Rand's utopian government
Eric
Rand says, "the moral justification of capitalism does not lie in the
altruist claim that it represents the best way to achieve 'the common
good'...The moral justification of capitalism lies in the fact that it is
the only system consonant with man's rational nature, that it protects man's
survival qua man, and that its ruling principle is justice."
"The precondition of a civilized society is the barring of physical force
from social relationships. ... In a civilized society force may be used only
in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use."
"The basic political principle of the Objectivist ethics is: no man may
initiate the use of physical force against others...the government is not
the ruler, but the servant or agent of the citizens; it means that the
government as such has no rights except the rights delegated to it by the
citizens for a specific purpose."
"In a capitalist society, all human relationships are voluntary...they can
deal with one another in terms of and by means of reason, I.e., by means of
discussion, persuasion, and contractual agreement, by voluntary choice to
mutual benefit."
"Without property rights, there is no way to solve or to avoid a hopeless
chaos of clashing views, interests, demands, desires, and whims."
From these passages emerges a set of criteria that may be used to judge
whether a government is legitimate or not. Notice she didn't focus on
secondary economic details concerning her political ideal. Critics of
anarchism who claim it's unstable are ignoring the essential point and
avoiding Rand's criteria of a legitimate government.
Private property, non-aggression, and voluntary consent are the three
essential concepts that must be included for the government to be morally
justified. If not, then Rand says, "if a province wants to secede from a
dictatorship, or even from a mixed economy, in order to establish a free
country-it has the right to do so."
And this is how anarchists such as Roy Childs and George Smith conclude that
Rand's form of government is anarchist in nature because, "The principle of
'voluntary taxation' reduces Rand's 'government' to a free-market protection
agency, which, like every business, must either satisfy its customers or
close up shop. What is to prevent a dissatisfied customer from withholding
his money from a Randian 'government,' while subscribing instead to the
services of another agency? Why cannot a landowner (or combination of
landowners) refuse to pay for the services of their Randian 'government,'
which they regard as inefficient, and take their business elsewhere? The
right to pay for services or not, according to one's own judgment, is a
characteristic of the free market; it has no relationship, either
theoretically or historically, to the institution of government. There is
no way a government can retain its sovereign power -- its monopoly on the
use of legitimate force -- if it does not possess the power of compulsory
taxation."
Rand's ideal government requires a difficult standard for it to be morally
legitimate, but she does argue for this standard nonetheless.
-Eric Knauer
emic...@my-deja.com
are governments, than to argue that Rand's ideal government would
be anarchist.
For Rand, the government was an agent for its citizens empowered to
subordinate the use of force to a single objectively defined moral
code to which those citizens consented. Anarchism subordinates the
use of force to multiple moral codes defined on an individual basis
without any requirement for consent by anyone. In its shortest form:
Rand = objective force, anarchy = subjective force.
It is hard to see how the competing defense agencies could avoid being
governments.
There would be consent of clients ('citizens') who would compromise
their own code to accept the agencies chosen code per its contract with
the justice agency. That code would have to be stable (objectified).
The agency would have to apply it equally for all and would have to
respond to all force -- initiated or retaliatory, by or against its
clients, and everywhere they are -- at the very least to determine if
jurisdiction is theirs. This means they would have to take a 'monopoly'
stance on the use of force to the extent of their jurisdiction.
The most difficult question for me is: if one contracted (consented)
with an agency for the subordination of force to the code of that agency
(with which one agreed, in general), what would be gained by advocating
that there should be not just that one agency but many, all using force
according to other codes and potentially against one's own agency? One
might tolerate other agencies (like Italy, France, Germany), but why
advocate them?
emichael
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Eric
emic...@my-deja.com wrote in message <7nm5dc$ama$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>>
>> Rand's ideal government requires a difficult standard for it to be
morally
>> legitimate, but she does argue for this standard nonetheless.
>>
>I find it much easier to argue that the "competing defense agencies"
>are governments, than to argue that Rand's ideal government would
>be anarchist.
Why? Is it simply because the word bothers you? My dictionary defines
anarchy as, "a political theory holding all forms of government authority to
be unnecessary and undesirable and advocating a society based on voluntary
cooperation and free association of individuals and groups."
This seems consistent with Rand's ideal political system despite her odd
view of a non-coercive, voluntary funded government.
>For Rand, the government was an agent for its citizens empowered to
>subordinate the use of force to a single objectively defined moral
>code to which those citizens consented. Anarchism subordinates the
>use of force to multiple moral codes defined on an individual basis
>without any requirement for consent by anyone. In its shortest form:
>Rand = objective force, anarchy = subjective force.
Actually, you have it exactly backwards-
"Those minarchists who claim that justice can prevail only under government
must implicitly defend the view that justice is either subjective or
intrinsic. If justice is subjective, if it varies from one person to the
next, then government can be defended as necessary to establish objective
rules. Likewise, if justice is intrinsic to government itself, if whatever a
government decrees is necessarily just, then government is justified
automatically.
If, however, justice is neither subjective nor intrinsic, but instead is
objective -- i.e., if it can be derived by rational methods from the facts
of man's nature and the requirements of social existence -- then the
principles of justice are knowable to every rational person. This means that
no person, group of persons, association, or institution whether known as
'government,' 'State,' or by any other name -- can rightfully claim a legal
monopoly in matters pertaining to justice." -Smith
>It is hard to see how the competing defense agencies could avoid being
>governments.
If they are just and enforce objective law, then you can call them
governments if you want.
>
>There would be consent of clients ('citizens') who would compromise
>their own code to accept the agencies chosen code per its contract with
>the justice agency. That code would have to be stable (objectified).
>The agency would have to apply it equally for all and would have to
>respond to all force -- initiated or retaliatory, by or against its
>clients, and everywhere they are -- at the very least to determine if
>jurisdiction is theirs. This means they would have to take a 'monopoly'
>stance on the use of force to the extent of their jurisdiction.
We have hundreds of overlapping jurisdictions that exist now at the state,
federal, and local level, without the need for the Supreme court to
intervene. "Given the current multiplicity of 'centers of decision,' the
abolition of geography-based jurisdictional monopolies would mean only that
jurisdictional conflicts would arise between persons who had chosen
different court systems by contract, rather than as now between persons who
have decided to live in different places." -Barnett
>The most difficult question for me is: if one contracted (consented)
>with an agency for the subordination of force to the code of that agency
>(with which one agreed, in general), what would be gained by advocating
>that there should be not just that one agency but many, all using force
>according to other codes and potentially against one's own agency? One
>might tolerate other agencies (like Italy, France, Germany), but why
>advocate them?
I would say that because people have the right to replace unjust and corrupt
regimes, and that centralization of power aggravates inefficiency and
tyranny. But if one planetary agency could emerge through explicit consent
and is just, then I wouldn't object in principle. This it utopian of
course.
-Eric
emic...@my-deja.com
Eric <roa...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> emic...@my-deja.com wrote in message <7nm5dc$ama$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>
> >>
> >> morally legitimate, but she does argue for this standard
> >> nonetheless.
> >>
> >I find it much easier to argue that the "competing defense agencies"
> >are governments, than to argue that Rand's ideal government would
> >be anarchist.
>
> defines anarchy as, "a political theory holding all forms of
> government authority to be unnecessary and undesirable and advocating >
> a society based on voluntary cooperation and free association of
> individuals and groups."
>
"all forms of government authority to be unnecessary" without grasping
that that includes every conceivable form of "defense agency" whether
a-c or O. Anarchy means no government, no agency, no courts, no laws...
Anarchy is the condition that exists when there is no society, when
small numbers of men inhabit a large enough region so that interaction
is seldom and short-range, where there are not enough people to form a
viable defense agency even if someone wanted to.
In populations that are larger with more complex, long-term
interactions, the use of force also becomes larger, more complex, with
longer-term consequences. At that point, life becomes as diminished by
the unpredictability of force as by force itself. If anarchy were to
continue in this societal context, everyone would have to live their
lives "looking over their shoulder". Supplanting this state of
perpetual fear with order is where -archies come from.
> This seems consistent with Rand's ideal political system despite her
> odd view of a non-coercive, voluntary funded government.
>
Not odd, not unusual, barely remarkable. Who would be the citizens of
a government that abolished taxation as anathema to liberty? Go look in
the mirror then post me that you would not pay. As for the few who would
not, how great a benefit do you think they could draw from the division
of labor with free men who do pay? You grossly underestimate the
willingness of men who taste real freedom, to appreciate it.
> >For Rand, the government was an agent for its citizens empowered to
> >subordinate the use of force to a single objectively defined moral
> >code to which those citizens consented. Anarchism subordinates the
> >use of force to multiple moral codes defined on an individual basis
> >without any requirement for consent by anyone. In its shortest form:
> >Rand = objective force, anarchy = subjective force.
>
> Actually, you have it exactly backwards-
>
> "Those minarchists who claim that justice can prevail only under
> government must implicitly defend the view that justice is either
> subjective or intrinsic. If justice is subjective, if it varies from
> one person to the next, then government can be defended as necessary
> to establish objective rules. Likewise, if justice is intrinsic to
> government itself, if whatever a government decrees is necessarily
> just, then government is justified automatically.
>
> If, however, justice is neither subjective nor intrinsic, but instead
> is objective -- i.e., if it can be derived by rational methods from
> the facts of man's nature and the requirements of social existence --
> then the principles of justice are knowable to every rational person.
> This means that no person, group of persons, association, or
> institution whether known as 'government,' 'State,' or by any other
> name -- can rightfully claim a legal monopoly in matters pertaining to
> justice." -Smith
>
Actually I did not get it backwards. Think about that pre-societal
context again, with each individual the vehicle of his own justice.
Justice is not subjective, intrinsic, or objective, it is all three,
one at a time, depending on which individual you are considering.
Even when the act of justice itself is objective, justice as a whole
-- as a process -- is subjective, which is anarchy.
I would agree with Rand on the necessity of government because I
do not want my every act to have to simultaneously accommodate in
advance three (or more) different kinds of justice. And when I
assemble with the others from that sparsely populated a-societal
region to write our rules for justice, I and they will bring with
us a rightful claim to a monopoly in matters pertaining to our own
justice. It will be the monopoly we had no choice but to exercise in
that state of a-societal anarchy. And it will be that monopoly which
we will consign to the government so that it can rightfully claim a
legal monopoly in matters pertaining to our justice.
> >It is hard to see how the competing defense agencies could avoid
> >being governments.
>
> If they are just and enforce objective law, then you can call them
> governments if you want.
>
If they do they will be good governments. If they do not, they will be
bad governments. And I will call them that not because I want to, but
because I have to. That is what they are.
> >
> >There would be consent of clients ('citizens') who would compromise
> >their own code to accept the agencies chosen code per its contract
> >with the justice agency. That code would have to be stable
> >(objectified). The agency would have to apply it equally for all and
> >would have to respond to all force -- initiated or retaliatory, by or
> >against its clients, and everywhere they are -- at the very least to
> >determine if jurisdiction is theirs. This means they would have to
> >take a 'monopoly' stance on the use of force to the extent of their
> >jurisdiction.
>
> We have hundreds of overlapping jurisdictions that exist now at the
> state, federal, and local level, without the need for the Supreme
> court to intervene. "Given the current multiplicity of 'centers of
> decision,' the abolition of geography-based jurisdictional monopolies
> would mean only that jurisdictional conflicts would arise between
> persons who had chosen different court systems by contract, rather
> than as now between persons who have decided to live in different
> places." -Barnett
>
We do not have overlapping jurisdictions anywhere. We have a hierarchy
of different sub-jurisdictions culminating in one constitution over
all of them. It is not a collection, it is a system.
> >The most difficult question for me is: if one contracted (consented)
> >with an agency for the subordination of force to the code of that
> >agency (with which one agreed, in general), what would be gained by
> >advocating that there should be not just that one agency but many,
> >all using force according to other codes and potentially against
> >one's own agency? One might tolerate other agencies (like Italy,
> >France, Germany), but why advocate them?
>
> I would say that because people have the right to replace unjust and
> corrupt regimes, and that centralization of power aggravates
> inefficiency and tyranny. But if one planetary agency could emerge
> through explicit consent and is just, then I wouldn't object in
> principle. This it utopian of course.
>
You are evading the question. Replacing corrupt agencies is not the
same as advocating the simultaneous multiplicity of agencies in one
location. Why would one advocate that kind of competition (with force)
against one's own concept of right?
Eric
>>
>> Why? Is it simply because the word bothers you? My dictionary
>> defines anarchy as, "a political theory holding all forms of
>> government authority to be unnecessary and undesirable and advocating >
>> a society based on voluntary cooperation and free association of
>> individuals and groups."
>>
>The word is fine. What bothers me is the way you slither by the phrase
>"all forms of government authority to be unnecessary" without grasping
>that that includes every conceivable form of "defense agency" whether
>a-c or O. Anarchy means no government, no agency, no courts, no laws...
"Government" is usually understood as an institution that has coercive
monopoly of power, which lacks explicit consent of its members. The
libertarian anarchists support law courts, police services, military
expenditures, etc., that are funded voluntarily.
>
>Anarchy is the condition that exists when there is no society, when
>small numbers of men inhabit a large enough region so that interaction
>is seldom and short-range, where there are not enough people to form a
>viable defense agency even if someone wanted to.
Anarcho-capitalism is a subdivision within the anarchist umbrella that
supports private property and volunteerism.
>
>In populations that are larger with more complex, long-term
>interactions, the use of force also becomes larger, more complex, with
>longer-term consequences. At that point, life becomes as diminished by
>the unpredictability of force as by force itself. If anarchy were to
>continue in this societal context, everyone would have to live their
>lives "looking over their shoulder". Supplanting this state of
>perpetual fear with order is where -archies come from.
Historically, the people who have been in the most danger having to look
over their shoulders have lived under government tyranny. This century has
been especially viscous as governments killed over 200 million, excluding
war. See Rummel's Death By Government for details.
>
>> This seems consistent with Rand's ideal political system despite her
>> odd view of a non-coercive, voluntary funded government.
>>
>Not odd, not unusual, barely remarkable. Who would be the citizens of
>a government that abolished taxation as anathema to liberty? Go look in
>the mirror then post me that you would not pay. As for the few who would
>not, how great a benefit do you think they could draw from the division
>of labor with free men who do pay? You grossly underestimate the
>willingness of men who taste real freedom, to appreciate it.
My point was that Rand still called it a government even though she thought
it could exist by voluntary taxation and the right to secede. Nobody else
in history comes to mind that held such a view.
>Actually I did not get it backwards. Think about that pre-societal
>context again, with each individual the vehicle of his own justice.
>Justice is not subjective, intrinsic, or objective, it is all three,
>one at a time, depending on which individual you are considering.
>Even when the act of justice itself is objective, justice as a whole
>-- as a process -- is subjective, which is anarchy.
Defining subjective justice as anarchy is mixing categories.
>
>I would agree with Rand on the necessity of government because I
>do not want my every act to have to simultaneously accommodate in
>advance three (or more) different kinds of justice. And when I
>assemble with the others from that sparsely populated a-societal
>region to write our rules for justice, I and they will bring with
>us a rightful claim to a monopoly in matters pertaining to our own
>justice. It will be the monopoly we had no choice but to exercise in
>that state of a-societal anarchy. And it will be that monopoly which
>we will consign to the government so that it can rightfully claim a
>legal monopoly in matters pertaining to our justice.
I argued that Rand's criteria for a legitimate government was anarchist in
nature. Also, law pre-dates the state-
"It is generally accepted, by limited government and by other philosophers,
that the State is necessary for the creation and development of law. But
this historically incorrect. For most law, emerged not from the state, but
out of non-State institutions: tribal custom, common law judges and courts,
the law merchant in mercantile courts, or admiralty law in tribunals set up
by shippers themselves...these customary rules were not haphazard or
arbitrary, but consciously rooted in natural law, discoverable by man's
reason." -Rothbard
>We do not have overlapping jurisdictions anywhere. We have a hierarchy
>of different sub-jurisdictions culminating in one constitution over
>all of them. It is not a collection, it is a system.
"For most practical purposes, there are hundreds of final decision makers in
the United States at the level of federal and state courts of appeals. The
United States Supreme Court and the supreme courts of the fifty states for
the most part decide only the cases they choose to decide....But how do the
parties to a dispute know to which of the hundreds of courts that can reach
the initial decision they may later appeal to receive a final decision? That
question has long been handled by a body of legal precepts known as *civil
procedure* that determine which court among the many has
jurisdiction...Assuming one decides which court is to hear the case and make
a final decision, which body of law is the court to follow? Once again,
given the multiplicity of legal systems in the West, this problem has long
been handled by an elaborate set of legal precepts known as *conflict of
laws*. According to the American Law Institute '[t]he world is composed of
territorial states having separate and differing systems of law. Events and
transactions occur, and issues arise, that may have a
significant relationship to more than one state, making necessary a special
body of rules and methods for their ordering and resolution.' The conflict
of laws is then defined as 'that part of the law of each state that
determines what effect is given to the fact that the case may have a
significant relationship to more than one state.' Quite commonly, courts in
one state decide a dispute using only the law of another state." -Barnett
"Perhaps the most distinctive characteristic of the Western legal tradition
is the coexistence and competition within the same community of diverse
jurisdictions and diverse legal systems--The pluralism of Western law, which
has both reflected and reinforced the pluralism of Western political and
economic life, has been, or once was, a source of development, or growth -
legal growth as well as political and economic growth. It also has been, or
once was, a source of freedom." -Berman
>> I would say that because people have the right to replace unjust and
>> corrupt regimes, and that centralization of power aggravates
>> inefficiency and tyranny. But if one planetary agency could emerge
>> through explicit consent and is just, then I wouldn't object in
>> principle. This it utopian of course.
