical system. So if
Objectivism and anarchism are complete, incompatible opposites, anarchism
must be a complete philosophical system too. That's news to me. Perhaps
Tony could elaborate.
This is not merely a debating point. The people Tony is arguing with
believe that anarchism is the political conclusion that follows from the
rest of Objectivism--and hence that their version of objectivism and
Tony's are not complete opposites, but two slightly different versions
(presumably one correct, one incorrec) of the same philosophical system.
It is that claim that Tony is attacking here.
David Friedman
In article <6f4k10$5bh$1...@news.monmouth.com>, "Tony Donadio"
<tdon...@monmouth.com> wrote:
>The latter claim is simply not true. When a vigilante sets out to
>execute his own brand of justice, _he_ is the one initiating
>force;
Whether or not he is objectively in the right?
>the government that stops him is using _retaliatory_
>force.
By punishing him for, say, forcibly reclaiming property that was in fact
stolen from him, they are using retaliatory force?
Precisely what, in your terms, is the essential difference between a
"vigilante" and a government? It cannot be the assent of the population,
since neither has the assent of all people it might use force against. It
is apparently not the question of which one acts in an objectively just
fashion--nothing in Alex's argument depends on assuming that the private
organization was any more irresponsible in its acts than the government.
Your statement above, taken literally, implies that even if the vigilante
is objectively correct--the property really was stolen from him--and the
government that stops him objectively incorrect, the government is still
in the right.
David Friedman
In article <3535aebb...@news.supernews.com>, Chris Wolf
<cwo...@nwlink.com> wrote:
>This whole idiotic argument is completely destroyed by the fact that a
>government is not initiating force when it prevents individual citizens from
>taking the law into their own hands. The government is, in fact, simply
>defending the rest of the citizens from those anarchists who would unleash
>retaliatory force at the drop of a whim.
How about anarchists who unleash retaliatory force not at the drop of a
whim but after procedures rationally designed to determine guilt,
appropriate level of retaliation, and the like? You simply assume the
problem away by implying that the government is using force in a
responsible fashion and its competitors in an irresponsible fashion.
I have the (possibly mistaken) impression that you regard the present
government of the U.S. as legitimate--not what you really want, but
sufficiently legitimate so that it would be entitled to suppress
competitors. As you are surely aware, that government has quite frequently
employed force in whimsical and unjust ways. So where does it get the
right to forcibly suppress competitors whose behavior is more nearly in
accord with just law?
David Friedman
In article <3515c38d...@news3.newscene.com>, Jaffo
<ja...@connect.net> wrote:
>But who defines retaliatory vs. initiation?
When I am arguing the justice of one set of institutions or another, I
define it--and make some progress if my definition is reasonably
consistent with the definition of those I am arguing with.
>And who decides what degree of force is appropriate to use in
>retaliation?
You know my answer--the private court that the agencies representing the
party have agreed in advance will settle their dispute.
>I don't have a problem with private enforcement agencies operating
>under charter from a centralized body, but I'm suspicious of agencies
>that would create their own laws and enforce them according to the
>desires of their customers.
But your "centralized body" is then deciding what the law should be. What
makes it in its interest to choose just laws? We have extensive experience
with legal systems created by centralized bodies, and their record is not
very good.
>Who says that my selling pornography in my general store is "legal" or
>"illegal?"
The court agreed on by your agency and the agency of the complainant.
>If a group of customers in an area decides that my action is immoral,
>they can authorize the use of force against me for violating their
>laws and imprison me or confiscate my property.
Right now you can "authorise" the use of force against someone, get a gun,
and shoot him. The consequences of doing that are (usually) sufficiently
undesirable that it is not in your interest to do so. As I have argued at
some length, here and in print, the consequences for a group of people in
an anarcho-capitalist society of adopting a policy of simply using force
against anyone they feel like are also unattractive. That is not true,
unfortunately, of similar policies at present, by governments--provided
they pick reasonably unpopular targets.
David Friedman
In article <bruedigam.1-22...@ts27-14.homenet.ohio-state.edu>,
Dena L. Bruedigam <brued...@osu.edu> wrote:
>Why the apparent Objectivist obsession with anarchism?
I am not certain, but I think it is because anarchism is, and socialism is
not, an intellectual threat to them. It is more likely that I will
convince Jimbo or Jaffo than that a socialist will. Heretics are more
dangerous than unbelievers. A number of people here regard themselves as
both anarchists and objectivists; I don't think anyone here regards
himself as both a socialist and an objectivist.
David Friedman
In article <35298679...@news.supernews.com>, Chris Wolf
<cwo...@nwlink.com> wrote:
>The problem, of course, is that when there is no single, monopoly government,
>then every individual citizen has the right to become a "rights enforcement
>agency," and retaliatory force becomes indistinguishable from whim.
It is possible that you would have difficulty distinguishing between the
two, but I doubt many of the rest of us would.
Lance Neustaeter
Jim Klein <rum...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> <la...@portal.ca> writes:
>>> Personally, I find more interest in Brad's contention that what Rand
>>> DIDN'T favor---nonconsensual monopoly government---IS a fundamental
>>> part of Objectivism; but what she DID say---about as basic a
>>> feature
>>> of our existence as sexuality---isn't.
>>I think you mistyped something there. Perhaps you meant "...that what
>>Rand DID favor--"?
> Not at all. Rand expressed her obvious preference for monopoly
> government, and presented a pretty good (if not complete) case for it.
> But her derivation was BASED on the idea of consent---that without
> individual consent, no government (monopoly or otherwise) could have
> any legitimacy whatsoever.
Well, this certainly points out Rand's inconsistency--and lends weight
to the "Objectivism is anarchy" thread....
I certainly have no problem with a natural monopoly over retaliative
force. In fact, I have a sneaking suspicion that that would be the
norm in many areas of the country. I still consider my view to be
anarchist because the one crucial element, the *coercive* monopoly
over retaliation, is absent.
Lance
--
What makes the universe so hard to comprehend is that there's nothing to
compare it with.
Lance Neustaeter
>>>So the government will initiate force to prevent others (who have
>>>themselves not initiated force) from using the retaliatory force that
>>>it itself uses.
>>Only against others who have THREATENED to use retaliatory force against the
>>citizens.
To be more accurate, it is against *criminals* that the retaliatory
force is "threatened"--by definition.
>>Once a government has been formed to place the use of retaliatory force under
>>objective control, no one else has the right to engage in retaliatory force.
>>The government may properly use force to prevent anyone else from engaging in
>>retaliatory force.
What makes it "proper", Chris? You'll never get down to reducing that
assertion to the facts that give rise to it because there aren't any.
Why should the fact that some person(s) was born before I was preclude
me from the right to perform some activity *simply by virtue of our
birth order?* (I'm assuming that the protection agency that is
claiming divine right {the state} is staffed/owned/operated by older
people than those that would dare to compete with it. And that "we
were here first" is to what they--and you--are appealing as proof of
their divine right.)
>>In doing so, the government is guaranteeing to the citizens
>>the right to be free from having arbitrary force used against them by
>>so-called "private justice agencies."
> Who are you quoting? I have used the term "private protection agency,"
> but never "private justice agencies"
It looks to me like those are "scare quotes" and not "quotation
quotes". It's a context thing.
Lance
--
How to paint a perfect painting -- make yourself perfect and then
just paint naturally --Robert M. Pirsig
Tony Donadio
>My argument was "if a corporation were to setup their own defense and
>court services without initiating force, and government were to use
>force to stop them, then, by definition, government would be
>initiating force". Now what about this claim is untrue?
That one can set up "one's own defense and court services" without
initiating force.
>>When a vigilante sets out to execute his own brand of justice,
>>_he_ is the one initiating force;
>
>Not if he doesn't initiate force.
If he doesn't initiate force or threaten to, then he isn't a vigilante,
is he?
>>the government that stops him is using _retaliatory_
>>force.
>
>They are if he initiated force.
Which he has.
>If he hasn't initiated force, then, by definition, government
>would be initiating force.
True, but then, as I said, he would also not be a vigilante.
>>When someone sets himself up as personal arbiter of
>>his own brand of law and justice, and uses or threatens to use
>>force to enforce it, by that act he has initiated force,
>
>Not if he doesn't initiate force or threaten to initiate force.
It's not possible without using or threatening to initiate force.
That's what it *means* to set up your own "law enforcement
agency." Unless he subjects himself to the authority of the
law and the courts the rest of society has no way to know
whether or not he has, in fact, acted in self-defense or not.
Keep in mind that the courts recognize the legitimacy of
self-defense, and that if an investigation determines that
the person has, in fact, acted in reasonable self-defense,
then he will not be punished. But by refusing to make himself
answerable to the law, he becomes an objective threat to
other men. That act that constitutes an initiation of force
against them.
>>and has
>>become an objective threat to other men. They, through the
>>government they have formed for this purpose, have every
>>right in self-defense to use force to bring him under control.
>
>Still, if he hasn't initiated force, and government uses force against
>him, then, by definition, government would be initiating force.
>
>>NO, SIR, IT WOULD NOT. By establishing their own agency for
>>resolving disputes by force, and threatening to use force in that
>>capacity, the company would be the one initating force.
>
>But they only use retaliatory force.
And by what means do they guarantee to the government that they
are, in fact, only using retaliatory force? If they do not recognize
themselves as being answerable to the law, then the people have
no way of ensuring that they are, in fact, exercising only retaliatory
force. By that fact they become an objective threat to the safety of
other men. Threatening to take the law into your own hands and
refusing to be answerable to the government for it is, as I said, an
act of initiating force.