>>
>You are evading the question. Replacing corrupt agencies is not the
>same as advocating the simultaneous multiplicity of agencies in one
>location. Why would one advocate that kind of competition (with force)
>against one's own concept of right?
>
A multiplicity of agencies in one area is the result of people patronizing
efficient and just agencies. From an old post I wrote- "Law is a
specialized field which operates in many areas besides police services
protecting rights. Law is usually understood to be a process of discovery
and change as opposed to being static. The last time I checked there were
dozens of legal subjects such as business law, civil procedure, contracts,
criminal law, cyberspace law, environmental law, family law, intellectual
property, labor, torts, and international law. So a large percentage of law
wouldn't even be dealing with rights protection. Are you recommending an
objectivist super agency to oversee all of this? If it's just, then fine.
But I think a myriad of just agencies can operate without unjustly trying to
put each other out of business."
-Eric
Robert J. Kolker
emic...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> The word is fine. What bothers me is the way you slither by the phrase
> "all forms of government authority to be unnecessary" without grasping
> that that includes every conceivable form of "defense agency" whether
> a-c or O. Anarchy means no government, no agency, no courts, no laws...
Not so.. Laws can exist without a central government. For example most
commercial law during the Middle Ages were guild regulations, customs
and usages. In short there were rules in place and the guilds enforced them,
but there was no central government.
Another example is ecclesiastical law which is church law and cannon.
These were enforced by a combination of fright (excommunication
threatened) and sometimes overt force.
In the present day, the rules and regulations for getting refunds on
unsatisfactory credit card purchase are rules formulated and imposed
by the companies issuing credit cards (VISA, MasterCard, Discover,
etc.). The way it works, if a merchant does not refund on a questionable
sale, the credit card issuer rescinds the credit card charging privilege from
the merchant. This means a big time loss in sales, so the company
formulated rules can be laid on via economic clout. At no time are
there guns, dungeons, chains and courts.
Bob Kolker
emic...@my-deja.com
Eric <roa...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> emic...@my-deja.com wrote in message <7nm5dc$ama$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>
> >>
> >> Why? Is it simply because the word bothers you? My dictionary
> >> defines anarchy as, "a political theory holding all forms of
> >> government authority to be unnecessary and undesirable and
> >> advocating a society based on voluntary cooperation and free
> >> association of individuals and groups."
> >>
>
> "Government" is usually understood as an institution that has coercive
> monopoly of power, which lacks explicit consent of its members. The
> libertarian anarchists support law courts, police services, military
> expenditures, etc., that are funded voluntarily.
>
to be unnecessary, then you tell me that libertarian anarchists support
the top 3 forms of government authority. You cannot have both. Let me
know which one you want to keep.
> >
> >In populations that are larger with more complex, long-term
> >interactions, the use of force also becomes larger, more complex,
> >with longer-term consequences. At that point, life becomes as
> >diminished by the unpredictability of force as by force itself. If
> >anarchy were to
> >continue in this societal context, everyone would have to live their
> >lives "looking over their shoulder". Supplanting this state of
> >perpetual fear with order is where -archies come from.
>
> Historically, the people who have been in the most danger having to look
> over their shoulders have lived under government tyranny. This century has
> been especially viscous as governments killed over 200 million, excluding
> war. See Rummel's Death By Government for details.
>
is as diminished by the unpredictability of force as by force itself.
Because the use of force in an anarchy is individualized,
unpredictability of force is a hallmark of anarchy and the source of its
consistent tendency to self-destruct.
> >
> >I would agree with Rand on the necessity of government because I
> >do not want my every act to have to simultaneously accommodate in
> >advance three (or more) different kinds of justice. And when I
> >assemble with the others from that sparsely populated a-societal
> >region to write our rules for justice, I and they will bring with
> >us a rightful claim to a monopoly in matters pertaining to our own
> >justice. It will be the monopoly we had no choice but to exercise in
> >that state of a-societal anarchy. And it will be that monopoly which
> >we will consign to the government so that it can rightfully claim a
> >legal monopoly in matters pertaining to our justice.
>
> I argued that Rand's criteria for a legitimate government was anarchist in
Which I carefully denied and refuted in the previous post, and
which does not say much about my attempt in this statement to
explain the source and nature of the "monopoly" government concept.
>..Also, law pre-dates the state- "It is generally accepted, by limited >go
>vernment and by other philosophers, that the State is necessary for
>the creation and development of law. But this historically incorrect.
>For most law, emerged not from the state, but>
>out of non-State institutions: tribal custom, common law judges and
>courts, the law merchant in mercantile courts, or admiralty law in
>tribunals set up by shippers themselves...these customary rules were
>not haphazard or arbitrary, but consciously rooted in natural law,
>discoverable by man's reason." -Rothbard
>
The order in which these developed is not significant. The State, the
government, the laws of all kinds and sources, the rules,
the courts, the judges, etc. are all efforts to subordinate the use of
force to a moral code and all are efforts to preclude anarchy.
I cannot find anything in these quotes to substantiate that there are
instances under this or any other government of two laws governing one
act in one location at the same time. I have only encountered such a
proposal in the writings of the anaracho-capitalists.
> >> I would say that because people have the right to replace unjust and
> >> corrupt regimes, and that centralization of power aggravates
> >> inefficiency and tyranny. But if one planetary agency could emerge
> >> through explicit consent and is just, then I wouldn't object in
> >> principle. This it utopian of course.
> >>
> >You are evading the question. Replacing corrupt agencies is not the
> >same as advocating the simultaneous multiplicity of agencies in one
> >location. Why would one advocate that kind of competition (with force)
> >against one's own concept of right?
> >
>
> A multiplicity of agencies in one area is the result of people patronizing
> efficient and just agencies. From an old post I wrote- "Law is a
> specialized field which operates in many areas besides police services
> protecting rights. Law is usually understood to be a process of discovery
> and change as opposed to being static. The last time I checked there were
> dozens of legal subjects such as business law, civil procedure, contracts,
> criminal law, cyberspace law, environmental law, family law, intellectual
> property, labor, torts, and international law. So a large percentage of law
> wouldn't even be dealing with rights protection. Are you recommending an
> objectivist super agency to oversee all of this? If it's just, then fine.
> But I think a myriad of just agencies can operate without unjustly trying to
> put each other out of business."
>
I suspect that in a laissez-faire government of any ilk, 90% of existing
laws could be erased. I also suspect that of those that remain or are
newly written, every single one would deal with rights protection.
That is a government's only function.
Eric
>> monopoly of power, which lacks explicit consent of its members. The
>> libertarian anarchists support law courts, police services, military
>> expenditures, etc., that are funded voluntarily.
>>
>Your definition says anarchy holds all forms of government authority
>to be unnecessary, then you tell me that libertarian anarchists support
>the top 3 forms of government authority. You cannot have both. Let me
>know which one you want to keep.
At least seventy-five percent of commercial disputes are settled in private
arbitration/mediation courts and there are over twice as many private police
than public police in the United States right now. As the legal system in
the US continues to deteriorate, individuals will choose private alternative
solutions.
Just because governments are associated with legal services doesn't only
they can and ought to.
>> Historically, the people who have been in the most danger having to look
>> over their shoulders have lived under government tyranny. This century
has
>> been especially viscous as governments killed over 200 million, excluding
>> war. See Rummel's Death By Government for details.
>>
>While these statements are true, they do not address the point that life
>is as diminished by the unpredictability of force as by force itself.
>Because the use of force in an anarchy is individualized,
>unpredictability of force is a hallmark of anarchy and the source of its
>consistent tendency to self-destruct.
The same can be said for government power concerning unpredictability, which
history demonstrates. You still seem to be associate the word "anarchy"
with chaos. I'm referring to specific authors such as Rothbard and Smith
who include additional normative views similar to Rand.
>> I argued that Rand's criteria for a legitimate government was anarchist
in
>> nature...
>
>Which I carefully denied and refuted in the previous post, and
>which does not say much about my attempt in this statement to
>explain the source and nature of the "monopoly" government concept.
>The order in which these developed is not significant. The State, the
>government, the laws of all kinds and sources, the rules,
>the courts, the judges, etc. are all efforts to subordinate the use of
>force to a moral code and all are efforts to preclude anarchy.
Three questions-
1. Do you support voluntary taxation?
2. Do you advocate strict property rights?
3. Do you agree with Rand concerning the right to secede from a corrupt
political regime?
>I cannot find anything in these quotes to substantiate that there are
>instances under this or any other government of two laws governing one
>act in one location at the same time. I have only encountered such a
>proposal in the writings of the anaracho-capitalists.
Or you aren't familiar with legal history.
"There are very good reasons to suppose that legal pluralism would be more
effective in preserving justice than legal monism. The Western legal
tradition, as many historians have pointed out, was rooted in legal
pluralism. Legal pluralism existed in Europe for many centuries, until it
was finally destroyed by rapacious and violent monarchs. Medieval Europe had
a complex network of political authorities, legal systems and overlapping
jurisdictions. There existed customary law, the king's law, feudal law,
municipal law, canon law, and so forth. What some minarchists claim cannot
exist, therefore, did in fact exist for many centuries. Moreover, as
Voltaire, Lord Action and other liberal historians have argued, the Western
World owes its liberty to the conflict among these competing authorities.
Neither the spiritual nor the temporal authorities had libertarian
intentions, but the ongoing competition between these institutions gradually
led to the development of 'intermediate' institutions (such as
municipalities), as Pope and Prince conceded various 'liberties' and
'immunities' in an effort to win allies to their side. And it was these
intermediate institutions, not governments, which were largely responsible
for the freedom that is unique to the Western World." -Smith
>I suspect that in a laissez-faire government of any ilk, 90% of existing
>laws could be erased. I also suspect that of those that remain or are
>newly written, every single one would deal with rights protection.
>That is a government's only function.
I think you mean 90% of existing legislation. Law is a process of creation
and discovery that's always changing. Check out Randy Barnett's THE
STRUCTURE OF LIBERTY, or Bruce Benson's THE ENTERPRISE OF LAW for further
details, or check out some of the articles on my homepage.
Robert J. Kolker
emic...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> The order in which these developed is not significant. The State, the
> government, the laws of all kinds and sources, the rules,
> the courts, the judges, etc. are all efforts to subordinate the use of
> force to a moral code and all are efforts to preclude anarchy.
I think I see a problem in what you are saying here. Anarchy does
not mean no rules, it means no rulers in the sense of kings, potentates,
emperors or parliaments. Anarchists do not advocate social
chaos (they advocate quite the opposite). What they oppose in
a monopoly in authority and the right to use force to settle disputes.
Bob Kolker
emic...@my-deja.com
"Robert J. Kolker" <bobk...@usa.net> wrote:
>
>
> emic...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > >
> > The word is fine. What bothers me is the way you slither by the phrase
> > "all forms of government authority to be unnecessary" without grasping
> > that that includes every conceivable form of "defense agency" whether
> > a-c or O. Anarchy means no government, no agency, no courts, no laws...
>
> commercial law during the Middle Ages were guild regulations, customs
> and usages. In short there were rules in place and the guilds enforced them,
> but there was no central government.
>
> Another example is ecclesiastical law which is church law and cannon.
> These were enforced by a combination of fright (excommunication
> threatened) and sometimes overt force.
>
> In the present day, the rules and regulations for getting refunds on
> unsatisfactory credit card purchase are rules formulated and imposed
> by the companies issuing credit cards (VISA, MasterCard, Discover,
> etc.). The way it works, if a merchant does not refund on a questionable
> sale, the credit card issuer rescinds the credit card charging privilege from
> the merchant. This means a big time loss in sales, so the company
> formulated rules can be laid on via economic clout. At no time are
> there guns, dungeons, chains and courts.
>
I did not use the word "central". I am trying very hard to use the word
"government" without the massive doses of connotation it usually drags
around in hpo posts from all sides. Any organization by a group of
people which has as its purpose the subordination of the use of force to
a moral code within a defined jurisdiction, is a government. My current
favorite euphemism is: force-management agent institution. I still use
"government" only for brevity, and only so long as my contra-posters
can cope with that context.
The existence of a government does not preclude a myriad of rules,
regulations, laws of organizations, cannons, etc. They would be aspects
of contracts subject to government rules. On the quick, I will grant to
you that there could be a gray area between the status of a very small
gang or tribe and a government at the exact point of transition from an
a-societal to a societal context, ie from anarchy to -archy. That would
not however affect my position that multiple competing defense agencies
in a societal context are multiple competing governments, not anarchy.
emic...@my-deja.com
Eric <roa...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> emic...@my-deja.com wrote in message <7nm5dc$ama$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
> >>
> >Your definition says anarchy holds all forms of government authority
> >to be unnecessary, then you tell me that libertarian anarchists support
> >the top 3 forms of government authority. You cannot have both. Let me
> >know which one you want to keep.
>
> At least seventy-five percent of commercial disputes are settled in private
> arbitration/mediation courts and there are over twice as many private police
> than public police in the United States right now. As the legal system in
> the US continues to deteriorate, individuals will choose private alternative
> solutions.
>
> Just because governments are associated with legal services doesn't only
> they can and ought to.
>
All of the above are activities under private contracts which are
subject to and protected by the government, if there is one. If there
is not a government, their usefulness is limited to the good will of the
participants. If they then would organize a way to systematically
enforce such contracts "privately", they would be forming a government,
just like George Washington and friends formed their own private defense
agency. A government is the private defense agency of its citizens who
are its clients.
> >>
> >> Historically, the people who have been in the most danger having to look
> >> over their shoulders have lived under government tyranny. This century
> has
> >> been especially viscous as governments killed over 200 million, excluding
> >> war. See Rummel's Death By Government for details.
> >>
> >While these statements are true, they do not address the point that life
> >is as diminished by the unpredictability of force as by force itself.
> >Because the use of force in an anarchy is individualized,
> >unpredictability of force is a hallmark of anarchy and the source of its
> >consistent tendency to self-destruct.
>
> The same can be said for government power concerning unpredictability, which
> history demonstrates. You still seem to be associate the word "anarchy"
> with chaos. I'm referring to specific authors such as Rothbard and Smith
> who include additional normative views similar to Rand.
When governments are created or run by tyrants they make extraordinary
efforts to be unpredictable in order to render their subjects impotent
through fear; but given the format of one authority with one code,
governments can only approach the absolute unpredictability of anarchy
to the extent they achieve absolute despotism under a madman. Cambodia
under the Khmer Rouge springs to mind.
So, yes, I do associate anarchy with chaos. But I also harbor a deep and
intense sympathy with the desire of the anarcho-capitalists to find an
arrangement for managing force which requires less compromise with the
so oft tyrannical majority. Unfortunately, they have chosen to try
to incorporate anarchy into that arrangement, which is a contradiction
to the concept of force management. And even though they in no way have
anything like 70's Cambodia in their sights, I do believe that exactly
that is the destiny of anarchy consistently pursued.
>
> Three questions-
>
> 1. Do you support voluntary taxation?
>
I prefer the meaning of "taxation" to be a charge "imposed" not
"chosen", so no tax is voluntary. If you ask if I support voluntary
funding of the government, the answer is yes.
>
> 2. Do you advocate strict property rights?
>
Yes.
>
> 3. Do you agree with Rand concerning the right to secede from a
> corrupt political regime?
>
I'm ready when you are ( ')..( ')<just looking over my shoulder.
>
> "There are very good reasons to suppose that legal pluralism would be more
> effective in preserving justice than legal monism. The Western legal
> tradition, as many historians have pointed out, was rooted in legal
> pluralism. Legal pluralism existed in Europe for many centuries, until it
> was finally destroyed by rapacious and violent monarchs. Medieval Europe had
> a complex network of political authorities, legal systems and overlapping
> jurisdictions. There existed customary law, the king's law, feudal law,
> municipal law, canon law, and so forth. What some minarchists claim cannot
> exist, therefore, did in fact exist for many centuries. Moreover, as
> Voltaire, Lord Action and other liberal historians have argued, the Western
> World owes its liberty to the conflict among these competing authorities.
> Neither the spiritual nor the temporal authorities had libertarian
> intentions, but the ongoing competition between these institutions gradually
> led to the development of 'intermediate' institutions (such as
> municipalities), as Pope and Prince conceded various 'liberties' and
> 'immunities' in an effort to win allies to their side. And it was these
> intermediate institutions, not governments, which were largely responsible
> for the freedom that is unique to the Western World." -Smith
>
Competition among political institutions is a consequence of the
philosophies of men. It is not something that needs advocating. When
everyone is in philosophical agreement, advocating competing
institutions is pointless. When there is substantial disagreement,
it is redundant.
Eric
emic...@my-deja.com wrote in message <7nt1ra$bl$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>>
>All of the above are activities under private contracts which are
>subject to and protected by the government, if there is one. If there
>is not a government, their usefulness is limited to the good will of the
>participants. If they then would organize a way to systematically
>enforce such contracts "privately", they would be forming a government,
>just like George Washington and friends formed their own private defense
>agency. A government is the private defense agency of its citizens who
>are its clients.