>>In stopping them, the government would be exercising retaliatory
>>force.
>If the corporation initiates force, and government uses force to stop
>them, then government would be using retaliatory force. If the
>corporation has not initiated force, and government uses force to stop
>them, then, by definition, government would be initiating force.
See above.
Tony Donadio
>>When a vigilante sets out to execute his own brand of justice,
>>_he_ is the one initiating force;
>
Taking the law into your own hands is never "in the right" unless
the government has failed in its responsibility to execute justice.
>>the government that stops him is using _retaliatory_
>>force.
>
>By punishing him for, say, forcibly reclaiming property that
>was in fact stolen from him, they are using retaliatory force?
If he exercises force in the process and refuses to hold himself
answerable to the law and the government for his actions, then
yes, he is.
Alex
On 23 Mar 1998 12:18:59 GMT, "Tony Donadio" <tdon...@monmouth.com>
wrote:
>>>When a vigilante sets out to execute his own brand of justice,
>>>_he_ is the one initiating force;
>>
>>Whether or not he is objectively in the right?
>
>Taking the law into your own hands is never "in the right" unless
>the government has failed in its responsibility to execute justice.
So throughout the entire history of government one would have always
been "in the right" in taking the law into oneself's own hands?
Ken Gardner
[Alleged "argument" for anarchy omitted]
> This whole idiotic argument is completely destroyed by the fact that a
> government is not initiating force when it prevents individual citizens from
> taking the law into their own hands. The government is, in fact, simply
> defending the rest of the citizens from those anarchists who would unleash
> retaliatory force at the drop of a whim.
Exactly. Additionally, and even more importantly, the government is also
protecting citizens from those anarchists and others who would INITIATE
force (or fraud) against others.
Ken
Bill Riggins
Lance Neustaeter <la...@portal.ca> wrote:
> Your undefended (and somewhat implicit) premises remain:
>
> 1) That anarchy would result in *more* aggression (dressed up--on a
> whim--as lawful "retaliation") than minarchy, and 2) that a coercive
> monopoly over retaliation is necessarily more rational, stable, and
> objective than retaliative agencies in a free market.
I defended point number two with an argument you actively evaded by
misrepresenting my views more than once, and then asserting that the
argument presented was not worth responding to.
If you get a wild hair, and want to attempt to address it with something
other than asshole evasions and misrepresentations, here it is again:
-----start snip-----
> > It is more functional to have one set of "best guesses" for all the
> > things that we can't accurately draw the line for.
>
> My point is that in issues where you cannot "draw the line" from the
> generalized, theoretical world of the philosopher's armchair--you
> SHOULD NOT draw such a line.
Regardless of the mechanism (monopoly or non...), when people interact
they need some means of determining what is considered force against
their neighbors, and how seriously such violations will be considered.
I will be an anarchist the day you can tell me how each citizen will
"objectively" define such lines. To date you can't, and believe me
everyone will take advantage of that grey to define "objective justice"
any way they damn well see fit. Which gets us a little closer to my
question...
> This exposes hidden statist premises in
> your perspective: you take it for granted that these "lines" simply
> *must* be drawn ahead of any particular case.
You have a habit of assuming one hell of a lot. Why is that Lance?
For instance, I think we need lines regarding internal and external
defense. That is all. To protect us from external threat and to set
and enforce laws that keep us from violating each other's rights
internally (which limits, again, cannot be proven to be "objective" in
many cases...). Past defense, each citizen should obviously be free to
draw whatever lines he pleases.
Now, the decisions I referred to ~are~ going to be made. Your
perspective, my perspective, it makes no difference. They ~will~ be
made. What is at issue is what would be more objective: One set of
rules... or millions.
> That's what
> *principles* are for: so you don't *have* to make such rigid and
> unnatural "rules" ahead of time.
Rules regarding our defense should be as "rigid" (read: objective &
explicit) as we can possibly make them. It is perfectly natural to do
so, to the exact same extent that ought can be derived from is.
Therein lies the big bad rub...
Given the anarchist perspective, the Nazis, the Skinheads and about a
hundred other idiot hordes will obviously come up with "principles" they
consider objective--like exterminating all non-Aryans--and whip up their
own little "Protection Agency" to implement them. Now, what happens
when (not if) they wield unstoppable force?
This is what you evade: The nature of the battle has changed since the
Minutemen decided to revolt. If just one such lunatic gets his hands on
any of several tiny little vials of virus (insert your favorite WMD
here), then large populations (or every human on the third rock as a
worst case) will be transformed back into the lifeless ooze we sprang
from.
You and the other anarchists here see what you want to see, and simply
evade this and other facts. You refuse to acknowledge the need to keep
weapons of mass destruction in one set of hands and try to keep their
use as objective as possible. Your solution is to let everyone defend
themselves, knowing full well there ~is~ no effective defense against
such weapons. In fact, your "perspective" puts such weapons legally in
the hands of even the most irrational fools among us.
There are many arguments for monopoly defense (government). This is the
one avoided most often. When it comes to such weapons, it takes exactly
one mistake. Just one. Your "perspective" makes that mistake literally
millions of times more probable.
That is the issue.
Why not try addressing it directly for a change.
wbr
-----end snip-----
Jim Klein
In <6f5j73$m9r$1...@news.monmouth.com> "Tony Donadio"
<tdon...@monmouth.com> writes:
>And by what means do they guarantee to the government that they
>are, in fact, only using retaliatory force? If they do not recognize
>themselves as being answerable to the law, then the people have
>no way of ensuring that they are, in fact, exercising only retaliatory
>force. By that fact they become an objective threat to the safety of
>other men. Threatening to take the law into your own hands and
>refusing to be answerable to the government for it is, as I said, an
>act of initiating force.
Read this. Understand this (if you can). Then reread it again and
again---there are only four sentences after all. Try to follow the
logic; try to see the identifications.
IMO, it's a wonderful example of the sort of thinking Rand fought
against her entire life. It's both dogmatic (in claim) and
collectivist (in identification).
It is the ANTITHESIS of Objectivism. It is devoid of logic, and nearly
devoid of meaning. It's such brazen nonsense that I'd be rolling on
the floor laughing, except that I know Tony means what he appears to
say. And that is, that the sanctity of the individual FOLLOWS from the
law, rather than vice-versa. I know it's not easy to see, but just
take each sentence one at a time. For such a short paragraph, there
are a barrelful of misidentifications and logical fallacies.
I'd sooner take Bert Clanton's murderous communism over this. I mean,
Bert makes some fanciful identifications, but at least he follows
through with logic! ["Logical form," for you sticklers.]
Lemme know, Richard Lawrence, when you understand my relentless desire
to expose Peikovianism as a twisted inversion of Objectivism.
jk
DSANDIN
David Friedman <DD...@best.com> wrote:
Date: Mon, Mar 23, 1998 02:21 EST
Message-id: <DDFr-22039...@ddfr.vip.best.com>
>In article <6f4k10$5bh$1...@news.monmouth.com>, "Tony Donadio"
><tdon...@monmouth.com> wrote:
>
>>The latter claim is simply not true. When a vigilante sets out to
>>execute his own brand of justice, _he_ is the one initiating
>>force;
>
>Whether or not he is objectively in the right?
There is no whether or not. Only the not. You must be aware
enough of the Objectivist position to realize that "objectively in
the right" in this context *means* determined by the objective
process of law provided by government (whether or not you
understand why). A vigilante is outside that process. The issue
is not one of the process breaking down, leaving the citizenry or
some segment of it unprotected in principle but having to act
anyway (see Atlas Shrugged for *that* situation in the large).
The issue is one of evading an available process -- objectivity in
the realm of force -- instead of submitting to it.
Perhaps you have in mind a concept of "intrinsically in the
right" -- some sort of infallibly or safely knowing in advance
which intentions and acts, and what forms and degrees of
force, *would be* determined to be objectively justified. But
the Objectivist project of identifying the proper protection and
enforcement of rights rejects such theoretical grounds for the
resort to force, since (as with any attempt to implement
rationalism in life) in practice it is subjectivism.
Ayn Rand is often accused of missing the point regarding
anarchism, not thinking it out seriously the way she did more
basic areas of philosophy (epistemology and ethics), and not
successfully integrating the issue with her concept of rights.
(My impression is that there are a lot of little minds out there
itching to cut her down a notch or two.) But in fact she took
the same reasoned approach as in those other areas. In
whatever context, she identified what objective means on the
one hand, and what rationalist and subjective mean on the
other, and she upheld the former and rejected the latter.
Of course, for you to believe this I'd expect that you be well
versed in Objectivist epistemology and ethics. But you've
claimed outright on HPO that you haven't tried to read and
understand the epistemology, because of lack of interest and
because of not being able to get past the ethics.
>>the government that stops him is using _retaliatory_
>>force.
>
>By punishing him for, say, forcibly reclaiming property that was in fact
>stolen from him, they are using retaliatory force?
Tony Donadio and Chris Wolf have been making the answer
quite clear. The relevant "in fact" is the private resort to force
-- to which he did not *have* the right, not being objectively
*in* the right.
-- Dean
Betsy Speicher
On 23 Mar 1998, Alex wrote:
> My argument was "if a corporation were to setup their own defense and
> court services without initiating force, and government were to use
> force to stop them, then, by definition, government would be
> initiating force".