If you associate such private contracts arrangements as a government, then
there's no difference between the institutions objectivists support and
anarcho-capitalists.
>
>When governments are created or run by tyrants they make extraordinary
>efforts to be unpredictable in order to render their subjects impotent
>through fear; but given the format of one authority with one code,
>governments can only approach the absolute unpredictability of anarchy
>to the extent they achieve absolute despotism under a madman. Cambodia
>under the Khmer Rouge springs to mind.
>
>So, yes, I do associate anarchy with chaos. But I also harbor a deep and
>intense sympathy with the desire of the anarcho-capitalists to find an
>arrangement for managing force which requires less compromise with the
>so oft tyrannical majority. Unfortunately, they have chosen to try
>to incorporate anarchy into that arrangement, which is a contradiction
>to the concept of force management. And even though they in no way have
>anything like 70's Cambodia in their sights, I do believe that exactly
>that is the destiny of anarchy consistently pursued.
Bruce Benson, a Florida State University professor, has studied societies
that have lacked centralized "governmental" power and has documented that
they exhibit such traits as respect for individuals rights, restitution for
victims, "standard adjudication procedures established to avoid violent
forms of dispute resolution, strong incentives to yield to prescribed
punishment when guilty of an offence due to the reciprocally established
threat of social ostracism; and legal change arising through an evolutionary
process of developing customs and norms."
>> Three questions-
>>
>> 1. Do you support voluntary taxation?
>>
>I prefer the meaning of "taxation" to be a charge "imposed" not
>"chosen", so no tax is voluntary. If you ask if I support voluntary
>funding of the government, the answer is yes.
>>
>> 2. Do you advocate strict property rights?
>>
>Yes.
>>
>> 3. Do you agree with Rand concerning the right to secede from a
>> corrupt political regime?
>>
>I'm ready when you are ( ')..( ')<just looking over my shoulder.
As I said in my initial post, all these are a prescription for
anarcho-capitalism.
>Competition among political institutions is a consequence of the
>philosophies of men. It is not something that needs advocating. When
>everyone is in philosophical agreement, advocating competing
>institutions is pointless. When there is substantial disagreement,
>it is redundant.
Why "redundant" when it has been effective at preserving freedom against
tyranny?
-Eric
emic...@my-deja.com
> > government, the laws of all kinds and sources, the rules,
> > the courts, the judges, etc. are all efforts to subordinate the use of
> > force to a moral code and all are efforts to preclude anarchy.
>
> not mean no rules, it means no rulers in the sense of kings, potentates,
> emperors or parliaments. Anarchists do not advocate social
> chaos (they advocate quite the opposite). What they oppose in
> a monopoly in authority and the right to use force to settle disputes.
>
parliaments, or any other organization, institution, or agency charged
by a group of people with the task of subordinating the use of force to,
by, or among them to a moral code. I can agree to that.
As I granted in the other post to you today, sneaking in a few rules
here and there in a state of anarchy is not impossible, but where
a meaningful organized enforcement of rules obtains in a given location
in the universe, there is not anarchy.
When the clients of that Tannahelp Defense Agency enable it to enforce
the code and laws of their chosen justice agency on their behalf, they
will be repeating that same age-old process the German people did when
they carried Hitler on their shoulders to the podium of the Reichstag.
Different codes for sure, but governments both nonetheless.
I have seen no evidence that the anarcho-capitalists want social chaos.
I think what they really want is freedom from the threat of certainty.
It
is perhaps they who are the same ones who strenuously doubt this aspect
of Rands ouvre. They prefer to keep their options open...like with those
multiple defense agencies. That could explain why they drag the word
"monopoly," through their posts like a flag that has been dipped in the
blood of government victims past so they can spit on it with their
arguments. After all, ŇmonopolyÓ smacks of ŇcertaintyÓ.
In all the posts attacking the concept of monopoly on force, however, in
not one have I detected any attempt to understand the derivation or
context of the idea. I propose that it is the monopoly each individual
has in a non-social context over the choices for his own moral code and
when, where, how, and why force will be used or not used by and for
himself, which he brings into the social context intact and consigns to
an agent institution to exercise on his behalf.
If anarcho-capitalist defense agencies are not going to also be force
monopolists themselves, just which forms of force by, against, and among
their clients will they be planning to exempt from their attentions?
I think your statement that they oppose the use of force to settle
disputes is not accurate. They may want to avoid the use of force, and
they may make every effort to deal with initiated force without
resorting to force, but when all that fails, force will be the only
means left to avoid self-sacrifice. If you are right though, please let
me know so I can add it to the list of things that troubles me about
their ideas.
emic...@my-deja.com
Eric <roa...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> emic...@my-deja.com wrote in message <7nt1ra$bl$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
> >>
> >All of the above are activities under private contracts which are
> >subject to and protected by the government, if there is one. If there
> >is not a government, their usefulness is limited to the good will of the
> >participants. If they then would organize a way to systematically
> >enforce such contracts "privately", they would be forming a government,
> >just like George Washington and friends formed their own private defense
> >agency. A government is the private defense agency of its citizens who
> >are its clients.
>
> there's no difference between the institutions objectivists support and
> anarcho-capitalists.
>
meaningful difference. The United States, Canada, and Mexico are
essentially multiple competing defense agencies. The difference becomes
meaningful only when the anarcho-capitalists argue that it would be more
"efficient" if any interaction with Canadians and/or Mexicans currently
domiciled in Nebraska which did not jibe with their idea of justice,
would be subject to retaliatory force in Nebraska by the Canadian and/or
Mexican governments.
Worse, every interaction with anybody would be potentially subject to
the same by any single person or group that decided to form another
agency. That is the anarcho- part, and that is the chaos part.
> Bruce Benson, a Florida State University professor, has studied societies
> that have lacked centralized "governmental" power and has documented that
> they exhibit such traits as respect for individuals rights, restitution for
> victims, "standard adjudication procedures established to avoid violent
> forms of dispute resolution, strong incentives to yield to prescribed
> punishment when guilty of an offence due to the reciprocally established
> threat of social ostracism; and legal change arising through an evolutionary
> process of developing customs and norms."
>
The fact that it is possible for a society of 'common sense rational'
people to lead rather upstanding and orderly lives without much of a
government in no way obviates the necessity for government. That need
arises from the opposite and equally possibile society laced with
irrational agressors.
> >> Three questions-
> >>
> >> 1. Do you support voluntary taxation?
> >>
> >I prefer the meaning of "taxation" to be a charge "imposed" not
> >"chosen", so no tax is voluntary. If you ask if I support voluntary
> >funding of the government, the answer is yes.
> >>
> >> 2. Do you advocate strict property rights?
> >>
> >Yes.
> >>
> >> 3. Do you agree with Rand concerning the right to secede from a
> >> corrupt political regime?
> >>
> >I'm ready when you are ( ')..( ')<just looking over my shoulder.
>
> As I said in my initial post, all these are a prescription for
> anarcho-capitalism.
>
All these are the -capitalist part of that idea. Its the anarcho-
part with which I disagree.
> >
> >Competition among political institutions is a consequence of the
> >philosophies of men. It is not something that needs advocating. When
> >everyone is in philosophical agreement, advocating competing
> >institutions is pointless. When there is substantial disagreement,
> >it is redundant.
>
> Why "redundant" when it has been effective at preserving freedom against
> tyranny?
>
I meant that the multiplicity of governments is something that occurs
spontaneously from substantial accumulations of philosophical
disagreement. Advocacy has no effect on it. It is redundant.
The least congruous side of advocating multiplicity, however, is the
implied self contradiction. What I hear the anarcho-capitalist saying is
"here, this is my moral code, my bill of rights, my procedures to use
force in our society, but what I am really advocating, is that we also
have about 999 or so other versions of moral codes, rights, and
procedures different from mine operative in this society at the same
time".
As I said in the previous thread, multiplicity is fine for forceless
actions, but multiplicity in the use of force is self-contradictory
and self-sacrificial.
Eric
emic...@my-deja.com wrote in message <7nu3kp$mev$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>>
>All these are the -capitalist part of that idea. Its the anarcho-
>part with which I disagree.
Name one capitalist society where property rights were absolute, secession
was allowed, and voluntary fees were used to finance a government.
>
>As I said in the previous thread, multiplicity is fine for forceless
>actions, but multiplicity in the use of force is self-contradictory
>and self-sacrificial.
>
>emichael
>
I'm not sure we disagree on anything other than definitions. By competition
I mean the right to overthrow or replace a corrupt agency.
-Eric
emic...@my-deja.com
Eric <roa...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> emic...@my-deja.com wrote in message <7nu3kp$mev$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
> >>
> >All these are the -capitalist part of that idea. Its the anarcho-
> >part with which I disagree.
>
> Name one capitalist society where property rights were absolute,
> secession was allowed, and voluntary fees were used to finance a
> government.
Easy, Galt's Gulch.
Not so easy is guessing why you asked me that question. Of what use is
the real answer: there has never been a significant capitalist society?
> >As I said in the previous thread, multiplicity is fine for forceless
> >actions, but multiplicity in the use of force is self-contradictory
> >and self-sacrificial.
>
> I'm not sure we disagree on anything other than definitions. By
> competition I mean the right to overthrow or replace a corrupt agency.
>
You could be right about that. I would usually try to discern definition
discrepancies by noticing your patterns of usage, but I should slow down
and ask more often.
Your definition of competition happens to be the portion on which you,
I, Ayn Rand and the anarcho-capitalists agree. But what is your opinion
of the anarcho-capitalist idea of competition that would have you
replace a corrupt agency with a rational agency while granting to the
corrupt agency the right to continue using force by their corrupt code
in the same location that your new agency is managing force by their
rational code?
More important: when you exercise your moral right to make your
contribution to the overthrow or replacement of a corrupt agency, you
are exercising your absolute monopoly over the choice of how force is or
is not to be used to sustain your right to your life. The act of
replacing an agency is nothing more than withdrawing your consignment of
that monopoly from one agency and then consigning it to another.
Overthrowing is effecting your re-consignment with force.
That is how the Objectivist government will get its monopoly on the use
of force in its jurisdiction. If you withdraw your consignment from that
Objectivist government it will still retain the monopoly on the use of
force consigned to it by the rest of its citizens. All force-management
institutions have a monopoly on the use of force within their
jurisdictions, including the anarcho-capitalist ones...unless, the
consignors choose to explicitly exempt in principle certain types of
force from management by their agency. That then, would be the first
step towards chaos.
Robert J. Kolker
emic...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> Easy, Galt's Gulch.
I know you will be devastated by this, but Galt's Gulch does not
exist and never existed. Try something real.
Bob Kolker
Eric
emic...@my-deja.com wrote in message <7nvo4j$njj$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>
>Your definition of competition happens to be the portion on which you,
>I, Ayn Rand and the anarcho-capitalists agree. But what is your opinion
>of the anarcho-capitalist idea of competition that would have you
>replace a corrupt agency with a rational agency while granting to the
>corrupt agency the right to continue using force by their corrupt code
>in the same location that your new agency is managing force by their
>rational code?
I want the corrupt agency to disappear either by customers withdrawing their
patronage causing bankruptcy or the just agencies using force if necessary.
>
>More important: when you exercise your moral right to make your
>contribution to the overthrow or replacement of a corrupt agency, you
>are exercising your absolute monopoly over the choice of how force is or
>is not to be used to sustain your right to your life. The act of
>replacing an agency is nothing more than withdrawing your consignment of
>that monopoly from one agency and then consigning it to another.
>Overthrowing is effecting your re-consignment with force.
Right...I think.
>
>That is how the Objectivist government will get its monopoly on the use
>of force in its jurisdiction. If you withdraw your consignment from that
>Objectivist government it will still retain the monopoly on the use of
>force consigned to it by the rest of its citizens.
If I withdraw my consignment because it is no longer objective and just then
hopefully most people will agree with me and it will go bankrupt. If it
uses force to prevent me or anyone else from using an alternative agency,
then it is no longer an Objectivist government but a dictatorship. If I
want to leave to set up my own unjust institution then it should use force
to prevent me.
>All force-management
>institutions have a monopoly on the use of force within their
>jurisdictions, including the anarcho-capitalist ones...unless, the
>consignors choose to explicitly exempt in principle certain types of
>force from management by their agency.
Common law is the legal structure in an anarchist society with a variety of
jurisdictions similar to what we have between states and countries. This in
no way implies that violence will be occur. Again, referring back to
Barnett, this "problem has long been handled by an elaborate set of legal
precepts known as 'conflict of
laws'."
That then, would be the first
>step towards chaos.
Or cooperation if you disagree with Hobbes.
-Eric
emic...@my-deja.com
a real question.
emic...@my-deja.com
Eric <roa...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> emic...@my-deja.com wrote in message <7nvo4j$njj$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
> >
> >Your definition of competition happens to be the portion on which you,
> >I, Ayn Rand and the anarcho-capitalists agree. But what is your opinion
> >of the anarcho-capitalist idea of competition that would have you
> >replace a corrupt agency with a rational agency while granting to the
> >corrupt agency the right to continue using force by their corrupt code
> >in the same location that your new agency is managing force by their
> >rational code?
>
> I want the corrupt agency to disappear either by customers withdrawing their
> patronage causing bankruptcy or the just agencies using force if necessary.
Seldom will corrupt agencies disappear for lack of patronage. Agencies
corrupt from the bottom up not the top down. Corrupt customers are not
in the market for justice, they are in the market for power. They will
not join you, they will be happy you are finally gone.
That leaves "force if necessary" -- and it isn't always necessary. If a
corrupt agency keeps to itself, or if just agencies have a limited
capacity to fight it, the rational choice might be to ostracize and
ignore it. But
what if it doesn't keep to itself or the just agencies have excess
ability to prevent the unjust agency from operating? Would your ban
against an unjust agency be total, or would it be qualified? What about
their Òright to retaliatory forceÓ?
Everyone agrees in responding with force against initiated force. The
differences seem to center on retaliatory force, with the anarcho-
capitalists
complaining that when the Objectivist government interferes with their
exercise of retaliatory force, it would be violating their rights.
I have not read all of the various works on anarcho-capitalism, and I
will
try to read the articles on your site I have not yet read, so my
impressions
of the a-c position are drawn primarily from FriedmanÕs writings and
posts,
The Anarchist FAQ, ChildÕs letter, plus assorted references in hpo
posts.
From this vantage point, the concept of multiple competing defense
agencies
in the same or floating jurisdictions would appear to necessitate a
blanket right to all individuals and their agents to exercise
retaliatory force. In a 04/30 post DF asks:
ÒDo they have the right to exercise retaliatory force on their own
behalf,
or delegate it to some agent other than the new governmment? If not, how
did they lose that right--given that they didn't choose to delegate it
to
the new government?Ó
This begs for an unqualified right, and one problem with that can be
seen in our re-consignment example: If the corrupt agency you left held
that your exodus violated their contract, they might also lay claim to a
right to use retaliatory force against you. If they then chose to
exercise that "right", how would your agency fulfill its obligation to
protect you from force in this event without violating the other
agencyÕs right to retaliatory force?
Problem two is that such a right sanctions the use of force in the name
of retaliation not just for DFÕs 1000 agencies but also countless one-
person ÔagenciesÕ. A large portion of the legal tender in such a market
would be violence, and life would be under constant threat of random
force.
´ou seem to want something different: individuals should be allowed to
exercise and delegate the just use of force, but not the unjust use. If
so, we agree fully on at least the goal of a force-management agency.
The problem we face in achieving this, however, is that the use of force
does not come with ingredient labels announcing the percentage of
justness; and after-the-fact management of force would be too little too
late to protect the right to life.
The objectivist solution is to have the agency put all force through a
sieve
designed by the clients then to exercise it on their behalf. They do not
allow for exemptions on their ban of force, because to do so would be to
set themselves up to be victims of the excepted force.
Do you have a third alternative?
> If I withdraw my consignment because it is no longer objective and just then
> hopefully most people will agree with me and it will go bankrupt. If it
> uses force to prevent me or anyone else from using an alternative agency,
> then it is no longer an Objectivist government but a dictatorship. If I
> want to leave to set up my own unjust institution then it should use force
> to prevent me.
When you speak of setting up ÒjustÓ or ÒunjustÓ agencies, keep in mind
that implicit in the act of forming an agency, is the claim: "this is
just" regardless of whether it actually is or not. To the extent other
agencies differed, they would have to be considered ÒunjustÓ and would
therefore have to be prevented. Once again, claiming a monopoly on the
use of force is the destiny in the long run of all defense agencies.
>
> Common law is the legal structure in an anarchist society with a variety of
> jurisdictions similar to what we have between states and countries. [snip]
I would need more specifics from you or my reading to comment on this.
Eric
emic...@my-deja.com wrote in message <7o4n0k$vq9$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>Seldom will corrupt agencies disappear for lack of patronage. Agencies
>corrupt from the bottom up not the top down. Corrupt customers are not
>in the market for justice, they are in the market for power. They will
>not join you, they will be happy you are finally gone.
Corrupt customers in the market of power usually end up in the government or
lobbying for favors. I know of very few protection agencies/firms that
exist patronizing corrupt customers. And there exist over 10,000 private
security firms right now and they continue to grow. Yes, the government
does exist now and could suppress them if they got out of hand but I believe
they flourish despite the government.