This is true. In fact, people have their own bodyguards and private
security services today and they are perfectly legal and would also
be OK under a proper, rights-respecting government. There are also
private courts and arbitration services and these would be OK too.
If the private defense and security services are conducted WITHOUT
INITIATING FORCE, a proper government would not -- and should not -- use
force against them.
Betsy Speicher
Academy Award Nomination - Best Feature Documentary!
AYN RAND: A SENSE OF LIFE
Now playing in Los Angeles, Atlanta, Corona del Mar, CA, Detroit, and
Chicago and coming soon to Austin, Berkeley, Cambridge, MA, Dallas,
Philadelphia, San Diego, San Francisco, Seattle, and Washington, DC.
Visit http://www.asenseoflife.com for latest schedules and info.
Jim Klein
In <3515e8bf...@news.infi.net> Alex <n...@spam.com> writes:
[Tony Donadio:]
>>What is demonstrably provable is that Objectivism and anarchism are
>>complete, incompatible opposites.
>
>Then please give me your demonstratable proof of how, in your words
>"Objectivism and anarchism are complete, incompatible opposites."
You're not paying attention--he has. He's repeated the claim, in one
fashion or another, at least one hundred times. To Tony, this
represents "demonstrable proof."
After a thousand repeats, it'll hit "goddammed certainty."
After five thousand, it becomes "self-evident" and axiomatic.
And after ten thousand---especially when chanted with others---the
punishment for refusing to see it, is death.
jk
Alex
On 23 Mar 1998 12:06:24 GMT, "Tony Donadio" <tdon...@monmouth.com>
wrote:
>>My argument was "if a corporation were to setup their own defense and
>>court services without initiating force, and government were to use
>>force to stop them, then, by definition, government would be
>>initiating force". Now what about this claim is untrue?
>
>That one can set up "one's own defense and court services" without
>initiating force.
You have yet to provide one example of how setting up one's own
defense and court services necessarily must initiate force. And
probably for good reason, for if it is the case that one can not set
up a defense and court service without initiating force, then such
would also hold true for government.
>>>When a vigilante sets out to execute his own brand of justice,
>>>_he_ is the one initiating force;
>>
>>Not if he doesn't initiate force.
>
>If he doesn't initiate force or threaten to, then he isn't a vigilante,
>is he?
Vigilante is the term you used, and it would appear that one component
of your definition for this term is "someone who initiates force."
Yet, my definition of vigilante would be someone who takes the law
into their own hands. And we can then see by this definition that he
need not necessarily initiate force against anyone -- especially if
the law that he takes into his own hands is "don't initiate force;
only retaliatory force is proper."
>>>the government that stops him is using _retaliatory_
>>>force.
>>
>>They are if he initiated force.
>
>Which he has.
Not by simply setting up his own defense and court services.
>>If he hasn't initiated force, then, by definition, government
>>would be initiating force.
>
>True, but then, as I said, he would also not be a vigilante.
If he takes the law into his own hands he would be. (By my, and my
dictionary's definition of vigilante.)
>>>When someone sets himself up as personal arbiter of
>>>his own brand of law and justice, and uses or threatens to use
>>>force to enforce it, by that act he has initiated force,
>>
>>Not if he doesn't initiate force or threaten to initiate force.
>
>It's not possible without using or threatening to initiate force.
Sure it is -- one simply refrains from initiating force.
>That's what it *means* to set up your own "law enforcement
>agency."
If that's what it means, then government by default would also
initiate force.
>Unless he subjects himself to the authority of the
>law and the courts the rest of society has no way to know
>whether or not he has, in fact, acted in self-defense or not.
So whether or not he actually initiates force is irrelevant, just that
he might initiate force.
>But by refusing to make himself
>answerable to the law,
If the law is "don't initiate force," then he makes himself answerable
to the law by not initiating force.
>he becomes an objective threat to
>other men.
If he doesn't initiate force, then he presents no threat to others who
themselves also don't initiate force.
>That act that constitutes an initiation of force
>against them.
So just that he is capable of initiating force, while you being unable
to "know whether or not he has, in fact, acted in self-defense or
not," is initiation of force.
>>>and has
>>>become an objective threat to other men. They, through the
>>>government they have formed for this purpose, have every
>>>right in self-defense to use force to bring him under control.
>>
>>Still, if he hasn't initiated force, and government uses force against
>>him, then, by definition, government would be initiating force.
>>
>>>NO, SIR, IT WOULD NOT. By establishing their own agency for
>>>resolving disputes by force, and threatening to use force in that
>>>capacity, the company would be the one initating force.
>>
>>But they only use retaliatory force.
>
>And by what means do they guarantee to the government that they
>are, in fact, only using retaliatory force?
They do not make any such guarantee to the government. They are not
beholden to it. The only thing that matters is their actions, and if
their actions show that they only use retaliatory force then no extra
value somehow attaches itself to their actions because they made some
guarantee to the government which it accepted. Likewise, if their
actions show that they initiate force, then no amount of guarantees
makes it somehow otherwise.
>If they do not recognize
>themselves as being answerable to the law,
If the law is "don't initiate force," then they recognize
themselves as being answerable to the law by not initiating force.
>then the people have
>no way of ensuring that they are, in fact, exercising only retaliatory
>force.
So people have no way of knowing if the U.S. government is, in fact,
exercising only retaliatory force?
>By that fact they become an objective threat to the safety of
>other men.
If they restrict themselves to only using retaliatory force, then the
only objective threat to the safety of other men they present is to
those who have initiated force.
>Threatening to take the law into your own hands and
>refusing to be answerable to the government for it is, as I said, an
>act of initiating force.
Now this is complete nonsense. Right now there exists a large criminal
class of people who have "[taken] the law into [their] own hands" and
yet who have initiated force against no one.
>>>In stopping them, the government would be exercising retaliatory
>>>force.
>
>>If the corporation initiates force, and government uses force to stop
>>them, then government would be using retaliatory force. If the
>>corporation has not initiated force, and government uses force to stop
>>them, then, by definition, government would be initiating force.
>
>See above.
Such as when I said:
"If he hasn't initiated force, then, by definition, government
would be initiating force [if it were to use force against him]."
And then you replied:
"True, but then, as I said, he would also not be a vigilante."
And again, my definition of vigilante would be someone who takes the
law into their own hands. And we can then see by this definition that
he need not necessarily initiate force against anyone -- especially if
the law that he takes into his own hands is "don't initiate force;
only retaliatory force is proper."
garisol
Brad,
I haven't really thought about the rest of the seminar, however I
did note that Branden was speaking about subpersonalities.
Since subpersonalities are what I and Steph Silberstein work with
every day, often seeing important changes arise in *minutes* rather than
the "conventional" months or years, I can assure you:schizophrenia has
nothing in common with subpersonality work!
Schizophrenia is about being split off from reality.
Subpersonality work involves an *integration* of what has, previous
to that work, already been split off.
The two ideas are polar opposites.
Further, subpersonality work has nothing in common with
irresponsibility, generally, as is suggested by your reference to Toohey.
It is rather about being responsible for those parts of us which were,
previously, not integrated into our thinking, feeling, or action.
The important issue is that, for most people, subpersonalities
exist. They do not *always* exist, because people's feelings and thoughts
may be sufficiently well integrated that they do not coalesce to form
what is experienced as a separate being within us, integrated to a
specific purpose.
However, this phenomenon is understood well enough that it has
become a staple in Gestalt psychology or Assagioli's psychosynthesis.
It can be verified, experientially, by a technique as simple as imagining
that one's parent is in a chair opposite to one, sitting in that chair,
and (still in this state of applied imagination) letting oneself act "as
if" one were his or her parent. For many people, not all, the change in
voice, speech patterns, types of ideas issuing forth, *feelings* while
doing this, are very persuasive as to the existence of this phenomenon.
best always,
Mike
Brad Aisa (ba...@ERASETHISinterlog.com) wrote:
: Those who recognized that David Kelley had reached an unspeakable new low
: last year, by having Nathaniel Branden speak at his summer conference, will
: be sorry to discover that no low may be too low as far as Kelley is
: concerned, if the program for his summer conference this year is any
: indication. (all citations below from the IOS summer 1998 conference
: program: http://www.ios.org/sem98pro.html)
: DISCOVERING YOUR INNER SCHIZOPHRENIC
: Not only is Nathaniel Branden back, but his ideas are loopier than ever.
: This year, he will be explaining how schizophrenia is man's natural
: condition; that he and his wife have been schizophrenic for years; and will
: conduct a seminar to help participants find the *inner schizophrenic*
: lurking inside them.
: Uh, huh.
: (For those savvy enough to ignore the preposterous nature of Branden's
: theory, and who want to get right to the bottom line -- the "Toohey" payoff
: -- ask yourself how conveniently exculpatory is a theory which lets the
: proponent say, "Oh, that wasn't me/now-me who did such awful things back
: then -- that was the not-me/other-me/pre-me doing those awful things!)
: [ref: Psychology of Subpersonalities, Nathaniel Branden]
--
(gar...@netcom.com)
XNFP
Hi Mike :)
Thank you for explaining what subperosnalities really means better than I
could. (Of ocurse it *was* 2 AM when I wrote my post, and one of *my*
subpersonalities was particularly upset by Brad's words, but at any rate my
post didn't come out quite right :)
Steph
Steph Silberstein (xn...@aol.com)
Co-moderator, self-esteem-self-help, the best self-help group on the 'Net!