>That leaves "force if necessary" -- and it isn't always necessary. If a
>corrupt agency keeps to itself, or if just agencies have a limited
>capacity to fight it, the rational choice might be to ostracize and
>ignore it. But
>what if it doesn't keep to itself or the just agencies have excess
>ability to prevent the unjust agency from operating? Would your ban
>against an unjust agency be total, or would it be qualified? What about
>their Òright to retaliatory forceÓ?
Take a controversial like abortion. In a mostly libertarian society
abortions would be legal but I would imagine that some communities would
exist that forbid abortions. So in this case, a libertarian agency and its
customers might think it's unjust of the pro-life communities to forbid
abortions but the likely outcome would be a peaceful negotiation. If one or
a few agencies were extremely abusive and unjust then agencies and
individuals would boycott them out of existence or use force as a last
resort.
>Everyone agrees in responding with force against initiated force. The
>differences seem to center on retaliatory force, with the anarcho-
>capitalists
>complaining that when the Objectivist government interferes with their
>exercise of retaliatory force, it would be violating their rights.
It depends on the specific example, but the important question is how did
the government get the special right to enforce justice if it doesn't rely
on the consent of its customers...sort of like the Post Office. It can
deliver ground mail exclusively but that doesn't mean it ought to.
>I have not read all of the various works on anarcho-capitalism, and I
>will
>try to read the articles on your site I have not yet read, so my
>impressions
>of the a-c position are drawn primarily from FriedmanÕs writings and
>posts,
>The Anarchist FAQ, ChildÕs letter, plus assorted references in hpo
>posts.
Try Rothbard's ETHICS OF LIBERTY if you get a chance.
>
>From this vantage point, the concept of multiple competing defense
>agencies
>in the same or floating jurisdictions would appear to necessitate a
>blanket right to all individuals and their agents to exercise
>retaliatory force. In a 04/30 post DF asks:
>
>ÒDo they have the right to exercise retaliatory force on their own
>behalf,
>or delegate it to some agent other than the new governmment? If not, how
>did they lose that right--given that they didn't choose to delegate it
>to
>the new government?Ó
>
>This begs for an unqualified right, and one problem with that can be
>seen in our re-consignment example: If the corrupt agency you left held
>that your exodus violated their contract, they might also lay claim to a
>right to use retaliatory force against you. If they then chose to
>exercise that "right", how would your agency fulfill its obligation to
>protect you from force in this event without violating the other
>agencyÕs right to retaliatory force?
I'm not sure I follow you. If you have a contractual agreement with an
unjust agency, then by what right do you have to break it? I would say that
enforceable contracts are based on the moral legitimacy of the agency and
the actual contact itself. In this case, you have the right to break for
the same reason you have the right to leave a dictatorship even though it
says it owns you. Check out this post for Rothbard's take on contracts-
http://x37.deja.com/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=403401841&CONTEXT=933659247.9506
65252&hitnum=7
>
>Problem two is that such a right sanctions the use of force in the name
>of retaliation not just for DFÕs 1000 agencies but also countless one-
>person ÔagenciesÕ. A large portion of the legal tender in such a market
>would be violence, and life would be under constant threat of random
>force.
We have thousands of private enforcement and arbitration companies now that
don't clash violently, and it's not because the government keeps them in
lien, it's in their economic interest to do so.
>
>´ou seem to want something different: individuals should be allowed to
>exercise and delegate the just use of force, but not the unjust use. If
>so, we agree fully on at least the goal of a force-management agency.
>
>The problem we face in achieving this, however, is that the use of force
>does not come with ingredient labels announcing the percentage of
>justness; and after-the-fact management of force would be too little too
>late to protect the right to life.
This is where game theory mixed with a libertarian society comes into play.
"The underlying idea is that contrary to popular belief, private police
would have strong incentives to be peaceful and respect individual rights.
For first of all, failure to peacefully arbitrate will yield to jointly
destructive warfare, which will be bad for profits. Second, firms will want
to develop long- term business relationships, and hence be willing to
negotiate in good faith to insure their long-term profitability. And third,
aggressive firms would be likely to attract only high-risk clients and thus
suffer from extraordinarily high costs (a problem parallel to the well-known
"adverse selection problem" in e.g. medical insurance -- the problem being
that high-risk people are especially likely to seek insurance, which drives
up the price when riskiness is hard for the insurer to discern or if
regulation requires a uniform price regardless of risk)."
and
"There is more than an analogy between pluralistic legal systems and the
economist's conception of competition. With a large number of potential
source of law in a given geographical region, plus some method of excluding
non-contributors from benefits, economic theory implies the familiar results
that hold of
competitive markets generally: productive efficiency (a given level of
output gets produced at the minimum cost), allocative efficiency, (resources
get assigned to their most socially productive uses), and
dynamic efficiency (declining cost curves over time). We might also expect
to find the greater flexibility and attentiveness to individual differences
that typify private supply." -Caplan
>
>The objectivist solution is to have the agency put all force through a
>sieve
>designed by the clients then to exercise it on their behalf. They do not
>allow for exemptions on their ban of force, because to do so would be to
>set themselves up to be victims of the excepted force.
Again, this it literally utopian especially factoring in voluntary taxation
and secession.
>
>Do you have a third alternative?
Nope and that's why Smith said, "we must ultimately choose between
state-sovereignty
and self-sovereignty, between absolutism and anarchy, between subjective
decree and objective justice. There is no middle ground in logic. The
chickens of the Law of the Excluded Middle have come home to roost. And
they are fouling the minarchist nest."
>When you speak of setting up ÒjustÓ or ÒunjustÓ agencies, keep in mind
>that implicit in the act of forming an agency, is the claim: "this is
>just" regardless of whether it actually is or not. To the extent other
>agencies differed, they would have to be considered ÒunjustÓ and would
>therefore have to be prevented. Once again, claiming a monopoly on the
>use of force is the destiny in the long run of all defense agencies.
I think many agencies could exist without violent conflict. Again, that's
the trend today.
-Eric
Matti Linnanvuori
emic...@my-deja.com wrote:
> How about: Anarchy means no rulers in the sense of kings, emperors,
> parliaments, or any other organization, institution, or agency charged
> by a group of people with the task of subordinating the use of force to,
> by, or among them to a moral code. I can agree to that.
That is not what anarcho-capitalists mean by anarchy. They accept
agencies charged
by a group of people with the task of subordinating the use of force to,
by, or among them to a moral code.
> As I granted in the other post to you today, sneaking in a few rules
> here and there in a state of anarchy is not impossible, but where
> a meaningful organized enforcement of rules obtains in a given location
> in the universe, there is not anarchy.
There is anarchy according to the anarcho-capitalist definition where
a meaningful organized enforcement of rules happens in a given location
in the universe.
> When the clients of that Tannahelp Defense Agency enable it to enforce
> the code and laws of their chosen justice agency on their behalf, they
> will be repeating that same age-old process the German people did when
> they carried Hitler on their shoulders to the podium of the Reichstag.
> Different codes for sure, but governments both nonetheless.
Most anarcho-capitalists would not call it a government.
> I think what they really want is freedom from the threat of certainty.
Not always, or not even usually.
> They prefer to keep their options open...like with those
> multiple defense agencies.
Yes, sensibly. You would like to tie yourself to a monopoly government
that might cease to be Objectivist.
After all, ŇmonopolyÓ smacks of ŇcertaintyÓ.
Monopoly means uncertainty to its subjects because a monopolist is
relatively free to do whatever he wants to his subjects.
> I propose that it is the monopoly each individual
> has in a non-social context over the choices for his own moral code and
> when, where, how, and why force will be used or not used by and for
> himself, which he brings into the social context intact and consigns to
> an agent institution to exercise on his behalf.
I agree as far I understood your sentence.
> If anarcho-capitalist defense agencies are not going to also be force
> monopolists themselves, just which forms of force by, against, and among
> their clients will they be planning to exempt from their attentions?
The anarcho-capitalist defense agencies are not going to also be force
monopolists in the sense that some people would not have the right to
choose their defense agencies.
> I think your statement that they oppose the use of force to settle
> disputes is not accurate. They may want to avoid the use of force, and
> they may make every effort to deal with initiated force without
> resorting to force, but when all that fails, force will be the only
> means left to avoid self-sacrifice.
I agree.
emic...@my-deja.com
Eric <roa...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> emic...@my-deja.com wrote in message <7o4n0k$vq9$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>
> >Seldom will corrupt agencies disappear for lack of patronage. Agencies
> >corrupt from the bottom up not the top down. Corrupt customers are not
> >in the market for justice, they are in the market for power. They will
> >not join you, they will be happy you are finally gone.
>
> Corrupt customers in the market of power usually end up in
> the government or lobbying for favors.
In the anarcho-capitalist context of my original question, where are you
going to get a "government" or a lobby for them to end up in? (i.e. you
wandered off). The point again: If there are corrupt agencies, it means
there are corrupt customers. If there are corrupt customers, the
agencies will not go bankrupt because customers leave them. Where would
corrupt customers go? And why? There is much to be gained from
corruption, especially when all other defense agencies grant the corrupt
agencies the same right to exist as the just ones.
Anarcho-capitalist attacks on the monopoly-on-force concept project a
belief that every government that has existed was sooner or later
corrupted by kings, parliaments, and bureaucarats. They reject or
belittle the Objectivist identification of the cause of tyranny to be
not the tyrant, but the philosophy dominant among the subjects. I don't
think anarcho-capitalists understand or appreciate the relevance of AR's
"sanction of the victim". If they did, they would not expect market
forces to cause these victims to abandon and bankrupt the tyrants they
created.
> I know of very few protection agencies/firms that
> exist patronizing corrupt customers. And there exist over 10,000 private
> security firms right now and they continue to grow. Yes, the government
> does exist now and could suppress them if they got out of hand but I believe
> they flourish despite the government.
The viability of private security firms (and arbitration services) in
either an Objectivist or an anarcho-capitalist scenario is a) not
contested by me, and b)not in any way relevant to my a-c context comment
at which you aimed it, as it is an observation of these wholly within a
monopoly government context.
The topic is not the 10,000 rational, sensible, benevolent, just
agencies
in the monopoly context or the a-c context. It is about the stubbornly
irrational and corrupt agencies, like say several dozen cultural-
tradition-driven mafia style agencies, and whether or not an Objectivist
government or
a-c agency may stop them from their style of retaliating with force
without
being accused of violating their “rights”.
> Take a controversy like abortion. In a mostly libertarian society
> abortions would be legal but I would imagine that some communities would
> exist that forbid abortions. So in this case, a libertarian agency and its
> customers might think it's unjust of the pro-life communities to forbid
> abortions but the likely outcome would be a peaceful negotiation. If one
> or a few agencies were extremely abusive and unjust then agencies and
> individuals would boycott them out of existence or use force as a last
> resort.
Now I would place the communities you are thinking about in Camelot; the
community I want to know about is in say Mississippi or Alabama with a
fundamentalist agency, an anarcho-capitalist agency, and an abortion
clinic which is a client of the a-c agency. God tells the
fundamentalists that abortion is murder and they retaliate against the
clinic with force. How can the a-c agency defend the clinic without
violating the fundamentalists' right to retaliatory force? Please don’t
say negotiation.
The elevation of negotiation to panacea is another underlying theme in
a-c arguments that bothers me. It preys on the fact that negotiation is
an integral tool of all contractual relationships in order to steal its
positive connotations. It avoids or evades for the most part the
question of coping with the unjust who refuse to negotiate.
Occasionaly forceable interference is condoned “as a last resort” as you
do.
My question is: how does this differ from a monopoly government’s orders
to
“cease and desist” or “halt or I’ll shoot” followed by an orderly
subordination of the act of force to their moral code.
> >Everyone agrees in responding with force against initiated force. The
> >differences seem to center on retaliatory force, with the anarcho-
> >capitalists
> >complaining that when the Objectivist government interferes with their
> >exercise of retaliatory force, it would be violating their rights.
>
> It depends on the specific example,
Do you mean that an Objectivist government may interfere with
retaliatory force in some cases but not others? If so, what is the
principle by which we shall differentiate these cases? That is what is
missing between us -- you are at ground-zero of our disagreement.
> but the important question is how did
> the government get the special right to enforce justice if it doesn't rely
> on the consent of its customers...
It does rely on the consent of its customers. Actually, the bottom line
of “sanction of the victim” is that there is no such thing as a
government or
a-c agency without the consent of its customers. Consent with a force-
management agency is a contract -- an all-or-nothing package deal.
“Consent” in this context is not synonymous with “agreement”. Currently
the U.S.A. has my consent. My disagreement and condemnation of the
plethora of tyrannies it
perpetuates are factors in my choice to consent or not, but until I
choose to
withdraw all consent, they do not qualify the status of my current
consent.
Neither does “consent” have to include everyone. Those who do withdraw
consent become “outlaws” or “revolutionaries” which is a non-event for
everyone involved until or unless it manifests itself in the form of
force. Their withdrawal does not diminish the percentage of consenting
customers the agency enjoys.
>
> [snip......................]If you have a contractual agreement with an
> unjust agency, then what right do you have to break it? I would say that
> enforceable contracts are based on the moral legitimacy of the agency and
> the actual contract itself. In this case, you have the right to break for
> the same reason you have the right to leave a dictatorship even though it
> says it owns you.
I think I agree here. About the only way an agency could become “unjust”
in the eyes of a customer would be to violate the contract (or the
customer changes his mind about the justice of the content of the
contract). Your right to break the contract is a moral right (which may
or may not be accommodated by a legal right in the form of a term of the
contract) and is
similar to the right to revolt against a dictatorship.
I have to point out though that your comment with which I agree does not
constitute an answer to the question you inserted it under: if the
agency you left interprets it as a violation of contract and retaliates
with force, how
will your new agency defend you without violating your old agency’s
right to retaliatory force? Note this is identical to the Q. at the end
of the abortion clinic comment above, as well as the one above to which
you answered: “It depends on the specific example”. How does it depend?
> >Problem two is that such a right sanctions the use of force in the name
> >of retaliation not just for DF’s 1000 agencies but also countless one-
> >person ‘agencies’. A large portion of the legal tender in such a market
> >would be violence, and life would be under constant threat of random
> >force.
>
> We have thousands of private enforcement and arbitration companies now that
> don't clash violently, and it's not because the government keeps them in
> line, it's in their economic interest to do so.
True. They are the ones whose legal tender is reason. My statement
stands.
Take three monopoly governments like the U.S., Canada, and Great
Britain.
Each is a “private” agency in respect to the other. On a cursory read of
the above comments, I would say they are in general valid, and apply to
these three in the same way you would apply them to a-c agencies.
> >The objectivist solution is to have the agency put all force through a
> >sieve
> >designed by the clients then to exercise it on their behalf. They do not
> >allow for exemptions on their ban of force, because to do so would be to
> >set themselves up to be victims of the excepted force.
>
> Again, this it literally utopian especially factoring in voluntary taxation
> and secession.
When I used the word “Camelot”, I followed with specifics. If you want
to use the word “utopian”, please follow my gracious example.
> >Do you have a third alternative?
>
> Nope and that's why Smith said, "we must ultimately choose between
> state-sovereignty and self-sovereignty, between absolutism and anarchy,
> between subjective decree and objective justice...”.
I’m glad you do not have a third alternative.
And I would adjust the perspective of Mr.Smith’s view: “we must
ultimately choose between consigning our sovereignty over force to a
state dependent on us for its continued existence and leaving that
sovereignty to the whims of individuals, between the stable peace of an
objectively defined order (even though some of its components could be
subjective and unjust contrivances), and the chaos of a subjectively
defined order (even though most of its components could be both
objective and rational), between Randian-capitalism, and anarcho-
capitalism.
Eric
emic...@my-deja.com wrote in message <7oadh8$3ik$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>> Corrupt customers in the market of power usually end up in
>> the government or lobbying for favors.
>
>In the anarcho-capitalist context of my original question, where are you
>going to get a "government" or a lobby for them to end up in? (i.e. you
>wandered off). The point again: If there are corrupt agencies, it means
>there are corrupt customers. If there are corrupt customers, the
>agencies will not go bankrupt because customers leave them. Where would
>corrupt customers go? And why? There is much to be gained from
>corruption, especially when all other defense agencies grant the corrupt
>agencies the same right to exist as the just ones.
Corrupt customers might exist yes, but it's unlikely that corrupt agencies
would be able to operate profitably with just agencies existing. Again, the
reason I bring up the government is that it is a magnet for corrupt
agencies. You can't have a double standard and criticize potential
corruptness when it already exists and will continue to exist if Public
Choice theory tells us anything. Perhaps a few mafia type agencies would
exist but their power would be much less in a libertarian society.
>
>Anarcho-capitalist attacks on the monopoly-on-force concept project a
>belief that every government that has existed was sooner or later
>corrupted by kings, parliaments, and bureaucarats.
Anarcho-capitalist attacks on monopoly governments differ depending on
whether you are a "utilitarian" like Friedman or a moral anarchist such as
Smith and Rothbard.
>
>> Take a controversy like abortion. In a mostly libertarian society
>> abortions would be legal but I would imagine that some communities would
>> exist that forbid abortions. So in this case, a libertarian agency and
its
>> customers might think it's unjust of the pro-life communities to forbid
>> abortions but the likely outcome would be a peaceful negotiation. If one
>> or a few agencies were extremely abusive and unjust then agencies and
>> individuals would boycott them out of existence or use force as a last
>> resort.