"Working with what exists today to create a better tomorrow."
Jimbo- Wales
David Friedman <DD...@best.com> wrote:
>>Why the apparent Objectivist obsession with anarchism?
>
>I am not certain, but I think it is because anarchism is, and socialism is
>not, an intellectual threat to them. It is more likely that I will
>convince Jimbo or Jaffo than that a socialist will. Heretics are more
>dangerous than unbelievers.
Or, perhaps it is that the socialists won't come here and play
with us, the way you do.
--Jimbo
David Friedman
In article <Pine.BSI.3.96.980323...@usr09.primenet.com>,
Betsy Speicher <be...@speicher.com> wrote:
>This is true. In fact, people have their own bodyguards and private
>security services today and they are perfectly legal and would also
>be OK under a proper, rights-respecting government. There are also
>private courts and arbitration services and these would be OK too.
>If the private defense and security services are conducted WITHOUT
>INITIATING FORCE, a proper government would not -- and should not -- use
>force against them.
When your proper government arrests, tries, convicts and jails a suspect,
is it initiating force?
If the answer is "yes," then you have the problem of justifying initiation
of force by government.
If the answer is "no," then the private agency doing the same things, and
taking at least equal care to do them properly (no unnecessary force, fair
trial, etc.) is not initiating force, so the government, by your account,
should not use force against them.
Betsy Speicher, closet anarchist.
David Friedman
In article <6f5j73$m9r$1...@news.monmouth.com>, "Tony Donadio"
<tdon...@monmouth.com> wrote:
>>>When a vigilante sets out to execute his own brand of justice,
>>>_he_ is the one initiating force;
>>
>>Not if he doesn't initiate force.
>
>
>If he doesn't initiate force or threaten to, then he isn't a vigilante,
>is he?
"Vigilante" was your word, not ours. If you define it as someone who is
initiating force--for example, arresting innocent people without
evidence--then we all agree that the government, or anyone else, is
entitled to use force to stop him. But you are evading the question, which
is how the government can justify suppressing by force an agency that is
just as careful as it is not to violate rights.
>It's not possible without using or threatening to initiate force.
>That's what it *means* to set up your own "law enforcement
>agency."
So by your definition the government, which surely is its own law
enforcement agency, is initiating force?
David Friedman
In article <199803231503...@ladder03.news.aol.com>, DSANDIN
<dsa...@aol.com> wrote:
>There is no whether or not. Only the not. You must be aware
>enough of the Objectivist position to realize that "objectively in
>the right" in this context *means* determined by the objective
>process of law provided by government (whether or not you
>understand why).
Is it "objective" or "provided by government" that makes it objectively in
the right? If the latter, you are indeed, as someone was suggesting of
someone else elsewhere on the thread, a legal positivist--and are stuck
defending as objectively in the right all tyrannical acts committed by
governments, or at least governments with well defined legal processes. If
it is the objectivity of the process of law that makes it objectively in
the right, then whether or not the private agency is in the right depends
on what care it takes to enforce only just law--and similarly for the
government.
David Friedman
In article <1d6c4nq.jz...@host-32-96-32-181.atl.bellsouth.net>,
Bill Riggins <rig...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>I will be an anarchist the day you can tell me how each citizen will
>"objectively" define such lines.
I answered that question, in print, about twenty-five years ago.
David Friedman
In article <MPG.f8025c69...@news.dallas.net>, Ken Gardner
<ke...@dallas.net> wrote:
And, of course, when the private agency uses force against the government,
it is protecting its customers from the government's initiation of force
or fraud against them? Just to put the discussion in context, we live in a
society where governments take by force a little less than half of all
income--enormously more than all private criminals combined.
Robert Kolker
David Friedman (DD...@best.com) wrote:
........................snip...................
>
> When your proper government arrests, tries, convicts and jails a suspect,
> is it initiating force?
>
Shanghaied, and enslaved to sit for the trial.
Bob Kolker
Lance Neustaeter
Tony Donadio <tdon...@monmouth.com> wrote:
>>My argument was "if a corporation were to setup their own defense and
>>court services without initiating force, and government were to use
>>force to stop them, then, by definition, government would be
>>initiating force". Now what about this claim is untrue?
> That one can set up "one's own defense and court services" without
> initiating force.
You realy believe this... stuff, don't you Tony?
What's your answer to the Marxists who are defending their right to
the profits of their toil--stolen by the evil capitalists? They are
not aggressing, according to them. They are defending themselves and
their rightful property.
When you get an answer to them, take the same form of the answer and
apply it to your own position. The principles are the same.
> It's not possible without using or threatening to initiate force.
> That's what it *means* to set up your own "law enforcement
> agency."
And that's what it *means* to charge a higher price than the costs
involved in producing the product: robbery which can be properly
defended by force. The capitalist is either underpaying his labor or
he is overcharging his customers. Either is a rights violation
reparable by force.
Go play with the Marxists.
Lance
--
I don't believe in astrology. But then I'm an Aquarius, and
Aquarians don't believe in astrology. -- James R. F. Quirk
Brad Aisa
R Lawrence <RL0...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>I suspect that when Mr. Aisa wrote of "highly dubious credentials," he did
>not mean that they lacked adequate academic training. Rather I think he
>probably meant that they lacked any credentials that showed that they had
>knowledge of Objectivism. That is merely my speculation about what he
>meant, however -- what he actually wrote could be interpreted either way.
Of course that is what I meant, and David Friedman demonstrates his ongoing
cluelessness by being completely unable to decode plain English in context.
--
Brad Aisa web archive: http://www.interlog.com/~baisa/
email (anti-spam encoded): baisa"AT SYMBOL"interlog.com
*** STOP the persecution of Bill Gates and Microsoft ***
Get the facts and sign the online petition:
http://www.capitalism.org/microsoft/
Brad Aisa
Alex <n...@spam.com> wrote:
>Again, there is nothing at odds with anarchism and Objectivism --
>indeed, Objectivism _is_ anarchism. Although, there is much at odds
>with Objectivism and government.
Except for the one teensy fact that Objectivist political philosophy
staunchly upholds limited government and decries anarchy.
If you are this intellectually dishonest about a mere fact of
representation, why should anyone take your honesty, integrity, and ability
with regard to political analysis, any more seriously?
Brad Aisa
Jack n' the box <hask...@dennj.meitech.com> wrote:
>Objectivism incorporates an internal code of values designed to
>restrain immoral behavior.
Objectivism teaches a moral code designed to serve the positive interests
of each individual that adopts it -- it is not primarily or even marginally
a negative, "thou shalt not" morality -- it is a positive morality.
>
>What restraints on behavior, either internal or external, does
>Anarchism profess to follow?
The issue isn't restraint, per se, but the need to have an integrated
method of bringing the use of force and definitions of rights under
objective control.
Brad Aisa
Dena L. Bruedigam <brued...@osu.edu> wrote:
>Why the apparent Objectivist obsession with anarchism? Is this truly the
>the most evil idea on earth -- one that not only must the people who hold
>it be heartily condemned, but so evil that even those who interact with
>anarchists must be condemned also?
Ms. Bruedigam has this exactly backwards. Objectivists could give a damn
about anarchists -- show me any anarchist forum that has even ONE
legitimate Objectivist posting on it. I doubt such exists.
But the anarchists parasitize open Objectivist forums whenever they arise.
This is because anarchists are parasitic scum, who have no original moral
ideology, and no ability to attract followers without the value provided by
Ayn Rand. The reason Objectivists defend against such anarchist
parasitizing, is that they understand the evil of anarchism, the evil of
anarchists, and refuse to let them parasitize Objectivism.
Unlike the Libertarians, who have no principles, no clear philosophy, and
are wide open to be not only parasitized, but taken over outright by the
anarchist scum.
>Frankly I can think of a lot more evil ideas that have a much greater
>negative effect on my live as man qua man than anarchy. Socialism, for
>one.
Anarchy is infinitely more evil than socialism -- at least socialists
generally uphold the rule of law, some degree of property rights, and an
independent judiciary. Anarchists want to destroy everything.
Bob Renninger
In article <6f70h7$5q$4...@news.interlog.com>,
Brad Aisa <ba...@ERASETHISinterlog.com> wrote:
>Anarchy is infinitely more evil than socialism -- at least socialists
>generally uphold the rule of law, some degree of property rights, and an
>independent judiciary. Anarchists want to destroy everything.
"Joseph Stalin, you've murdered 50 Million people. Now what do you
have to say for yourself?"
"I can't be all that bad if I'm infinitely less evil those awful
anarchists! They want to destroy everything!"
Bob Renninger
"Just Say No: To Slogans."
Alex
On 24 Mar 1998 00:48:53 GMT, Brad Aisa <ba...@ERASETHISinterlog.com>
wrote:
>Alex <n...@spam.com> wrote:
>>Again, there is nothing at odds with anarchism and Objectivism --
>>indeed, Objectivism _is_ anarchism. Although, there is much at odds
>>with Objectivism and government.
>Except for the one teensy fact that Objectivist political philosophy
>staunchly upholds limited government and decries anarchy.
I'm saying that if the Objectivist ethics were to be consistently
applied it would lead to anarchy -- and that Rand and others who
support the Objectivist ethics while also advocating governent are
being inconsistent.
>If you are this intellectually dishonest about a mere fact of
>representation,
I never represented that Rand and her kind supported anarchism.
Indeed, if that were the case on my part, then I would not here be
aguing that Objectivist ethics leads to anarchism -- it would be a
moot point.
>why should anyone take your honesty, integrity, and ability
>with regard to political analysis, any more seriously?
I have never asked that anyone take my "honesty, integrity, and
ability with regard to political analysis" on faith, and then on such
faith to accept my aguments as true. The only reason someone sould
take any argument seriously is because its conclusions follows
logically and consistently from its premises. Man has the faculty of
reason -- all I ask is that he use it.
Alex
On 24 Mar 1998 01:36:17 GMT, Bob Renninger
<Renn...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
No, no, no! You've got it all wrong! It's supposed to go like this:
"Joseph Stalin, you've just murdered 50 million people. Now what are
you going to do next?"
"I'm going to Disney World!"
Alex
On 24 Mar 1998 00:59:28 GMT, Brad Aisa <ba...@ERASETHISinterlog.com>
wrote:
>But the anarchists parasitize open Objectivist forums whenever they arise.
>This is because anarchists are parasitic scum, who have no original moral
>ideology, and no ability to attract followers without the value provided by
>Ayn Rand. The reason Objectivists defend against such anarchist
>parasitizing, is that they understand the evil of anarchism, the evil of
>anarchists, and refuse to let them parasitize Objectivism.
Brad, you are so naive! (By the way, Evian spelled backwards is
"naive" -- it's all starting to make sense.) Is that all ther're
teaching you at kindergarden about us ol' anarchists? They left out
Satanic baby-killing Freemason polka dancers! (It's just as well, as
our Illuminati Charter as yet does not require the normals know these
things.)
>>Frankly I can think of a lot more evil ideas that have a much greater
>>negative effect on my live as man qua man than anarchy. Socialism, for
>>one.
>
>Anarchy is infinitely more evil than socialism -- at least socialists
>generally uphold the rule of law, some degree of property rights, and an
>independent judiciary. Anarchists want to destroy everything.
Indeed, we will not rest satiated untill we manage to destroy the very
fabric of space and time itself!
lu...@earthlink.net
In article <6f6vt2$5q$1...@news.interlog.com>,
Brad Aisa <ba...@ERASETHISinterlog.com> wrote:
>
> Alex <n...@spam.com> wrote:
>
> >Again, there is nothing at odds with anarchism and Objectivism --
> >indeed, Objectivism _is_ anarchism. Although, there is much at odds
> >with Objectivism and government.
>
> Except for the one teensy fact that Objectivist political philosophy
> staunchly upholds limited government and decries anarchy.
>
> with regard to political analysis, any more seriously?
I hate to have to defend this Alex guy. But it is obvious, given the context,
that he is saying that Objectivist premises lead to the conclusion that
anarchy is the proper position. He is not saying that Rand advocated anarchy
and he is not correct. But Brad is wrong to interpret Alex's comments in this
way.
Luka Yovetich
lu...@earthlink.net
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
Steve Reed
Brad Aisa jumps off the deep end:
>Anarchy is infinitely more evil than socialism -- at least socialists
>generally uphold the rule of law, some degree of property rights, and an
>independent judiciary.
Really, now? On what planet? Upholding property rights to destroy property
rights? (For anything termed "the means of production," in most cases.) To
reverse your name -- not to mention what's on the Socialist International's
Website -- A no longer is A?
>Anarchists want to destroy everything.
"Nothing matters to Libertarians -- not even the value of life itself." That
according to the Rev. Schwartz, in his original jeremiad. (The version of his
famous smear that originally appeared in "The Intellectual Activist," this
sentence since excised in other editions.)
Any pretense that you disagree with the Peikoff/Schwartz locus of enemies and
rhetoric, Braddie, is just that. A pretense.
We already know that you haven't bothered to -read- any treatment of these
subjects, such as Friedman's. Now we in HPO know just how you choose to
blister Peikoff, while following his proteges' methods. Weren't you talking
the other day about schizophrenia?
It is impossible to think of a man of any actual force
and originality, universally recognized as having those
qualities, who spent his whole life appraising and
describing the work of other men. -- H.L. Mencken
Tim Starr
In article <6f66th$co4$1...@Mercury.mcs.net>,
Jimbo- Wales <jwa...@MCS.COM> wrote:
>>not, an intellectual threat to them. It is more likely that I will
>>convince Jimbo or Jaffo than that a socialist will. Heretics are more
>>dangerous than unbelievers.
>
>Or, perhaps it is that the socialists won't come here and play
>with us, the way you do.
Some of us don't wait for them to come to us, we take the fight to them &
beat them on their own turf.
"If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police,
the secret police, the military, the hired servants of our rulers. Only the
government--and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws."
--Edward Abbey (1927-1989), _Abbey's Road,_ p.39_(Plume, 1979)
Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! Think Universally, Act Selfishly
Assistant Editor: Freedom Network News, the newsletter of The International
Society for Individual Liberty (ISIL), http://www.isil.org/
Personal home page: http://www.creative.net/~star/timstarr.htm
Liberty is the Best Policy - tims...@netcom.com
Alex
On 24 Mar 1998 07:55:02 GMT, lu...@earthlink.net wrote:
>I hate to have to defend this Alex guy.
Why? Do you hate truth? And if not, are you then saying your defense
of me is untrue? And, if it is the case that not only do you not hate
truth, but in addition you also maintain that your defense of me is
true, what room does that leave for you to hate your defense of me?
Or, is it that you don't hate your defense of me, but instead that you
hate the effort of defending me?
I never asked you to defend me, and if you hate doing it then don't do
it.
>but it is obvious, given the context,
>that he is saying that Objectivist premises lead to the conclusion that
>anarchy is the proper position. He is not saying that Rand advocated anarchy
>and he is not correct.
Please demonstrate that I am not correct.
>But Brad is wrong to interpret Alex's comments in this
>way.
I especially enjoyed his diatribe against anarchism above.
Mike Schneider
In article <6f7010$5q$2...@news.interlog.com>, Brad Aisa
<ba...@ERASETHISinterlog.com> wrote:
> R Lawrence <RL0...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> >I suspect that when Mr. Aisa wrote of "highly dubious credentials," he did
> >not mean that they lacked adequate academic training. Rather I think he
> >probably meant that they lacked any credentials that showed that they had
> >knowledge of Objectivism. That is merely my speculation about what he
> >meant, however -- what he actually wrote could be interpreted either way.
>
> Of course that is what I meant, and David Friedman demonstrates his ongoing
> cluelessness by being completely unable to decode plain English in context.
This from one for whom *all* usages of "anarchy" are mindlessly
considered to conform to his internally constructed definition!
(Blank me out anytime you're ready.)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
D#lete everything before the @ and replace with "mike1" to reply email.
Surviving without a Slave Number: http://www.ime.net/none/
Welcome to Rancho Runnamukka: http://www.accessone.com/~rivero/
A Military Action: http://www.Public-Action.com/SkyWriter/WacoMuseum
Ian Goddard's TWA-800 site: http://www.erols.com/igoddard/twa-core.htm
They screwed people left and right. http://users.aol.com/beachbt/screwold.txt
Mike Schneider
In article <6f70h7$5q$4...@news.interlog.com>, Brad Aisa
<ba...@ERASETHISinterlog.com> wrote:
> Anarchy is infinitely more evil than socialism -- at least socialists
> generally uphold the rule of law, some degree of property rights, and an
> independent judiciary. Anarchists want to destroy everything.
I am an anarcho-capitalist, as defined on the website "Anarchy: The
American Way".
Name one thing you think *I* want to destroy which doesn't, in your
learned opinion, deserve it.
Put up or shut up.
Mike Schneider
In article <35170a5...@news.infi.net>, Alex <n...@spam.com> wrote:
> On 24 Mar 1998 00:48:53 GMT, Brad Aisa <ba...@ERASETHISinterlog.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Alex <n...@spam.com> wrote:
>
> >>Again, there is nothing at odds with anarchism and Objectivism --
> >>indeed, Objectivism _is_ anarchism. Although, there is much at odds
> >>with Objectivism and government.
>
> >Except for the one teensy fact that Objectivist political philosophy
> >staunchly upholds limited government and decries anarchy.
>
> I'm saying that if the Objectivist ethics were to be consistently
> applied it would lead to anarchy -- and that Rand and others who
> support the Objectivist ethics while also advocating governent are
> being inconsistent.
"Inconsistent" is such a, a, ..... *euphemism*......
(I haven't seen such a *committed* effort to remain STUPID year and
year since, since, well, hmm, since yesterday on the whitewater group.
Well, anyway, I think you know what I mean.)
Mike Schneider
In article <3517210...@news.infi.net>, Alex <n...@spam.com> wrote:
> On 24 Mar 1998 00:59:28 GMT, Brad Aisa <ba...@ERASETHISinterlog.com>
> wrote:
>
> >But the anarchists parasitize open Objectivist forums whenever they arise.
> >This is because anarchists are parasitic scum, who have no original moral
> >ideology, and no ability to attract followers without the value provided by
> >Ayn Rand. The reason Objectivists defend against such anarchist
> >parasitizing, is that they understand the evil of anarchism, the evil of
> >anarchists, and refuse to let them parasitize Objectivism.
>
> Brad, you are so naive! (By the way, Evian spelled backwards is
> "naive" -- it's all starting to make sense.) Is that all ther're
> teaching you at kindergarden about us ol' anarchists? They left out
> Satanic baby-killing Freemason polka dancers!