>
>Now I would place the communities you are thinking about in Camelot; the
>community I want to know about is in say Mississippi or Alabama with a
>fundamentalist agency, an anarcho-capitalist agency, and an abortion
>clinic which is a client of the a-c agency. God tells the
>fundamentalists that abortion is murder and they retaliate against the
>clinic with force. How can the a-c agency defend the clinic without
>violating the fundamentalists' right to retaliatory force? Please don’t
>say negotiation.
Either it will be an all out war, or a compromise will have to be reached.
This is one of the few topics where it's difficult to decide who holds the
just viewpoint. Rand even qualified her stance on abortion up to 3 months,
and Tibor Machan has recently written an article defending the pro-life
argument. What is your postion, btw?
>The elevation of negotiation to panacea is another underlying theme in
>a-c arguments that bothers me. It preys on the fact that negotiation is
>an integral tool of all contractual relationships in order to steal its
>positive connotations. It avoids or evades for the most part the
>question of coping with the unjust who refuse to negotiate.
In most case, it has been governments that have been the aggressors, not the
free people. Books have been written that show why individuals tend to
cooperate (see Axlerod's Evolution of Cooperation). It has been governments
that have retarded the process of cooperation. Moreover, free "democratic"
nations rarely go to war with each other and AC represents real
representative "democracy" because it is based on consent.
>
>Occasionaly forceable interference is condoned “as a last resort” as you
>do.
>My question is: how does this differ from a monopoly government’s orders
>to
>“cease and desist” or “halt or I’ll shoot” followed by an orderly
>subordination of the act of force to their moral code.
Because the government is a morally illegitimate organization unlawfully
giving orders. If it was an ideal objectivist government then it would be
morally binding, but as I've said before Rand's criteria is a prescription
for anarchism.
But ultimately the legitimacy of a law or procedure is determined by
reality...not by a government or private agency.
>Do you mean that an Objectivist government may interfere with
>retaliatory force in some cases but not others? If so, what is the
>principle by which we shall differentiate these cases? That is what is
>missing between us -- you are at ground-zero of our disagreement.
>It does rely on the consent of its customers. Actually, the bottom line
>of “sanction of the victim” is that there is no such thing as a
>government or
>a-c agency without the consent of its customers. Consent with a force-
>management agency is a contract -- an all-or-nothing package deal.
>“Consent” in this context is not synonymous with “agreement”. Currently
>the U.S.A. has my consent. My disagreement and condemnation of the
>plethora of tyrannies it
>perpetuates are factors in my choice to consent or not, but until I
>choose to
>withdraw all consent, they do not qualify the status of my current
>consent.
I'm not sure I understand the separation of consent and agreement. Consent
must involve agreement or it loses its meaning.
>
>Neither does “consent” have to include everyone. Those who do withdraw
>consent become “outlaws” or “revolutionaries” which is a non-event for
>everyone involved until or unless it manifests itself in the form of
>force. Their withdrawal does not diminish the percentage of consenting
>customers the agency enjoys.
I'm not sure what your point is. If I choose to buy a Ford instead of a
Chevy, then Chevy doesn't have my consent while Ford does. I agree to the
terms.
>I have to point out though that your comment with which I agree does not
>constitute an answer to the question you inserted it under: if the
>agency you left interprets it as a violation of contract and retaliates
>with force, how
>will your new agency defend you without violating your old agency’s
>right to retaliatory force? Note this is identical to the Q. at the end
>of the abortion clinic comment above, as well as the one above to which
>you answered: “It depends on the specific example”. How does it depend?
This issue is a bit gray for lack of a better word. Pro-life and pro-choice
libertarians/objectivists both exist. Personally, I think a woman has the
right to control her body until the fetus is separated, but Machan has
recently argued that the pro-choice position prevails until the 24th week.
But either way, it's not a justification for a monopoly government.
>
>Take three monopoly governments like the U.S., Canada, and Great
>Britain.
>Each is a “private” agency in respect to the other. On a cursory read of
>the above comments, I would say they are in general valid, and apply to
>these three in the same way you would apply them to a-c agencies.
ok
>I’m glad you do not have a third alternative.
>
>And I would adjust the perspective of Mr.Smith’s view: “we must
>ultimately choose between consigning our sovereignty over force to a
>state dependent on us for its continued existence and leaving that
>sovereignty to the whims of individuals, between the stable peace of an
>objectively defined order (even though some of its components could be
>subjective and unjust contrivances), and the chaos of a subjectively
>defined order (even though most of its components could be both
>objective and rational), between Randian-capitalism, and anarcho-
>capitalism.
>
As long as Rand's state meets her own criteria then call it a state if you
wish. But it ain't one.
-Eric
emic...@my-deja.com
Matti Linnanvuori <Matti.Li...@lmf.ericsson.se> wrote:
>
> emic...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > How about: Anarchy means no rulers in the sense of kings, emperors,
> > parliaments, or any other organization, institution, or agency charged
> > by a group of people with the task of subordinating the use of force to,
> > by, or among them to a moral code. I can agree to that.
>
> That is not what anarcho-capitalists mean by anarchy. They accept
> agencies charged
> by a group of people with the task of subordinating the use of force to,
> by, or among them to a moral code.
No, most want to subordinate not THE use of force, but SOME use of
force. They want to exempt retaliatory force by others or their agencies
as theirs by right. If some force were subordinated and some exempt on
principle, there would soon be anarchy (and fear and chaos) but little
if any capitalism. If all force were subordinated and none exempted,
there could be capitalism, but there could not be anarchy.
In the long run there are only two choices: manage all force, or no
force. The reality of what corrupt men will do, will not allow you to
pick and choose for long.
> > As I granted in the other post to you today, sneaking in a few rules
> > here and there in a state of anarchy is not impossible, but where
> > a meaningful organized enforcement of rules obtains in a given location
> > in the universe, there is not anarchy.
>
> There is anarchy according to the anarcho-capitalist definition where
> a meaningful organized enforcement of rules happens in a given location
> in the universe.
I could live with this, if you will just give me the new word we are
going to use to mean its absence. Then as soon as I retract everything I
ever said and repost it all in the new language, we can get on with a
meaningful (oops) exchange of ideas.
> > When the clients of that Tannahelp Defense Agency enable it to enforce
> > the code and laws of their chosen justice agency on their behalf, they
> > will be repeating that same age-old process the German people did when
> > they carried Hitler on their shoulders to the podium of the Reichstag.
> > Different codes for sure, but governments both nonetheless.
>
> Most anarcho-capitalists would not call it a government.
Most anarcho-capitalists create new connotation-laden usages of the word
"government" on the fly.
> > I think what they really want is freedom from the threat of certainty.
>
> Not always, or not even usually.
See, you're not certain, are you? [one empty reply deserves another].
> > They prefer to keep their options open...like with those
> > multiple defense agencies.
>
> Yes, sensibly. You would like to tie yourself to a monopoly government
> that might cease to be Objectivist.
No. I would like to tie a monopoly government to me and a bunch of
Objectivists who might not cease to be Objectivists.
> > After all, ŇmonopolyÓ smacks of ŇcertaintyÓ.
>
> Monopoly means uncertainty to its subjects because a monopolist is
> relatively free to do whatever he wants to his subjects.
"Monopoly" is the other connotation-laden favorite of anarcho-
capitalists. Your use of the word "subjects" tramples over the
sense of the statement following, to which you give tentative
agreement.
The "subjects" of the monopolist-on-force individual in a non-social
context as well as the "subjects" of the monopolist-on-force agency to
which he would consign his monopoly in a social context are acts of
force, the only enemy of freedom. That monopoly is in both cases morally
neutral. Its goodness/badness is a function solely of the moral code to
which force is being subordinated.
> > I propose that it is the monopoly each individual
> > has in a non-social context over the choices for his own moral code and
> > when, where, how, and why force will be used or not used by and for
> > himself, which he brings into the social context intact and consigns to
> > an agent institution to exercise on his behalf.
>
> I agree as far I understood your sentence.
>
> > If anarcho-capitalist defense agencies are not going to also be force
> > monopolists themselves, just which forms of force by, against, and among
> > their clients will they be planning to exempt from their attentions?
>
> The anarcho-capitalist defense agencies are not going to also be force
> monopolists in the sense that some people would not have the right to
> choose their defense agencies.
You did not answer the question. Nevertheless,
It is always and forever the moral right and obligation of all
individuals to choose their own defense agencies.It is not the moral
right of any individual however to expect that other individuals would
or should have their chosen agencies treat force used by you or your
chosen agency as a sacred cow.
Chris Wolf
>It is always and forever the moral right and obligation of all
>individuals to choose their own defense agencies.
There is no such right. There is only the right to bring the use of
retaliatory force under objective control. Once that has been done, there
is no right to set up a "competing" defense agency.
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/
My Dinner With Andy
http://www.jeffcomp.com/jcp/faq/dinner.html
Eric
Chris Wolf wrote in message <37c02c74...@news.supernews.com>...
>
>There is no such right. There is only the right to bring the use of
>retaliatory force under objective control. Once that has been done, there
>is no right to set up a "competing" defense agency.
>
>
As an anarchist I nearly agree with this statement if you mean the objective
and just agency has the right to suppress unjust agencies. When anarchists
refer to "competition", they mean the right to overthrow an unjust agency.
And Rand would agree. As I said in my initial post, "Private property,
non-aggression, and voluntary consent are the three essential concepts that
must be included for the government to be morally justified. If not, then
Rand says, 'if a province wants to secede from a dictatorship, or even from
a mixed economy, in order to establish a free country-it has the right to do
so'."
-Eric
emic...@my-deja.com
Eric <roa...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> emic...@my-deja.com wrote in message <7oadh8$3ik$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
> Either it will be an all out war, or a compromise will have to be reached.
> This is one of the few topics where it's difficult to decide who holds the
> just viewpoint. Rand even qualified her stance on abortion up to 3 months,
> and Tibor Machan has recently written an article defending the pro-life
> argument. What is your postion, btw?
Umbilical uncut, one human with right to life. Umbilical cut, two humans
with right to life. No exceptions, not even if she carries it around in
a sack for a week before deciding...just to see what color its eyes are
or something. It’s objective, it’s specific, and it’s idiot-proof.
> But ultimately the legitimacy of a law or procedure is determined by
> reality...not by a government or private agency.
The legitimacy of a law or procedure is determined by the government or
agency. The validity of these is determined by reality.
> >It does rely on the consent of its customers. Actually, the bottom line
> >of “sanction of the victim” is that there is no such thing as a
> >government or
> >a-c agency without the consent of its customers. Consent with a force-
> >management agency is a contract -- an all-or-nothing package deal.
> >“Consent” in this context is not synonymous with “agreement”. Currently
> >the U.S.A. has my consent. My disagreement and condemnation of the
> >plethora of tyrannies it
> >perpetuates are factors in my choice to consent or not, but until I
> >choose to
> >withdraw all consent, they do not qualify the status of my current
> >consent.
>
> I'm not sure I understand the separation of consent and agreement. Consent
> must involve agreement or it loses its meaning.
Consent does involve agreement. But in the above statements, “agreement”
refers to your judgements of the validity of the separate elements of
the code which is to be enforced. “Consent” is the agreement of an
individual to compromise his list of agreements/disagreements with the
separate elements, with the lists of the other consenters in order to
find one code for everyone to live by.
Consent is given to an agency because the separate elements you agree
with are more numerous and/or more important to life than those you
disagree with. If the agency changes enough to reverse that order, you
will withdraw consent. If you wait for 100% agreement before you give
your consent, it is unlikely in the extreme that you will ever be a
citizen of anything.
> >Neither does “consent” have to include everyone. Those who do withdraw
> >consent become “outlaws” or “revolutionaries” which is a non-event for
> >everyone involved until or unless it manifests itself in the form of
> >force. Their withdrawal does not diminish the percentage of consenting
> >customers the agency enjoys.
>
> I'm not sure what your point is...
Anarcho-capitalists (you included, I think) accuse Objectivists of
tyranny, because they would subordinate the use of force by those who
have not even consented. My point was that governments and agencies
operate on the authorization of the consenters they do have, and when
some leave that does not change. I doubt any group of consenters would
authorize their agency to exempt some force from subordination just
because it was used by non-consenters. This is as true for a-c defense
agencies as for Objectivist governments.
>
> >I have to point out though that your comment with which I agree does not
> >constitute an answer to the question you inserted it under: if the
> >agency you left interprets it as a violation of contract and retaliates
> >with force, how
> >will your new agency defend you without violating your old agency’s
> >right to retaliatory force? Note this is identical to the Q. at the end
> >of the abortion clinic comment above, as well as the one above to which
> >you answered: “It depends on the specific example”. How does it depend?
>
> This issue is a bit gray for lack of a better word. [merciful snip]
Reason does not demand spontaneous final conclusions. Never fear to say
“I
don’t know right now, let me work on it”. Take your time. I will not
have as much time this coming week as last anyway, so replies may not be
as rapid.
Also we have covered everything once and are starting to go circular. It
is time to focus on and dissect more thoroughly the significant points
of disagreement most of which can be found in the question above and the
statement below.
> >And I would adjust the perspective of Mr.Smith’s view: “we must
> >ultimately choose between consigning our sovereignty over force to a
> >state dependent on us for its continued existence and leaving that
> >sovereignty to the whims of individuals, between the stable peace of an
> >objectively defined order (even though some of its components could be
> >subjective and unjust contrivances), and the chaos of a subjectively
> >defined order (even though most of its components could be both
> >objective and rational), between Randian-capitalism, and anarcho-
> >capitalism.
> >
>
> As long as Rand's state meets her own criteria then call it a state if you
> wish. But it ain't one.
Could you work up a more meaningful reply if I let you change ”a state”
to the synonym “an agency”?
Eric
emic...@my-deja.com wrote in message <7obbjc$o5g$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>In article <7oaskc$20j$1...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>,
> Eric <roa...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> emic...@my-deja.com wrote in message <7oadh8$3ik$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>
>> Either it will be an all out war, or a compromise will have to be
reached.
>> This is one of the few topics where it's difficult to decide who holds
the
>> just viewpoint. Rand even qualified her stance on abortion up to 3
months,
>> and Tibor Machan has recently written an article defending the pro-life
>> argument. What is your postion, btw?
>
>Umbilical uncut, one human with right to life. Umbilical cut, two humans
>with right to life. No exceptions, not even if she carries it around in
>a sack for a week before deciding...just to see what color its eyes are
What is so special about the cord being cut and why does the infant become a
rights bearing entity at this specific moment? I happen to agree for
pragmatic reasons but I remain agnostic from a philosophical point of view.
>
>> But ultimately the legitimacy of a law or procedure is determined by
>> reality...not by a government or private agency.
>
>The legitimacy of a law or procedure is determined by the government or
>agency. The validity of these is determined by reality.
I should have said "morally" legitimate.
> >And I would adjust the perspective of Mr.SmithÕs view: Òwe must
> >ultimately choose between consigning our sovereignty over force to a
> >state dependent on us for its continued existence and leaving that
> >sovereignty to the whims of individuals, between the stable peace of an
> >objectively defined order (even though some of its components could be
> >subjective and unjust contrivances), and the chaos of a subjectively
> >defined order (even though most of its components could be both
> >objective and rational), between Randian-capitalism, and anarcho-
> >capitalism.
>> As long as Rand's state meets her own criteria then call it a state if
you
>> wish. But it ain't one.
>
>Could you work up a more meaningful reply if I let you change Óa stateÓ
>to the synonym Òan agencyÓ?
>
I equate Randian capitalism and Randian anarcho-capitalism as the same so
there's nothing to disagree about.
See this post-
http://x43.deja.com/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=500607582&CONTEXT=933838795.1788
018920&hitnum=0
-Eric
Matti Linnanvuori
emic...@my-deja.com wrote:
> No, most want to subordinate not THE use of force, but SOME use of
> force.
Most anarcho-capitalists accept that a protection agency can subordinate
all use of force if it does it justly.
Only a totalitarian government monopolizes all use of force.
They want to exempt retaliatory force by others or their agencies
> as theirs by right.
Not if exemption were unjust.
If some force were subordinated and some exempt on
> principle, there would soon be anarchy (and fear and chaos) but little
> if any capitalism.
Maybe, but that't not what most anarcho-capitalists want.
If all force were subordinated and none exempted,
> there could be capitalism, but there could not be anarchy.
There could be anarchy if people were free to choose their protection
agencies.
> In the long run there are only two choices: manage all force, or no
> force.
Management of all force usually means a socialist state.
The reality of what corrupt men will do, will not allow you to
> pick and choose for long.
I agree. That's why states are so dangerous.
> Most anarcho-capitalists create new connotation-laden usages of the word
> "government" on the fly.
Which?
> > > I think what they really want is freedom from the threat of certainty.
> >
> > Not always, or not even usually.
>
> See, you're not certain, are you? [one empty reply deserves another].
Mine was not empty.
> No. I would like to tie a monopoly government to me and a bunch of
> Objectivists who might not cease to be Objectivists.
Yes, you would like that, but in reality the government might cease to
be Objectivist and refuse your secession.
> Your use of the word "subjects" tramples over the
> sense of the statement following, to which you give tentative
> agreement.