Or that we all have Timothy McVeigh and Tom Metzger posters on our walls.
> (It's just as well, as
> our Illuminati Charter as yet does not require the normals know these
> things.)
>
> >>Frankly I can think of a lot more evil ideas that have a much greater
> >>negative effect on my live as man qua man than anarchy. Socialism, for
> >>one.
> >
> >Anarchy is infinitely more evil than socialism -- at least socialists
> >generally uphold the rule of law, some degree of property rights, and an
> >independent judiciary. Anarchists want to destroy everything.
You've watched "Rock and Rule" one too many times, haven't you, Brad?
> Indeed, we will not rest satiated until we manage to destroy the very
> fabric of space and time itself!
(To achieve the proper effect, you have to say that with the same
maniacal laughter as Mok, as he summoned the demon in the film named
above.)
Charles Bell
lu...@earthlink.net wrote:
>l> I hate to have to defend this Alex guy. But it is obvious, given the
>l> context, that he is saying that Objectivist premises lead to the
>l> conclusion that anarchy is the proper position.
The problem is Alex never stated an Objectivist premise that would necessarily
lead to anarchy. He has stated some specific political conclusions that may
lead to a condition conducive to anarchy under some circumstances. It is not
the same thing. For instance, Rand advocated voluntary taxation given the
"right moral climate." This is not to say that she saw that such a scheme would
work at the present time when there are so few who could be characterized as
egoists. The acceptance of Objectivist ethics would proceed an Objectivist
government with voluntary taxation. That is why Objectivism is a
philosophical-intellectual movement and not a political movement. The one comes
before the other. Libertarians, on the other hand, are of a political movement
hoping to force the issue of the noninitiation of force principle among people
who cannot have a clue of what it is all about. They are not trying to make an
omelette by breaking a few eggs but trying to do it without eggs altogether.
Alex wrote:
"I'm saying that if the Objectivist ethics were to be consistently
applied it would lead to anarchy -- and that Rand and others who
support the Objectivist ethics while also advocating government are
being inconsistent."
Rand seems clear enough that even if everyone were an egoist not wishing to
initiate the use of force such a thing might happen incidentally or due to
errors in knowledge or judgement. A government acting as arbitrator according
to objective law and as a defense against those outside its geographic area or
as an moral instrument of the commonwealth are still legitimate functions. In
Galt's speech she makes a specifically anti-anarchy statement: a government
[that does not protect man's rights] substitutes for morality the following
rule of social conduct: you may do whatever you please to your neighbor,
provided your gang is bigger than his.
Alex, being libertarian, does not believe in the existence of an objective
morality and therefore cannot grasp the concept of a moral government among
egoists -- that there would necessarily be in his mind a dichotomy between what
is ethical and what a government might do.
-----------------------------
Charles Bell
What's REALLY right with Objectivism?
http://www.netcom.com/~cbell58/aynrand.htm/#best
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+ The College Board * Boynton Beach FL * 561.364.9249 * Interent Gateway
+
+ User email address: cbell58@.ix.netcom.com
+ User FidoNet address: 1:3609/80
+
+ Disclaimer: The views of this user are strictly his own.
Robert Kolker
Charles Bell (cbell58@.ix.netcom.com) wrote:
..........................snip...........................
>
> Alex, being libertarian, does not believe in the existence of an objective
> morality and therefore cannot grasp the concept of a moral government among
> egoists -- that there would necessarily be in his mind a dichotomy between what
> is ethical and what a government might do.
>
down the line? All the people who established the government
are dead or nearly so. The children and the grandchildren got
a guarantor of their liberty handed to them for no effort.
Laziness and intertia will occur. A kind of moral entropy will
set in.
'Tis very likely that squashrot will make its appearence by
the by and since people are willing to tolerate a little
inconvenience and even a little tyranny it will grow until
you have something like the U.S. government, a cesspool of
evil.
Bob Kolker
Dena L. Bruedigam
In article <SteveReed.1...@earthling.net> Steve Reed
<Stev...@earthling.net> writes:
>Brad Aisa jumps off the deep end:
>
>>Anarchy is infinitely more evil than socialism -- at least socialists
>>generally uphold the rule of law, some degree of property rights, and an
>>independent judiciary.
>
>Really, now? On what planet? Upholding property rights to destroy property
>rights? (For anything termed "the means of production," in most cases.) To
>reverse your name -- not to mention what's on the Socialist International's
>Website -- A no longer is A?
I agree. I can't see how anyone could conclude that socialism respects
property rights.
This is a good example of what I meant when I said that some Objectivists
seem to have some kind of strange obsession with anarchy. I can't imagine
how one could think that it would be _better_ to live in a society where
wealth is redistributed equally by the government, where the government
owns everything and everyone works for the government, and where the
collective is god rather than live in an anarcho-capitalist society where,
at the very least, people have the right to their earnings. Is this really
what Objectivists believe? From the comments above, it sounds like this
is what Brad believes.
--Dena
_____________________________________________
Dena L. Bruedigam, brued...@osu.edu
Lottery: A tax on people who are bad at math.
DSANDIN
David Friedman <DD...@best.com> wrote:
Date: Mon, Mar 23, 1998 14:06 EST
Message-id: <DDFr-23039...@ddfr.vip.best.com>
>In article <199803231503...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
>DSANDIN<dsa...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>There is no whether or not. Only the not. You must be aware
>>enough of the Objectivist position to realize that "objectively in
>>the right" in this context *means* determined by the objective
>>process of law provided by government (whether or not you
>>understand why).
>Is it "objective" or "provided by government" that makes it objectively in
>the right? If the latter, you are indeed, as someone was suggesting of
>someone else elsewhere on the thread, a legal positivist--and are stuck
>defending as objectively in the right all tyrannical acts committed by
>governments, or at least governments with well defined legal processes. If
>it is the objectivity of the process of law that makes it objectively in
>the right, then whether or not the private agency is in the right depends
<on what care it takes to enforce only just law--and similarly for the
>government.
Context, please. Tony Donadio said, and you replied,
TD>>>>The latter claim is simply not true. When a vigilante sets out to
TD>>>>execute his own brand of justice, _he_ is the one initiating
TD>>>>force; the government that stops him is using _retaliatory_ force.
DF>>>Whether or not he is objectively in the right?
DF>>>By punishing him for, say, forcibly reclaiming property that was in fact
DF>>>stolen from him, they are using retaliatory force?
This has nothing to do with the justice of the vigilante's case that
would have been objectively determined had he taken it to court.
Originally Tony Donadio, and then I, rejected the premise that the
vigilante could possibly be in the right, in the respect that he
resorted to force outside the process of law. I said that *in this
context* (the resort to force independent of law), objectively being in
the right entails a determination by the government's objective process
of law. I could have amplified that into: "A determination of what the
right is, who should thereby act, and how he should act -- involving the
proper authority to identify the principles involved, to apply them, and
to direct and take the consequent actions".
Not that I was unclear. To equivocate that Objectivism may be "stuck
with defending as objectively in the right all tyrannical acts committed
by governments...with well defined legal processes" goes beyond the mere
absurd, into the intellectual theater of the absurd, given the mountain
of conclusive evidence to the contrary.
And if that theater was just to scare me into the arms of the other
half of the false and irrelevant alternative you offered (in which you
again beg the question of the rightness of private force, falsely
assuming that it's moral in order to even begin to argue that it may be
systematically practical), I'll repeat:
The objectivity of the process of law makes the actions of government
"objectively in the right" insofar as the rightness of taking coercive
action in a social context is concerned. ("Social context" here means
"absent the need for immediate self-defense, and present the reach of
objective law".) Judging the content of the actions is not at issue.
Having that content determined by legal authority, is. It's not a
tough or obscure distinction.
Albeit an inessential one for anarchism, easily overlooked or
discounted by it. Therein lies the rub, and the drawn line that needs
to be acknowledged in order for understanding to emerge.
-- Dean
Chris Wolf
Alex writes:
>>On 23 Mar 1998 03:14:05 GMT, "Tony Donadio" <tdon...@monmouth.com>
>wrote:
>>Objectivists advocate voluntary government financing, not
>>coercive taxation. A number of ways to implement this have
>>been proposed. For details, see Rand's article "Government
>>Financing in a Free Society," in _The Virtue of Selfishness_.
>>Next objection?
>I said it could be gotten around by simply maintaining that enough
>people would just give their money to government (however fanciful
>that is).
About as fanciful as people giving their money to insurance companies for
protection from fire, flood, death, or medical problems. Or giving money to
the local volunteer fire department. People will gladly give their money to a
proper government that provides police, courts, and military.
>>The latter claim is simply not true.
>My argument was "if a corporation were to setup their own defense and
>court services without initiating force, and government were to use
>force to stop them, then, by definition, government would be
>initiating force". Now what about this claim is untrue?
Your claim that the government is initiating force. Because the government
isn't initiating force. It is protecting my right to be free from having
arbitrary force used against me. Once the government has agreed to protect me
against the use of arbitrary force, it can only do so by prohibiting the use of
ALL non-authorized force against me, no matter who is proposing to unleash it,
and no matter for what reason. If someone wishes to use retaliatory force
against me, he must come to the government, present his case in the
government's court where I can be guaranteed due process, and then allow the
government to inflict the retaliatory force on me, if it is proven that I
deserve it.
Any attempt to set up a competing justice agency, is a violation of my rights,
and the government property retaliates against such threats.