I don't think so. If a group of people delegate power to a government,
they cannot be sure that it will remain Objectivist forever. Remember
what has happened to the USA.
> > > If anarcho-capitalist defense agencies are not going to also be force
> > > monopolists themselves, just which forms of force by, against, and among
> > > their clients will they be planning to exempt from their attentions?
> >
> > The anarcho-capitalist defense agencies are not going to also be force
> > monopolists in the sense that some people would not have the right to
> > choose their defense agencies.
>
> You did not answer the question.
I didn't quite understand it. They plan to exempt justified force and
force outside the agency area that might be chosen by the agency or
forbidden by agreement from intervention by their agencies.
> It is always and forever the moral right and obligation of all
> individuals to choose their own defense agencies.
I don't see it as an obligation, but as a right. If someone feels he can
do better without any defense agency, he should have that right. Forcing
someone to choose a defense agency is initiation of force.
It is not the moral
> right of any individual however to expect that other individuals would
> or should have their chosen agencies treat force used by you or your
> chosen agency as a sacred cow.
I agree.
Chris Wolf
>Chris Wolf wrote in message <37c02c74...@news.supernews.com>...
>>emic...@my-deja.com writes:
>>
>>>It is always and forever the moral right and obligation of all
>>>individuals to choose their own defense agencies.
>>There is no such right. There is only the right to bring the use of
>>retaliatory force under objective control. Once that has been done, there
>>is no right to set up a "competing" defense agency.
>As an anarchist I nearly agree with this statement if you mean the objective
>and just agency has the right to suppress unjust agencies.
No, I mean that the objective and just agency has the right to suppress ALL
other agencies in the same territory; just or not.
>When anarchists
>refer to "competition", they mean the right to overthrow an unjust agency.
I believe they also mean that there can be competing justice agencies
within the same geographical area.
>And Rand would agree. As I said in my initial post, "Private property,
>non-aggression, and voluntary consent are the three essential concepts that
>must be included for the government to be morally justified. If not, then
>Rand says, 'if a province wants to secede from a dictatorship, or even from
>a mixed economy, in order to establish a free country-it has the right to do
>so'."
Certainly you have the right to overthrow an unjust government, and replace
it with a more just one. What you DON'T have the right to do, is set up a
competing justice agency.
Eric
Chris Wolf wrote in message <37c210c1...@news.supernews.com>...
>
>>As an anarchist I nearly agree with this statement if you mean the
objective
>>and just agency has the right to suppress unjust agencies.
>
>No, I mean that the objective and just agency has the right to suppress ALL
>other agencies in the same territory; just or not.
Why does a just agency have the right use force against another just agency?
And what do you mean by "territory"? An objectivist U.S. can't coexist with
a Canadian objectivist government?
>
>>When anarchists
>>refer to "competition", they mean the right to overthrow an unjust agency.
>
>I believe they also mean that there can be competing justice agencies
>within the same geographical area.
Because corruption is always a potential people will choose various legal
agencies. Competition will create efficient and just agencies.
>
>>And Rand would agree. As I said in my initial post, "Private property,
>>non-aggression, and voluntary consent are the three essential concepts
that
>>must be included for the government to be morally justified. If not, then
>>Rand says, 'if a province wants to secede from a dictatorship, or even
from
>>a mixed economy, in order to establish a free country-it has the right to
do
>>so'."
>
>Certainly you have the right to overthrow an unjust government, and replace
>it with a more just one. What you DON'T have the right to do, is set up a
>competing justice agency.
>
Until a utopian Randian government is implemented the right to patronize a
just agency will remain. And this will always be the case.
-Eric
emic...@my-deja.com
Chris Wolf <cwo...@nwlink.com> wrote:
>
> There is no such right. There is only the right to bring the use of
> retaliatory force under objective control. Once that has been done, there
> is no right to set up a "competing" defense agency.
Here is a longer version of what I said incorporating the part of your
comment with which I agree.
The only way I can exercise my right to bring the use of retaliatory
force under objective control is to choose among all existing and
possible force-management agent institutions the one I think will best
achieve that goal and to consign my right to retaliatory force to it.
It is always and forever my right to make that choice and act upon it.
The moral right or wrong of what I choose when I exercise my right to
choose is a separate topic.
1.Is there still a problem?
2.Why did you inject the word "competing" into your last sentence?
3.I would welcome your comments on my other posts to Eric in this
thread.
emic...@my-deja.com
Eric <roa...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> emic...@my-deja.com wrote in message <7obbjc$o5g$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
> >In article <7oaskc$20j$1...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>,
> > Eric <roa...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> emic...@my-deja.com wrote in message <7oadh8$3ik$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>
> What is so special about the cord being cut and why does the infant become a
> rights bearing entity at this specific moment? I happen to agree for
> pragmatic reasons but I remain agnostic from a philosophical point of view.
The cutting of the cord transforms the metaphysical status of the fetus
from body appendage of an individual human being to individual human
being.
On the side here: If your thinking is in progress, you should pronounce
yourself "undecided", as being "agnostic" is worse than being wrong.
The agnostic does not recognize the validity of the question.
For that matter, isn't being pragmatic also a form of agnosticism?
Eric
emic...@my-deja.com wrote in message <7odshv$ioe$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>> What is so special about the cord being cut and why does the infant
become a
>> rights bearing entity at this specific moment? I happen to agree for
>> pragmatic reasons but I remain agnostic from a philosophical point of
view.
>
>The cutting of the cord transforms the metaphysical status of the fetus
>from body appendage of an individual human being to individual human
>being.
>
How does it change the "metaphysical" status? What does this mean? It's a
living being in the biological sense both before and after?
-Eric
emic...@my-deja.com
Matti Linnanvuori <Matti.Li...@lmf.ericsson.se> wrote:
>
> emic...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > No, most want to subordinate not THE use of force, but SOME use of
> > force.
>
> all use of force if it does it justly.
To “subordinate THE use of force” IS what “monopoly on the use of force”
means.
> Only a totalitarian government monopolizes all use of force.
A totalitarian government is one in which a dominant portion of the
citizens allow the agents to subordinate their rights (and everyone
else’s) to the agent’s whims in exchange for favored treatment. A
government with a monopoly on the use of force could do that; or, it
could be one in which the citizens require their agents to subordinate
their whims to the moral code they have given the agents to enforce.
Since both are possible, your statement is false.
> > They want to exempt retaliatory force by others or their agencies
> > as theirs by right.
>
> Not if exemption were unjust.
And how would an agency accommodate such a distinction into their
everyday tasks in the securing of peaceful coexistence? When your agency
confronts an act of violence (“help! thief!”, or incoming missles) as it
takes place, how long would you say your agency should have to determine
if it is just or unjust force before they take any action, keeping in
mind that the longer they wait, the more is diminished the justifiable
presumption of peaceful coexistence in the society, while the less they
wait, the more similar they become to the Objectivist government who
would interdict at once, then measure the grievance against the moral
code in an orderly manner, and carry out any necessary force
accordingly.
> > If some force were subordinated and some exempt on
> > principle, there would soon be anarchy (and fear and chaos) but little
> > if any capitalism.
>
> Maybe, but that't not what most anarcho-capitalists want.
This is not pertinent. The fact that the Russian people did not want to
annihilate their total capacity for self-sufficiency, lends no support
to their choice of a socialist system of government. The fact that the
anarcho-capitalist does not want fear and chaos to obtain lends no
support to their ideas, which would spawn these.
> > If all force were subordinated and none exempted,
> > there could be capitalism, but there could not be anarchy.
>
> There could be anarchy if people were free to choose their protection
> agencies.
You have severed the visible words “subordinate all force” from the rest
of the phrase which is implicit and explicit throughout my posts in this
thread:
ie. “to one moral code with the consent of the clients/citizens”. The
freedom to choose multiple protection agencies in the same location
directly contradicts subordinating all force to one moral code in a
location.
> > In the long run there are only two choices: manage all force, or no
> > force.
>
> Management of all force usually means a socialist state.
An historical fact which in no way precludes the management of all force
by a just agent of rational citizens. Nor does it alter the number of
choices.
> > The reality of what corrupt men will do, will not allow you to
> > pick and choose for long.
>
> I agree. That's why states are so dangerous.
All of life is “dangerous”. You still face only two choices.
> > Most anarcho-capitalists create new connotation-laden usages of the word
> > "government" on the fly.
>
> Which?
Since I do not save all this stuff, I can only give you these three
which I have in hand because I just read them. I will start a
collection though;
I am sure to be asked again.
“’A government is an agency of legitimized coercion.’ I define
‘coercion,’ for the purpose of this definition, as the violation of what
people in a particular society believe to be the rights of individuals
with respect to other individuals.” David Friedman, THE MACHINERY OF
FREEDOM, p.152
“’Government’ is usually understood as an institution that has coercive
monopoly power, which lacks explicit consent of its members.” Eric
Knauer, 1999/07/30 post in this thread.
“Management of all force usually means a socialist state.” Matti
Linnanvuori, 1999/08 about 11 paragraphs up from here.
Here is a neutral definition:
“A government is an institution that holds the exclusive power to
enforce certain rules of social conduct in a given geographical area.”
Ayn Rand, VIRTUE OF SELFISHNESS, p.144.
Contrary to the other three definitions/usages, Rand’s definition is not
pre-loaded with judgements about whether it derived its power from
force, fraud, or consent. Nor does it tell you in advance whether the
“certain rules” enhance or detract from an individuals rights.
On the other hand, Eric has alerted me to the fact that there are some
disparate bases for a-c sympathy afloat; so I am retraining myself to
ask more and assume less to assure that I get the multiple-competing-
definitions together with their actual multiple-competing-anarcho-
capitalist adherers.
In that spirit, it would be helpful to me in replying if you would
supply me with your own and/or favorite definitions of: “consent of the
governed”, “monopoly on the use of force”, “government”, “anarchy”, and
“jurisdiction”.
Take your time, please.
> > No. I would like to tie a monopoly government to me and a bunch of
> > Objectivists who might not cease to be Objectivists.
>
> Yes, you would like that, but in reality the government might cease to
> be Objectivist and refuse your secession.
and
> I don't think so. If a group of people delegate power to a government,
> they cannot be sure that it will remain Objectivist forever. Remember
> what has happened to the USA.
And when the last just anarcho-capitalist agency ceases to be just,
leaving you no where else to take your consent... what relevance would
it have then or does it have now to a comparison of the Objectivist
government with anarcho-capitalism?
Also, these comments hint at a belief that a government, meaning those
who are the leaders, staff and enforcers, can act for an extended period
of time contrary to the will of the majority of the citizens, and that
you reject Rand’s idea of “sanction of the victim”. If you do, we need
to settle our differences on that issue before we touch the subject of
government qua anything again.
emic...@my-deja.com
Is an arm or a leg or a liver an individual living being? Or are these,
like a fetus, only a component of an individual living being?
The big bugaboo here is that a fetus LOOKS LIKE an individual being,
which is reason enough for the chronically superficial types that want
to protect it. Those come in two versions: the mystics that want yet
another way to con the masses into begging them for instructions before
they think or do anything, and the masses who want to escape all
responsibility for thinking and doing. Both of them rely heavily on the
likeness. The mystics make calculated use of it, the masses eagerly fall
for it. The abortion debate could not exist without sentiment.
Chris Wolf
>Chris Wolf wrote in message <37c210c1...@news.supernews.com>...
>>>As an anarchist I nearly agree with this statement if you mean the
>objective
>>>and just agency has the right to suppress unjust agencies.
>>No, I mean that the objective and just agency has the right to suppress ALL
>>other agencies in the same territory; just or not.
>Why does a just agency have the right use force against another just agency?
Because the use of retaliatory force cannot be brought under objective
control, so long as there is more than one justice agency operating in the
same territory. Any justice agency, trying to do its job, will quickly
learn that all competitors in the same area must be ruthlessly suppressed.
Mexico and Canada must be told that they will not be permitted to exercise
authority inside the United States. Oregon must be told that it will not
be permitted to exercise authority in Idaho.
If competing justice agencies are to be allowed, then each individual
citizen must be allowed to be his own private justice agency. Which
completely obliterates the difference between justice and revenge. Which
means the end of justice.
Competing justice agencies mean NO justice, period.
>And what do you mean by "territory"? An objectivist U.S. can't coexist with
>a Canadian objectivist government?
Sure they can. As long as their authority is confined to physically
separate territories, with no overlap, they can get along just fine. Just
as the Nevada and Idaho state governments get along just fine, as long as
their authorities are confined are confined to physically separate
territories.
>>>When anarchists
>>>refer to "competition", they mean the right to overthrow an unjust agency.
>>I believe they also mean that there can be competing justice agencies
>>within the same geographical area.
>Because corruption is always a potential people will choose various legal
>agencies. Competition will create efficient and just agencies.
That's just wishful thinking. It's based on the assumption that individual
consumers will pay to protect the rights of those they believe have wronged
them. That's simply not the case. A victim of crime doesn't want justice;
he wants revenge. And that's what he will pay for. Also, competition will
permit each citizen to be his own private justice agency. At which point,
you can forget about justice. This is why anarchy doesn't work.
Also, there is nothing about competition that will create efficient and
just agencies. The marketplace has no morality. It can just as easily
create corrupt and unjust agencies.
Customers do not want to buy corrupt automobiles and lawn mowers, but a
corrupt justice agency, who guarantees to murder the bastard who raped my
daughter, is just fine with me. We don't need no stinkin' trial, because I
saw his face as he dived out the window of her bedroom. Just shoot the
bastard. That's all I want.
When I am the customer for retaliatory force, I am not interested in
justice for the accused; only revenge.
>>Certainly you have the right to overthrow an unjust government, and replace
>>it with a more just one. What you DON'T have the right to do, is set up a
>>competing justice agency.
>Until a utopian Randian government is implemented the right to patronize a
>just agency will remain. And this will always be the case.
There is no such right to patronize "competing" justice agencies, since to
do so, renders justice impossible. You have the right to bring the use of
retaliatory force under objective control, and that is all. The idea of
the right to so-called "private justice," is a false right.
You always have the right to overthrow a corrupt government, and set up a
more just government, but you never have the right to set up a competing
government.
Chris Wolf
cwo...@nwlink.com
Check out the World's Fastest Keyboard!
http://www.jeffcomp.com/jcp/
What's REALLY wrong with Objectivism
My Dinner With Andy
http://www.jeffcomp.com/faq/dinner.html
Eric
emic...@my-deja.com wrote in message <7ogan0$ajf$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>> How does it change the "metaphysical" status? What does this mean? It's
a
>> living being in the biological sense both before and after?
>
>Is an arm or a leg or a liver an individual living being? Or are these,
>like a fetus, only a component of an individual living being?
An arm or a leg doesn't have a heart, brain, or soul. Are you saying that
cutting the chord magically gives the baby these features, whicht are
necessary component of rights bearing entities?
-Eric
Eric
Chris Wolf wrote in message <37ac8581....@news.supernews.com>...
>Mexico and Canada must be told that they will not be permitted to exercise
>authority inside the United States. Oregon must be told that it will not
>be permitted to exercise authority in Idaho.
I thought you were against the idea of federalism. What right does a state
have to exercise its own legal system defying a government? Why would a
state need any unique laws with a government there to tell it what to do?
>If competing justice agencies are to be allowed, then each individual
>citizen must be allowed to be his own private justice agency. Which
>completely obliterates the difference between justice and revenge. Which
>means the end of justice.
Everyone has the right to self-defense. Whether it is practical to
delegate self-defense is another issue.
>
>Competing justice agencies mean NO justice, period.
Checks and balances apply to justice just as much as anything else. I can
just as well say that, "a centralized justice agency means NO justice,
period."
>
>>And what do you mean by "territory"? An objectivist U.S. can't coexist
with
>>a Canadian objectivist government?
>
>Sure they can. As long as their authority is confined to physically
>separate territories, with no overlap, they can get along just fine. Just
>as the Nevada and Idaho state governments get along just fine, as long as
>their authorities are confined are confined to physically separate
>territories.
I still don't understand your concept of "territory" and how it applies
non-arbitrarily to exclusive rights enforcement areas.
>>Because corruption is always a potential people will choose various legal
>>agencies. Competition will create efficient and just agencies.
>
>That's just wishful thinking. It's based on the assumption that individual
>consumers will pay to protect the rights of those they believe have wronged
>them. That's simply not the case. A victim of crime doesn't want justice;
>he wants revenge. And that's what he will pay for. Also, competition will
>permit each citizen to be his own private justice agency. At which point,
>you can forget about justice. This is why anarchy doesn't work.
Again, people have the right to self-defense. A private person exercising
this natural right to defence is not a justice agency. If by revenge you
mean restitution then that is what some anarchists emphasize. Are you
against restitution?
>
>Also, there is nothing about competition that will create efficient and
>just agencies. The marketplace has no morality. It can just as easily
>create corrupt and unjust agencies.
And there's nothing about centralization that creates a just agency. The
framers certainly were concerned about decentralization and thought it was
something that could limit a leviathan. So far, not so good.
>
>>>Certainly you have the right to overthrow an unjust government, and
replace
>>>it with a more just one. What you DON'T have the right to do, is set up
a
>>>competing justice agency.
>
>>Until a utopian Randian government is implemented the right to patronize a
>>just agency will remain. And this will always be the case.