People cannot live in a civilized society where they are constantly exposed to
the risk of force by anyone calling himself a "justice agency." People have
the right to live without being constantly threatened by the use of force,
retaliatory OR initiatory, by their neighbors. Once the use of force has been
placed under objective control, no one else has the right to "compete" with the
government.
>>When a vigilante sets out to
>>execute his own brand of justice, _he_ is the one initiating
>>force;
>Not if he doesn't initiate force.
It doesn't matter. By threatening to use ANY kind of force, he is threatening
my right to be free from the threat of arbitrary force. The only time a
vigilante has the right to be a vigilante, is when there is no government to
see that justice is done. Once we have set up a monopoly government to place
the use of retaliatory force under objective control, we are not required to
live with this sort of constant risk of having force used against us by every
kook calling himself a "justice agency."
>>the government that stops him is using _retaliatory_
>>force.
>They are if he initiated force. If he hasn't initiated force, then, by
>definition, government would be initiating force.
The government cannot protect my right to be free from the threat of arbitrary
force, unless it prohibits the use of ANY force by ANY "competing" justice
agency.
Suppose the vigilante's daughter has been raped, and he says he is going to
kill the man who his daughter has accused of doing it. Does the government
have the right to stop him from killing the accused? Not according to you,
since the vigilante claims he is only using "retaliatory" force. Indeed, if
the government DOES stop him, then according to you, the government is guilty
of "initiating force"!
This is where this sort of lunacy leads to. This is why there is no such thing
as the right to engage in private retaliatory force (unless there is no
government to do the job).
>>When someone sets himself up as personal arbiter of
>>his own brand of law and justice, and uses or threatens to use
>>force to enforce it, by that act he has initiated force,
>Not if he doesn't initiate force or threaten to initiate force.
The rest of us have no idea what sort of force he's planning to use. All we
know is that he is threatening our lives with force, and we have the right to
stop him from doing so.
>>NO, SIR, IT WOULD NOT. By establishing their own agency for
>>resolving disputes by force, and threatening to use force in that
>>capacity, the company would be the one initating force.
>But they only use retaliatory force.
It doesn't matter. They have no right to use ANY sort of force in a civilized
society that has already placed the use of retaliatory force under objective
control.
You seem to have this idea that you have the absolute right to engage in
retaliatory force, no matter what. You don't. The right to engage in
retaliatory force, like all rights, is contextual. The ONLY time you have the
right to engage in retaliatory force, is when no monopoly government exists to
place the use of retaliatory force under objective control. In other words, if
you live in a true anarchy (like an unsettled territory). then you may engage
in retaliatory force. But once an area gets civilized, and the use of
retaliatory force is assigned to the government, your right to engage in
retaliatory force ENDS.
*********************************************
Chris Wolf
cwo...@nwlink.com
Check out the World's Fastest Keyboard!
http://www.jeffcomp.com/jcp/
What's REALLY wrong with Objectivism
http://www.jeffcomp.com/jcp/faq/
Ayn Rand On Emergencies
http://www.jeffcomp.com/jcp/faq/murder.html
*********************************************
lu...@earthlink.net
In article <3517752...@news.infi.net>,
>
> of me is untrue? And, if it is the case that not only do you not hate
> truth, but in addition you also maintain that your defense of me is
> true, what room does that leave for you to hate your defense of me?
> Or, is it that you don't hate your defense of me, but instead that you
> hate the effort of defending me?
Like I said, I HATED to have to defend you. The reason that I did so was
because I did not think that Brad was representing you correctly and that is
always important no matter who you are arguing with.
If I want to make sue that you are being represented truthfully that, in no
way, implies that I agree with your argument. I do not.
> I never asked you to defend me, and if you hate doing it then don't do
> it.
I was really just trying to defend the truth. I do not care about you.
> >but it is obvious, given the context,
> >that he is saying that Objectivist premises lead to the conclusion that
> >anarchy is the proper position. He is not saying that Rand advocated
anarchy
> >and he is not correct.
>
> Please demonstrate that I am not correct.
I haven't read all of the posts in your anarchy discussion but early on Jimbo
refuted your "parallelism" argument pretty quickly. :-)
Alex
On 24 Mar 1998 19:06:39 GMT, lu...@earthlink.net wrote:
>> >and he is not correct.
>>
>> Please demonstrate that I am not correct.
>
>I haven't read all of the posts in your anarchy discussion but early on Jimbo
>refuted your "parallelism" argument pretty quickly. :-)
Except that he never refuted it. He posited a situation where a
so-called "government" (really nothing more than a property owner
setting the rules for people on his own property) would not be
initiating force. Yet it was exactly my posit that setting up a
private protection agency doesn't initiate force against anyone (or
that it need not necessarily do so) -- he never bothered to show how
it does.
Chris Wolf
Lance Neustaeter writes:
>Alex <n...@spam.com> wrote:
>> On 23 Mar 1998 05:00:51 GMT, Chris Wolf <cwo...@nwlink.com> wrote:
>
>>>>So the government will initiate force to prevent others (who have
>>>>themselves not initiated force) from using the retaliatory force that
>>>>it itself uses.
>>>Only against others who have THREATENED to use retaliatory force against the
>>>citizens.
>To be more accurate, it is against *criminals* that the retaliatory
>force is "threatened"--by definition.
And it is against the *innocent* that the retaliatory force may actually be
used--by accident. Which is a threat the rest of us won't tolerate.
>>>Once a government has been formed to place the use of retaliatory force under
>>>objective control, no one else has the right to engage in retaliatory force.
>>>The government may properly use force to prevent anyone else from engaging in
>>>retaliatory force.
>What makes it "proper", Chris? You'll never get down to reducing that
>assertion to the facts that give rise to it because there aren't any.
Guess again. Forming a "competing" justice agency constitutes an unacceptable
threat to unleash arbitrary force, and the government may properly retaliate
against such an agency by shutting it down. Once the use of retaliatory force
has been placed under objective control, ANY other threat to use force (even
retaliatory force), constitutes an unacceptable threat to unleash arbitrary
force, and the government may properly put a stop to it.
>Why should the fact that some person(s) was born before I was preclude
>me from the right to perform some activity *simply by virtue of our
>birth order?* (I'm assuming that the protection agency that is
>claiming divine right {the state} is staffed/owned/operated by older
>people than those that would dare to compete with it. And that "we
>were here first" is to what they--and you--are appealing as proof of
>their divine right.)
Nonsense. We are refusing to let you establish a private justice agency
because we do not wish to increase the threat of the use of arbitrary force.
For the same reason we won't let you build dynamite factories in residential
neighborhoods.
Bill Riggins
David Friedman <DD...@best.com> wrote:
> >I will be an anarchist the day you can tell me how each citizen will
> >"objectively" define such lines.
>
> I answered that question, in print, about twenty-five years ago.
I'm sure you'd like readers to think you did.
wbr
Chris Wolf
David Friedman writes:
>In article <3535aebb...@news.supernews.com>, Chris Wolf
><cwo...@nwlink.com> wrote:
>
>>This whole idiotic argument is completely destroyed by the fact that a
>>government is not initiating force when it prevents individual citizens from
>>taking the law into their own hands. The government is, in fact, simply
>>defending the rest of the citizens from those anarchists who would unleash
>>retaliatory force at the drop of a whim.
>How about anarchists who unleash retaliatory force not at the drop of a
>whim but after procedures rationally designed to determine guilt,
>appropriate level of retaliation, and the like? You simply assume the
>problem away by implying that the government is using force in a
>responsible fashion and its competitors in an irresponsible fashion.
I assume no such thing. I'm simply reducing the risk of arbitrary force to the
absolute minimum. Anyone, or any agency, who wields force, even retaliatory
force, is incredibly dangerous. I'm willing to put up with ONE agency (the
government) that is in charge of retaliatory force, but I'm sure as hell not
going to put up with two (or more). That's taking an unnecessary risk.
>I have the (possibly mistaken) impression that you regard the present
>government of the U.S. as legitimate--not what you really want, but
>sufficiently legitimate so that it would be entitled to suppress
>competitors.
That is correct. On the other hand, if you want to overthrow the present
government, and put in a better one, then you have my blessing.
>As you are surely aware, that government has quite frequently
>employed force in whimsical and unjust ways. So where does it get the
>right to forcibly suppress competitors whose behavior is more nearly in
>accord with just law?
I have no idea if the would-be competitors would behave more nearly in accord
with just law, and I have no desire to take the risk of finding out. It's all
I can do to keep track of the misdeeds of one government. Two would be
impossible. Five hundred would be absurd.
The government has the right to suppress competitors, because that reduces the
risk of the misuse of force to us all.
Charles Bell
Robert Kolker wrote:
>RK> How likely is a moral government to remain moral 3 generations
>RK> down the line? All the people who established the government
>RK> are dead or nearly so. The children and the grandchildren got
>RK> a guarantor of their liberty handed to them for no effort.
>RK> Laziness and intertia will occur. A kind of moral entropy will
>RK> set in.
The first moral principle for the governed then ought to be eternal
vigilance with a knowledge that the only thing constant is change.
>RK> you have something like the U.S. government, a cesspool of
>RK> evil.
The U.S. government did not start off "clean." Even by the standards of the
day slavery was a moral conundrum. The U.S. ought to have, at least, abolished
slavery in 1789 or allowed separate development in two nations of slave and
non-slave.
Charles Bell
Dena L. Bruedigam wrote:
>DB> ... rather than live in an anarcho-capitalist society
>DB> where, at the very least, people have the right to their
>DB> earnings.