>
>There is no such right to patronize "competing" justice agencies, since to
>do so, renders justice impossible. You have the right to bring the use of
>retaliatory force under objective control, and that is all. The idea of
>the right to so-called "private justice," is a false right.
Rand's government was voluntary, no? Like I said in my initial post,
voluntary fees, private property, and secession are prescriptions for
anarchism. You have no right to stop me or any group of people to replace a
corrupt institution with a just one. No government in history has met
Rand's criteria and I doubt any government will.
-Eric
Chris Wolf
>>Chris Wolf wrote in message <37ac8581....@news.supernews.com>...
>>
>>Mexico and Canada must be told that they will not be permitted to exercise
>>authority inside the United States. Oregon must be told that it will not
>>be permitted to exercise authority in Idaho.
>I thought you were against the idea of federalism.
Not per se.
>What right does a state
>have to exercise its own legal system defying a government?
They don't provided the government is just.
>Why would a
>state need any unique laws with a government there to tell it what to do?
Different states have different requirements. For example, the state of
Michigan, and the state of Arizona would need very different state laws,
governing water rights, because of their enormous differences in climate.
A common set of Federal laws, wouldn't get the job done.
>>If competing justice agencies are to be allowed, then each individual
>>citizen must be allowed to be his own private justice agency. Which
>>completely obliterates the difference between justice and revenge. Which
>>means the end of justice.
>Everyone has the right to self-defense. Whether it is practical to
>delegate self-defense is another issue.
Everyone has the right to self-defense. Everyone does NOT have the right
to be a private justice agency. You have the right to defend yourself from
attack. You do NOT have the right to then mete out "punishment" or
"justice" to your attacker, if there is an existing government to do the
job.
>>Competing justice agencies mean NO justice, period.
>Checks and balances apply to justice just as much as anything else.
There are no checks and balances for lynch mobs. Which is what you will
have with private justice agencies.
>I can
>just as well say that, "a centralized justice agency means NO justice,
>period."
It can certainly end up that way, but it's also possible for a centralized
justice agency to deliver justice. It depends on the prevailing philosophy
of the country. With private justice, there is no such possibility.
>>Also, there is nothing about competition that will create efficient and
>>just agencies. The marketplace has no morality. It can just as easily
>>create corrupt and unjust agencies.
>And there's nothing about centralization that creates a just agency.
It just makes it possible to have justice, by eliminating the competition.
>>There is no such right to patronize "competing" justice agencies, since to
>>do so, renders justice impossible. You have the right to bring the use of
>>retaliatory force under objective control, and that is all. The idea of
>>the right to so-called "private justice," is a false right.
>Rand's government was voluntary, no? Like I said in my initial post,
>voluntary fees, private property, and secession are prescriptions for
>anarchism. You have no right to stop me or any group of people to replace a
>corrupt institution with a just one. No government in history has met
>Rand's criteria and I doubt any government will.
If you want to REPLACE a corrupt institution with a just one, I will cheer
you on. What you won't be allowed to do is COMPETE with an existing
institution.
Kwag7693
>>What right does a state
>>have to exercise its own legal system defying a government?
Chris writes:
>They don't provided the government is just.
>
Doesn't this stray into legal disobedience, unless the state formally secedes
and cuts all ties with the government?
>If you want to REPLACE a corrupt institution with a just one, I will cheer
>you on. What you won't be allowed to do is COMPETE with an existing
>institution.
>
But why should government taxation be voluntary? If no one pays taxes, no
services will be performed. If only some pay taxes, then others benefit
disproportionately from existing in a society. What shouldn't everyone have to
pay taxes for services that benefit every citizen, in principle, like a
judicial system?
Kevin
Arnold Broese-van-Groenou
Chris Wolf <cwo...@nwlink.com> wrote in message
news:37b0881...@news.supernews.com...
> Everyone has the right to self-defense. Everyone does NOT have the
right
> to be a private justice agency. You have the right to defend
yourself from
> attack. You do NOT have the right to then mete out "punishment" or
> "justice" to your attacker, if there is an existing government to do
the
> job.
I agree. This is the crux of the matter. The issue involves more than
passive_defense_, it involves the use of retaliatory force.
This force, when applied in response to attack, must be justly handled
during an emergency defence, by the person involved. That means you
don't use more force than necessary to protect your self.
Once the immediate threat is over, objective review of the situation
cannot be left to millions of individual intepretations of what is
just punishment.
We need universal consistency in the law, and we need to eliminate the
institutions least likely to give it to us..
--
A.Broese-van-Groenou.
Chris Wolf
>In article <37c02c74...@news.supernews.com>,
> Chris Wolf <cwo...@nwlink.com> wrote:
>> emic...@my-deja.com writes:
>>
>> >It is always and forever the moral right and obligation of all
>> >individuals to choose their own defense agencies.
>>
>> There is no such right. There is only the right to bring the use of
>> retaliatory force under objective control. Once that has been done, there
>> is no right to set up a "competing" defense agency.
>Here is a longer version of what I said incorporating the part of your
>comment with which I agree.
>
>The only way I can exercise my right to bring the use of retaliatory
>force under objective control is to choose among all existing and
>possible force-management agent institutions the one I think will best
>achieve that goal and to consign my right to retaliatory force to it.
>
>It is always and forever my right to make that choice and act upon it.
>The moral right or wrong of what I choose when I exercise my right to
>choose is a separate topic.
>
>1.Is there still a problem?
Yes. There is no right to set up competing justice agencies, and no right
for the citizens to choose among such agencies.
Retaliatory is unique among goods and services, in that in order for it to
exist, there can be only one provider of such force in a given geographical
area.
>2.Why did you inject the word "competing" into your last sentence?
Because it is the essence of the argument. You always have the right to
overthrow and replace an existing corrupt government, but never the right
to set up a competing government.
Chris Wolf
Took the words right out of my mouth.
emic...@my-deja.com
Eric <roa...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> emic...@my-deja.com wrote in message <7ogan0$ajf$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
> >> How does it change the "metaphysical" status? What does this mean? It's
> a
> >> living being in the biological sense both before and after?
> >
> >Is an arm or a leg or a liver an individual living being? Or are these,
> >like a fetus, only a component of an individual living being?
>
> An arm or a leg doesn't have a heart, brain, or soul. Are you saying that
> necessary components of rights bearing entities?
No. Note my insertion of the word "individual" in front of "living
being". That is what cutting the cord makes it: an individual.
While a heart is a component of a human, it has no relevance to rights.
Otherwise your rights might be affected by exchangeing your heart for
someone else's, a pig's, or a machine. The brain only becomes relevant
when it functions as a full-fledged volitional consciousness.
When an adult's brain re-achieves the capacity it had in the womb, the
proper action is to pull the plug (to abort the further functioning of
the heart, brain and soul). If you intend to posit enough cognition in
the womb to establish the presence of an individual, volitional human
being, please attach your proposed rules for plug-pulling as well.
Now about that "soul". Define yourself. I like Rand's definition, which
was (approximately) "the mind and its content". This would leave the
fetus again wanting.
Next problem. There are no conflicting rights. (applies to taxation
too). As long as there is only one individual being, there is only one
right to life. If the mother and the fetus each have a right to life,
and medical realities demand a decision to save the mother or save the
fetus, both acting and failing to act would be rights violations.
Eric
Chris Wolf wrote in message <37b0881...@news.supernews.com>...
>
>
>>Why would a
>>state need any unique laws with a government there to tell it what to do?
>
>Different states have different requirements. For example, the state of
>Michigan, and the state of Arizona would need very different state laws,
>governing water rights, because of their enormous differences in climate.
>A common set of Federal laws, wouldn't get the job done.
Then you would delete the 10th amendment?
>
>>Everyone has the right to self-defense. Whether it is practical to
>>delegate self-defense is another issue.
>
>Everyone has the right to self-defense. Everyone does NOT have the right
>to be a private justice agency. You have the right to defend yourself from
>attack. You do NOT have the right to then mete out "punishment" or
>"justice" to your attacker, if there is an existing government to do the
>job.
As long as the "government" is just, then I agree. And so do anarchists
like George Smith. He says,
"Our primary concern should be with the justice of a legal system i.e.,
with WHAT laws are enforced, not with WHO enforces them. (2) This justice
can be ascertained by OBJECTIVE standards of right.
If the legal system of an agency (whether governmental or private) is truly
just as evaluated by objective standards -- and if, by "competition," we
mean any attempt forcibly to overturn this legal system, replacing it with
an unjust system -- then our agency may forcibly resist and overthrow the
outlaw agency, owing to its effort to violate individual rights.
As I said, however, this right to suppress the outlaw agency has nothing to
do with the alleged necessity for a final arbiter. Rather, it is simply an
application of the right of every individual, whether by himself or in
combination with others, to resist and repel despotism, whatever the source
of that despotism may be. The pertinent issue, therefore, is not whether we
need a coercive monopoly to enforce justice; but whether we can determine
the justice of legal system by objective methods, and whether, having
objectively condemned a given system as unjust, we can then forcibly resist
any individual or agency which seeks to impose that system.
This has everything to do with the individual right of self-defense, as
manifested in the libertarian rights of resistance and revolution, and has
nothing whatever to do with the supposed need for a final arbiter."
>>I can
>>just as well say that, "a centralized justice agency means NO justice,
>>period."
>
>It can certainly end up that way, but it's also possible for a centralized
>justice agency to deliver justice. It depends on the prevailing philosophy
>of the country. With private justice, there is no such possibility.
Rand's ideal government is a private justice agency. It is voluntarily
funded, no? Do you know of any governments in history that have existed
without taxation?
"The right to pay for services or not, according to one's own judgment, is a
characteristic of the free market; it has no relationship, either
theoretically or historically, to the institution of government. There is no
way a government can retain its sovereign power -- its monopoly on the use
of legitimate force -- if it does not possess the power of compulsory
taxation." -Smith
>
>>And there's nothing about centralization that creates a just agency.
>
>It just makes it possible to have justice, by eliminating the competition.
Again, anarchists regard competition as the right to overthrow an unjust
agency.
>
>>Rand's government was voluntary, no? Like I said in my initial post,
>>voluntary fees, private property, and secession are prescriptions for
>>anarchism. You have no right to stop me or any group of people to replace
a
>>corrupt institution with a just one. No government in history has met
>>Rand's criteria and I doubt any government will.
>
>If you want to REPLACE a corrupt institution with a just one, I will cheer
>you on. What you won't be allowed to do is COMPETE with an existing
>institution.
>
Once a utopian Randian government is in place, then I agree that
"competitors" don't have the right to offer unjust services. But because
this is highly unlikely, especially for a lengthy period of time, I agree
with Smith when he says, "hence, while defending the State in theory, these
consent-minarchists should oppose all existing governments in practice. And
this, I dare say, is a kind of minarchism that I can live with quite well --
for we are more likely to be visited by angels than to find a government
based on consent."
-Eric
emic...@my-deja.com
Chris Wolf <cwo...@nwlink.com> wrote:
> emic...@my-deja.com writes:
>
> >In article <37c02c74...@news.supernews.com>,
> > Chris Wolf <cwo...@nwlink.com> wrote:
> >> emic...@my-deja.com writes:
> >>
> >>
> >> There is no such right. There is only the right to bring the use of
> >> retaliatory force under objective control. Once that has been done, there
> >> is no right to set up a "competing" defense agency.
>
> >Here is a longer version of what I said incorporating the part of your
> >comment with which I agree.
> >
> >The only way I can exercise my right to bring the use of retaliatory
> >force under objective control is to choose among all existing and
> >possible force-management agent institutions the one I think will best
> >achieve that goal and to consign my right to retaliatory force to it.
> >
> >It is always and forever my right to make that choice and act upon it.
> >The moral right or wrong of what I choose when I exercise my right to
> >choose is a separate topic.
> >
> >1.Is there still a problem?
>
> Yes. There is no right to set up competing justice agencies, and no right
> for the citizens to choose among such agencies.
>
> Retaliatory is unique among goods and services, in that in order for it to
> exist, there can be only one provider of such force in a given geographical
> area.
>
> >2.Why did you inject the word "competing" into your last sentence?
>
> Because it is the essence of the argument. You always have the right to
> overthrow and replace an existing corrupt government, but never the right
> to set up a competing government.
Slow down Chris! If you had just read a little of this thread before
firing your cannons, you would have noticed that I am the one arguing
against the multiple competing defense agency doctrine.
You would also find that I have been using the word “government”
interchangeably with “defense agency” (but not competing) and my “force-
management agent institution”, which all governments are, in order to
get Eric and Matti to work more with the concept itself and less with
all that connotational baggage the anarcho-capitalist writings have
piled on the word “government”.
Your two replies insinuate that I am supporting the setting up of
competing justice agencies, which, in the context of an anarcho-
capitalist argument implies in the same location, and to that you got no
moral right!
The ulterior motive of these verbal gymnastics is to uncomplicate the
broader picture of government as agent of force-management for the
consenters in all contexts...to chart how concepts such as “monopoly on
the use of force” and “consent” and “jurisdiction” pass through the
transition from the use of force by individuals in a non-societal
context to their consignment of the use of force to an agent institution
in a society.
If I have stumbled in the process, you already have an open invitation
(‘My Dinner with Chris’, so to speak) to offer guidance; but please
don’t try it again until you can grasp that you and I are traveling in
the same general direction and you quit assuming I was going the other
way.
Eric
emic...@my-deja.com wrote in message <7oqqj3$erv$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>
>No. Note my insertion of the word "individual" in front of "living
>being". That is what cutting the cord makes it: an individual.
Define "individual". The baby is still in a precarious state before and
after needing assistance to live. How about an example where twins are born
and the last one comes out the next day. You're saying the former is and
individual who can't be aggressed while the latter can be terminated just
because the chord is still attached? I don't see how cutting the chord
makes it an "individual".
>Next problem. There are no conflicting rights. (applies to taxation
>too). As long as there is only one individual being, there is only one
>right to life. If the mother and the fetus each have a right to life,
>and medical realities demand a decision to save the mother or save the
>fetus, both acting and failing to act would be rights violations.
>
What if the baby can be removed without harming the mother?
-Eric
Chris Wolf
>Eric writes:
>
>>>What right does a state
>>>have to exercise its own legal system defying a government?
>Chris writes:
>
>>They don't provided the government is just.
>Doesn't this stray into legal disobedience, unless the state formally secedes
>and cuts all ties with the government?
Not sure what you mean, here.
>>If you want to REPLACE a corrupt institution with a just one, I will cheer
>>you on. What you won't be allowed to do is COMPETE with an existing
>>institution.
>But why should government taxation be voluntary?
Because involuntary taxation is stealing.
>If no one pays taxes, no services will be performed.
Right. And if no one buys any cars, GM will go out of business.
And if everyone went to Disneyland on the same day, we'd be in REAL
trouble.
>If only some pay taxes, then others benefit disproportionately
>from existing in a society.
Sad, but true.
>What shouldn't everyone have to
>pay taxes for services that benefit every citizen, in principle, like a
>judicial system?
Because it's more important to avoid institutionalizing stealing, which is
what involuntary taxation would entail.
Kwag7693
>>
>>>They don't provided the government is just.
>
>>Doesn't this stray into legal disobedience, unless the state formally
>secedes
>>and cuts all ties with the government?
>
>Not sure what you mean, here.
I mean how can a state rightfully ignore the dictates of its charter with the
federal government, unless it formally secedes?
>>If no one pays taxes, no services will be performed.
>
>Right. And if no one buys any cars, GM will go out of business.
>
>And if everyone went to Disneyland on the same day, we'd be in REAL
>trouble.
Or at least Disney would be crowded.
>>If only some pay taxes, then others benefit disproportionately
>>from existing in a society.
>
>Sad, but true.
>
>>What shouldn't everyone have to
>>pay taxes for services that benefit every citizen, in principle, like a
>>judicial system?
>
>Because it's more important to avoid institutionalizing stealing, which is
>what involuntary taxation would entail.
Theft is the felonious taking of someone else's rightful property. I know this
is a very positivist definition, but natural rights is a recipe for anarchy
unless it is codified. Now if you are arguing that citizens can rightfully
refuse to pay for the privileges accorded to them as citizens, I wish to know
how you justify it.
Certainly, you would not accept someone saying they refused to accept US law as
a legitimate excuse to keep them out of jail for committing some crime. So why
is it unjust to ensure that all citizens actually pay for the services rendered
to them? Clearly, they can leave if they do not wish to be citizens.
Kevin
emic...@my-deja.com
Eric <roa...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> emic...@my-deja.com wrote in message <7oqqj3$erv$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
> >
> >No. Note my insertion of the word "individual" in front of "living
> >being". That is what cutting the cord makes it: an individual.
>
> Define "individual".
A single, separate person.
>............................How about an example where twins are born
> and the last one comes out the next day. You're saying the former is an
> individual who can't be aggressed while the latter can be terminated just
> because the chord is still attached?
Yes.
> >Next problem. There are no conflicting rights. (applies to taxation
> >too). As long as there is only one individual being, there is only one
> >right to life. If the mother and the fetus each have a right to life,
> >and medical realities demand a decision to save the mother or save the
> >fetus, both acting and failing to act would be rights violations.
> >
>
> What if the baby can be removed without harming the mother?
Who should get to make the last guess on whether the assessment by the
doctor (or the lawyer, or the senator, or you) that it will not actually
harm her is valid? Answer: the mother.