This is where you assume too much, and it is only conjecture with no
historical example to measure by.
Bob Renninger
In article <35171694...@news.infi.net>,
>On 24 Mar 1998 01:36:17 GMT, Bob Renninger
><Renn...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>"Joseph Stalin, you've murdered 50 Million people. Now what do you
>>have to say for yourself?"
>
>
>
>"Joseph Stalin, you've just murdered 50 million people. Now what are
>you going to do next?"
>
>"I'm going to Disney World!"
I am infinitely sorry that I left myself wide open for that one!
Dena L. Bruedigam
In article <35183408...@news.supernews.com>, Chris Wolf
<cwo...@nwlink.com> wrote:
> ... On the other hand, if you want to overthrow the present
> government, and put in a better one, then you have my blessing.
Yeah, but you have to do it without any assault rifles or military
training because these would be illegal in Chris' objective government.
--Dena
Chris Wolf
David Friedman writes:
>In article <3515c38d...@news3.newscene.com>, Jaffo
><ja...@connect.net> wrote:
>>I don't have a problem with private enforcement agencies operating
>>under charter from a centralized body, but I'm suspicious of agencies
>>that would create their own laws and enforce them according to the
>>desires of their customers.
>But your "centralized body" is then deciding what the law should be. What
>makes it in its interest to choose just laws? We have extensive experience
>with legal systems created by centralized bodies, and their record is not
>very good.
It would be even worse for private justice agencies, since their only interest
is to serve their customers' wishes. "Justice" would be the LAST item of
interest to a private justice agency. Just as "justice" is the LAST item of
interest for a hired lawyer. He's paid to WIN.
>>Who says that my selling pornography in my general store is "legal" or
>>"illegal?"
>The court agreed on by your agency and the agency of the complainant.
An agency won't keep a customer who loses his case. That customer will go
shopping for an agency who guarantees to win his case. That agency will be the
one that uses force to put all the other competing agencies out of business.
Robert Kolker
Chris Wolf (cwo...@nwlink.com) wrote:
..................................snp....................
>
> >What makes it "proper", Chris? You'll never get down to reducing that
> >assertion to the facts that give rise to it because there aren't any.
>
> Guess again. Forming a "competing" justice agency constitutes an unacceptable
> threat to unleash arbitrary force, and the government may properly retaliate
> against such an agency by shutting it down. Once the use of retaliatory force
> has been placed under objective control, ANY other threat to use force (even
> retaliatory force), constitutes an unacceptable threat to unleash arbitrary
> force, and the government may properly put a stop to it.
>
Should I put up with it?
The current "justice" angencies, which you seem to approve
of is as dangerous to me ( and to you) as any criminal gang.
Bob Kolker
Robert Kolker
Charles Bell (cbell58@.ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>
> Robert Kolker wrote:
>
> >RK> How likely is a moral government to remain moral 3 generations
> >RK> down the line? All the people who established the government
> >RK> are dead or nearly so. The children and the grandchildren got
> >RK> a guarantor of their liberty handed to them for no effort.
> >RK> Laziness and intertia will occur. A kind of moral entropy will
> >RK> set in.
>
> The first moral principle for the governed then ought to be eternal
> vigilance with a knowledge that the only thing constant is change.
>
> >RK> you have something like the U.S. government, a cesspool of
> >RK> evil.
>
> The U.S. government did not start off "clean." Even by the standards of the
> day slavery was a moral conundrum. The U.S. ought to have, at least, abolished
> slavery in 1789 or allowed separate development in two nations of slave and
> non-slave.
>
passage of time. The time is long past due to slash and
burn to replace the Abomination with something better.
What should have happened after the Whiskey Rebellion was
to undo the Constitution of 1789 and return to the
Articles of Confederation. We we got instead was Natzional
Government and the Income Tax. Now we are all slaves for
5 months out of the year.
Bob Kolker
Robert Kolker
Charles Bell (cbell58@.ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>
> Dena L. Bruedigam wrote:
>
> >DB> ... rather than live in an anarcho-capitalist society
> >DB> where, at the very least, people have the right to their
> >DB> earnings.
>
> This is where you assume too much, and it is only conjecture with no
> historical example to measure by.
>
constantly abridged by , among other things, the very
government which is supposed to guarantee that right.
Bob Kolker
Government in its best state is a necessary evil and in its
worst state an intolerable one -- Thomas Paine from Common
Sense.
gsol...@virginia.edu
In article <3535aebb...@news.supernews.com>,
Chris Wolf <cwo...@nwlink.com> wrote:
>
[cut]
> This whole idiotic argument is completely destroyed by the fact that a
> government is not initiating force when it prevents individual citizens from
> taking the law into their own hands.
The problem is that we disagree over what sort of "fact" this is. If I enter
a room just in time to see Chris shoot Alex, then I may truthfully attest to
the fact that "Chris shot Alex". I can not, without knowing more, truthfully
attest to the fact that "Chris murdered Alex". The "fact" that the
government is or is not initiating force seems to be more like the second
case than the first.
In a world of entrepreneurs, the taxman might have to use a lot of force to
get certain individuals to pay their taxes. In a world of employees, a
withholding tax on salaries and wages raises the revenue without any *use* of
force. There is, of course, force behind this scheme as well. But whether
the government must actually resort to force to raise taxes is a question of
the background conditions, i.e., what sort of world it is. In recognition of
this, I think objectivists (and libertarians) tend to speak of "force" being
"initiated" when someone has been wrongfully separated from his property or
prevented from taking some action which he would otherwise have been free to
take. They recognize that against a different background, force would have
had to have been used, *and* that there is no morally significant difference
between the two backgrounds (based on their moral theory, of course).
However, although the two backgrounds have no morally significant
differences, it does not follow that one can be transformed into the other
without moral effect. Expectations are formed from background conditions,
and expectations play a role in determining what is morally significant.
What are the "background" conditions in this particular government/anarcho-
capitalist discussion? Chris seems to be arguing that the relevant
background is an established government with broad support - at least insofar
as the maintenance of "public order" is concerned - versus some (small?)
number of anarchists who have not renounced the use of force. For
David/Alex/"your friendly anarcho-capitalist of choice", I think the
background is different. It starts prior to any existing government, with
the delegation process that would lead to some number (possibly one) of
enforcement agencies being created. Alternatively, and more usually, it
starts in "competitive equilibrium" with some number of existing agencies and
their clients.
One difficulty is that it is easy to forget that both of these backgrounds
are hypothetical. This is especially difficult with Chris's background,
since we in fact live in a world with an established government with broad
support. But unless we are going to accept as legitimate every aspect of the
current government in the U.S., something that I assume no objectivist is
willing to do, then the actual history is irrelevant. What this background
is really serving to do is not ground a story about how we got here by
consent, but rather a teleological argument about what is good, regardless of
the history. Now it might well be the case that the actual government we
have is doing a tolerably good job of keeping order, and better, in fact,
than any alternative that we are *likely* to have. This provides *some*
reason to support the current government, but it is not conclusive, since
there are many costs as well. Perhaps what it does do is constrain the ways
in which we may legitimately change the existing government to peaceable
methods.
Chris does not see the government as "initiating" force when it prevents
"individual citizens from taking the law into their own hands". This is
consistent with a certain way of viewing the background conditions, just as
it would be to say that a withholding tax does not "initiate" force against
an employee. The A-Cist straightforwardly takes the government to be
initiating force when it acts to prevent an enforcement agency from taking an
action on behalf of its clients. Chris's story is more complicated; the
first use of force that we see is by the government, so it seems to be
initiating force.
Chris needs to argue, in effect, that what seems to be the initiation of
force is not, or, in other words, that the killing I saw was not murder. He
does this by arguing that it is better if each person gives up his right to
use (retaliatory) force, and delegates it to some agency, or government.
(Actually, to avoid a utilitarian balancing (which I assume he wants to do),
I think he must argue more: that it is better for *each* person, from their
*own* perspective, to do this. Otherwise, he must be arguing that the good
that is achieved for those who do agree somehow outweighs the harm for those
who do not. But I will not pursue this.) It is better, presumably, because
order is established and Hobbes's "war of all against all" is prevented;
(almost?) everyone's rights are on a firmer footing. And because of this,
what might seem like an initiation of force is really the protection of
rights.
There are at least two problems with this. First, the cost of monopoly
government to our rights might turn out to be high (as it seems to be), so we
may need to revisit the argument that we are really better off, at least if
some alternative is possible. Second, the A-Cist can grant Chris's claim: we
would in fact be better off delegating the right to use force. But that
assumption does not, by itself, tell us that every one ought to delegate the
right to the *same* agency. In the "classic" A-C story, i.e. David's, the
right is delegated; the problem is not that of the risk posed by individual
holdouts. The question is whether we are better off delegating to a single
agency in some geographic area or to multiple agencies. I don't see how this
question can be settled in the abstract by any moral theory; it would seem to
depend on a host of historical and cultural variables.
I want to repeat that this lack of specificity by our moral theory(ies) does
not (by itself) imply that we may legitimately disregard the dictates of the
current legal regime. However, the value in terms of public order provided
by that regime is also no blanket moral condemnation of all those actions
that could lead to a better one.
JLH1942
Brad,
Why is a gov't needed to bring the use of force and definitions of rights under
objective control? Didn't Rand already objectively define what rights are? I
think she did. Now, all one needs to have are agencies that protect those
rights.