What I like most about drawing this line is the 100%-pure objectivity of
it. All other lines -- 3 months, 6 months, head out, body out, or even
the arguments for limited infanticide, involve evaluative judgements or
fuzzy, arbitrary distinctions which put objectivity at risk. The cord,
on the other hand, is cut or it is not cut. Any idiot in the world could
qualify as a top notch expert. No arguments, no lawsuits, no amendments,
no liberals, no conservatives necessary.
Furthermore, I do not regard a fetus as having the same status of
"individual human being" as I have. While a right to life, liberty, etc.
can be claimed by all individuals because such freedom is the "right"
prerequisite condition for human life, it is not directly the rightness
of freedom for THEIR life that motivates me to grant them rights, it is
the rightness of freedom for MY life that makes me grant them rights.
I only grant rights to others, because I need them for myself qua
individual human being; and since they are also individual human beings,
consistency demands that I grant them the same rights I demand for
myself.
That is why dogs, cats, arms, legs, livers, and fetuses do not get
rights.
emic...@my-deja.com
Kwag7693 <kwag...@aol.com> wrote:
> Now if you are arguing that citizens can rightfully
> refuse to pay for the privileges accorded to them as citizens, I wish to know
> how you justify it.
Citizens are not accorded privileges. They consign their moral right to
use force for defense from and restitution for initiated force, and the
government exercises it for them. There are no more "privileges" than
you get when a real estate agent sells your home for you. If the real
estate agent comes up with an e-scheme to sell your home for no
commission so he can profit instead from ad spots on his website, you
need not feel guilty about not paying. If the citizenry of a free nation
devises a scheme to pay all government costs without having to force
everyone to pay, that is ok too. It is only important that whoever
pays, does so voluntarily.
Also, the entire argument about the necessity of compulsory funding and
the impossibility of voluntary funding is specious. No one ever includes
any consideration of the value systems of the citizenry of a government
that would even consider in any serious way voluntary funding. This
inevitably results in a grotesque underestimation of the willingness,
nay the eagerness of free men to pay their way for their freedom.
My own speculation is that virtually all government funding would be
raised from corporations who have not only the most to loose to
agressors, but also the most to gain from the publicity and general good
will of the citizenry whose share of the burden the corporations would
probably pick-up and pass back in pricing.
Nor do they recognize that in a truly free society, there is little if
any public property. The understanding that all access to property is
contractual would be widespread. The threat of isolation and
ostracization to a non-paying citizen would be formidable.
>
> Certainly, you would not accept someone saying they refused to accept US
> law as
> a legitimate excuse to keep them out of jail for committing some crime.
> So why
> is it unjust to ensure that all citizens actually pay for the services re
> ndered
> to them?
Consider, when you choose to "ensure" that all citizens actually pay for
services rendered, that the only ones who have a right to receive the
benefits of taxation are those who oppose taxation on principle.
Those who support taxation are accessories to the violation of the
property rights of those who oppose it. As violaters of rights they
forfeit their own claims to rights and therefore have no basis to claim
any right to the benefits of taxation.
Those who oppose taxation can claim the benefits as partial restitution
for other direct losses to taxation both past and current as well as
indirect losses from the diminished opportunities that acrue to life in
a free economy -- and it would be impossible to receive benefits in
excess of losses.
> Clearly, they can leave if they do not wish to be citizens.
This phrase is the boilerplate on the act of extortion which taxation
is. The only thing this statement can mean (and I have some doubt that
you really wanted to say this) is: We the people of the freest
government in the universe will do our best to guarantee all your rights
provided we can take as much money from you whenever we want for
whatever we want it for.
The freer the government, the more vulnerable to this extortion are
those who value liberty most and might most object to taxation. For them
there is no place else to go. The United States is the only country I
know of that taxes its citizens who live in other nations. It could not
get away with that if there were a freer nation elsewhere.
Extortion cannot be justified by citing the victim's option to flee.
Eric
emic...@my-deja.com wrote in message <7oth3q$c3b$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>In article <7osg72$9js$1...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>,
> Eric <roa...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> emic...@my-deja.com wrote in message <7oqqj3$erv$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>> >
>> >No. Note my insertion of the word "individual" in front of "living
>> >being". That is what cutting the cord makes it: an individual.
>>
>> Define "individual".
>
>A single, separate person.
So do parents have the right to abandon the baby to let it die? Do children
have the right to protection from harm? Nathaniel Branden said, "the basic
necessities of food, clothing, etc., are the child's by right."
>>............................How about an example where twins are born
>> and the last one comes out the next day. You're saying the former is an
>> individual who can't be aggressed while the latter can be terminated just
>> because the chord is still attached?
>
>Yes.
Do I have the right to murder a person in my home for failing to leave?
>>
>> What if the baby can be removed without harming the mother?
>
>Who should get to make the last guess on whether the assessment by the
>doctor (or the lawyer, or the senator, or you) that it will not actually
>harm her is valid? Answer: the mother.
>
>What I like most about drawing this line is the 100%-pure objectivity of
>it. All other lines -- 3 months, 6 months, head out, body out, or even
>the arguments for limited infanticide, involve evaluative judgements or
>fuzzy, arbitrary distinctions which put objectivity at risk. The cord,
>on the other hand, is cut or it is not cut. Any idiot in the world could
>qualify as a top notch expert. No arguments, no lawsuits, no amendments,
>no liberals, no conservatives necessary.
Most people would say that the chord is completely arbitrary from a
biological point of view. The baby is still dependent on others whether
it's inside or outside.
-Eric
Kwag7693
>Citizens are not accorded privileges. They consign their moral right to
>use force for defense from and restitution for initiated force, and the
>government exercises it for them.
Fine. I was thinking more of the benefits that erupted from doing so. I
consign my moral right to cook a meal to Taco Bell, when I buy a Taco. I pay
the company for the service, not the rights consignment. Similarly, I pay the
government for the service, not the consignment.
>If the citizenry of a free nation
>devises a scheme to pay all government costs without having to force
>everyone to pay, that is ok too. It is only important that whoever
>pays, does so voluntarily.
Why? Does everyone who goes to jail for commission of a crime do so
voluntarily? Government create laws that rule even those who are unwilling to
be governed.
Everyone signs a W4 (or 2?) when they go to work. They all know they will be
taxed. It is voluntary.
>This
>inevitably results in a grotesque underestimation of the willingness,
>nay the eagerness of free men to pay their way for their freedom.
Please, do not chart my views for me, nor my attitude. I suspect that the
producers of a society would pay up. I wonder why the parasites deserve a free
ride.
>My own speculation is that virtually all government funding would be
>raised from corporations who have not only the most to loose to
>agressors, but also the most to gain from the publicity and general good
>will of the citizenry whose share of the burden the corporations would
>probably pick-up and pass back in pricing.
Whooo! You want private industry to fund the government, rather than the
citizenry? Make sure the government is completely laissez faire first, and can
not but stay that way, or you will be on the fast track to plutocracy.
What would happen to the corporation who did not include an implicit "sales
tax", but avoided it to garner customers and hurt their competition?
>Nor do they recognize that in a truly free society, there is little if
>any public property. The understanding that all access to property is
>contractual would be widespread. The threat of isolation and
>ostracization to a non-paying citizen would be formidable.
Who are you talking about or to? Why these grand pronouncements about "they"?
Would you suggest that the list of non-payers was made public or something?
>Consider, when you choose to "ensure" that all citizens actually pay for
>services rendered, that the only ones who have a right to receive the
>benefits of taxation are those who oppose taxation on principle.
What kind of question beggary is this? Make you point, don't assume it. Why
is your claim true? Why is taxation evil?
Good government is needed because some people ignore laws protecting rights.
As long as the borders are open, and people know they are getting taxed up
front, why is taxation bad?
>This phrase is the boilerplate on the act of extortion which taxation
>is. The only thing this statement can mean (and I have some doubt that
>you really wanted to say this) is: We the people of the freest
>government in the universe will do our best to guarantee all your rights
>provided we can take as much money from you whenever we want for
>whatever we want it for.
Actually, no. I would want plenty of limits on what the money could be spent
for. I would want to control the amount used through my vote for various
candidates. If paying taxes is not your idea of a good choice, you can leave.
Then you will see why taxation is good. You cannot claim taxation is coercive,
as long as people have the freedom to leave the country. If they don't leave,
they must find the government more valuable than the alternatives.
>The United States is the only country I
>know of that taxes its citizens who live in other nations. It could not
>get away with that if there were a freer nation elsewhere.
>
>Extortion cannot be justified by citing the victim's option to flee.
Look up extortion. It means to obtain by force or intimidation. Now you know
when you get a job, that you will be paying for the government. I do not like
income tax, I think a truly flat tax, not a percentage, is called for on all
citizens. But with the current system, you know that you will be taxed. You
are not forced to take the job and stay in the US. If you choose to, you know
what will result. Force and intimidation comes when people who knew they would
be taxed choose not to pay. Unless you want to call the enforcement of
contracts extortion, the name seems unjustified.
Why is taxation bad? Taxes in Hong Kong were voluntary. How was the situation
there? I heard it was very nasty, and that crime was terrible.
Tell me what is wrong with the following: a group of people get together. They
decide that they will create a government. They decide that they will each
bear the burden of funding the government. When someone new sees their
government and says I would like its rules to apply to me, the citizens say OK,
but you will have to pay.
I see no wrong there and plenty of wrong in the idea that someone can demand
that the rules of society and protections resulting from the rules apply to
them, but denying their obligation to pay for the value they received.
Kevin
Kwag7693
>So do parents have the right to abandon the baby to let it die? Do children
>have the right to protection from harm? Nathaniel Branden said, "the basic
>necessities of food, clothing, etc., are the child's by right."
Did he justify this claim?
Kevin
emic...@my-deja.com
Eric <roa...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> emic...@my-deja.com wrote in message <7oth3q$c3b$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
> >In article <7osg72$9js$1...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>,
> > Eric <roa...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> emic...@my-deja.com wrote in message <7oqqj3$erv$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
> >> >
> >> >No. Note my insertion of the word "individual" in front of "living
> >> >being". That is what cutting the cord makes it: an individual.
> >>
> >> Define "individual".
> >
> >A single, separate person.
>
> have the right to protection from harm? Nathaniel Branden said, "the basic
> necessities of food, clothing, etc., are the child's by right."
The parents have the freely chosen obligation to raise the child to
self-sufficiency because they are the ones who created the situation of
the child’s having the right to life without the means yet to sustain
that life, AND because the child is a single separate person with its
own individual right to life. The fetus is also a helpless product of
the parents actions BUT it is not a single separate person with its own
individual right to life. When the cord is cut, then it will be single
and separate and individual.
> >>............................How about an example where twins are born
> >> and the last one comes out the next day. You're saying the former is an
> >> individual who can't be aggressed while the latter can be terminated just
> >> because the chord is still attached?
> >
> >Yes.
>
> Do I have the right to murder a person in my home for failing to leave?
What were the terms of the contract by which that person entered your
home?
> >> What if the baby can be removed without harming the mother?
> >
> >Who should get to make the last guess on whether the assessment by the
> >doctor (or the lawyer, or the senator, or you) that it will not actually
> >harm her is valid? Answer: the mother.
> >
> >What I like most about drawing this line is the 100%-pure objectivity of
> >it. All other lines -- 3 months, 6 months, head out, body out, or even
> >the arguments for limited infanticide, involve evaluative judgements or
> >fuzzy, arbitrary distinctions which put objectivity at risk. The cord,
> >on the other hand, is cut or it is not cut. Any idiot in the world could
> >qualify as a top notch expert. No arguments, no lawsuits, no amendments,
> >no liberals, no conservatives necessary.
>
> Most people would say that the chord is completely arbitrary from a
> biological point of view.
Saying is cheap. How would most people support the relevance of that
statement to this discussion?
Also, while we are on the subject of umbilical cords... when I converse
with you, I am really most interested in what you say and how you back
it up, not what “most people” say. You may have learned it from them,
but I need to receive it in your format. I need to be confident you are
both willing and able to process the ideas of others, or I will lose the
motivation to send you mine.
If you skim your posts to this thread you will find a clear pattern of
reliance on handing over long quotes of others’ writings in lieu of
argument in your own words. Often their content bore only a hazy
similarity to the specific topic at hand. What you gained in reply-time
you lost in understanding-productivity. Cut the cord. I will wait. It
will be worth it.
> The baby is still dependent on others whether
> it's inside or outside.
The baby is a dependent body part inside the mother. It is a dependent
human being outside.
User 1F6C2
>Good government is needed because some people ignore laws protecting rights.
Have you ever read Freidman's "Machinery of Freedom"?
>If paying taxes is not your idea of a good choice, you can leave.
>Then you will see why taxation is good. You cannot claim taxation is
>coercive,
>as long as people have the freedom to leave the country.
This is incorrect. I refer you to an analysis on Freidman's page:
(The first part is an argument that he is responding to)
_________________________________________
10. The second is that taxation is part of a social contract. Essentially, tax
is payment in exchange for services from government. This kind of argument is
suitable for defending almost any tax as part of a contract. Many libertarians
accept social contract (for example, essentially all minarchists must to insist
on a monopoly of government.) Of course they differ as to what should be IN the
contract.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
While it may be true that minarchists need a social contract to jusify their
support of a government monopoly over the use of retaliatory force, my
experience is that very few of them, at least in the online population, make
that argument.
The obvious reason not to is that the social contract argument doesn't work
very well as anything more than a metaphor. Contracts get their moral force, in
the view of most people, including most libertarians, from the agreement of the
parties. But the "social contract" has the form "I will give you these services
and you will pay me for them, whether you agree to or not."
The standard response, and Mike's, is that you "implicitly agree" by remaining
in the country. But this works only if the government already has the right to
throw you out of the country--i.e. if the government is somehow the owner of
the entire territory it rules. Without a social contract, it is hard to see how
you can justify such a claim. And until you can justify it, you can 't get your
social contract.
I could, after all, propose a contract to Mike under which he agrees to pay me
a thousand dollars a month in exchange for the valuable services I am providing
by critiquing his FAQ. I could also inform him that by breathing, he agrees to
accept that contract. But unless he already believes that he has no right to
breath without my permission, it is hard to see why he should feel obligated to
pay.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Tell me what is wrong with the following: a group of people get together.
>They
>decide that they will create a government. They decide that they will each
>bear the burden of funding the government. When someone new sees their
>government and says I would like its rules to apply to me, the citizens say
>OK,
>but you will have to pay.
Nothing is wrong with your example. The problem is that your example does not
model the US government.
What the US government does is claim a huge mass of land without moral basis. I
guess if you believe that the first europeons to land on the shore of New
England or whereever had the moral right to say "I claim this entire continent.
It is all mine now. Anyone who wishes to live here must pay me" then your view
would be consistant. It all comes down to your view of how to justify the
ownership of land.
-User
Kwag7693
>The standard response, and Mike's, is that you "implicitly agree" by
>remaining
>in the country. But this works only if the government already has the right
>to
>throw you out of the country--i.e. if the government is somehow the owner of
>the entire territory it rules. Without a social contract, it is hard to see
>how
>you can justify such a claim. And until you can justify it, you can 't get
>your
>social contract.
I am not so sure about this reasoning. We allow the government to prosecute
individuals in the US who break the US's laws. It is done regardless of their
cognizance of the law or whether or not they "agree" to be bound by law. Is
this bad?
>What the US government does is claim a huge mass of land without moral basis.
>I
>guess if you believe that the first europeons to land on the shore of New
>England or whereever had the moral right to say "I claim this entire
>continent.
>It is all mine now. Anyone who wishes to live here must pay me" then your
>view
>would be consistant. It all comes down to your view of how to justify the
>ownership of land.
I am not talking about land ownership, though do note the Constitution grants
ownership of the land to the government basically, it can be removed from any
citizen through due process.
Do you disagree that states or countries or even counties have the legal right
to police their own territory and subject all within their borders to the rule
of law? Economic freedom need not come into the discussion, nor property
rights. Does a government, derived from individual citizens grant of express
power, have the right to make laws about the behavior of its citizens? I would
argue that the power to ensure that the government continues through funding is
basic to a government.
Look, if taxation is voluntary, either everyone is moral and pays up, or the
government is inequitably beneficial. The first has the same results as
involuntary taxation, though the tax form says we have a voluntary system
everyone pays, the second is unjust. Why are the people in government expected
to provide services to the citizenry without a guarantee of pay?
Kevin
Eric
Kwag7693 wrote in message <19990812133359...@ng-xc1.aol.com>...
>Eric writes:
>
>>So do parents have the right to abandon the baby to let it die? Do
children
>>have the right to protection from harm? Nathaniel Branden said, "the
basic
>>necessities of food, clothing, etc., are the child's by right."
>
>
>Kevin
Take a look.
Eric
emic...@my-deja.com wrote in message <7ov2dc$fmp$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>
>The parents have the freely chosen obligation to raise the child to
>self-sufficiency because they are the ones who created the situation of
>the child’s having the right to life without the means yet to sustain
>that life, AND because the child is a single separate person with its
>own individual right to life. The fetus is also a helpless product of
>the parents actions BUT it is not a single separate person with its own
>individual right to life. When the cord is cut, then it will be single
>and separate and individual.
I find this "separate entity" argument dubious. Do Siamese twins have the
right to life? If you support parental obligation then the crib might as
well be the womb. The baby is dependent on the mother regardless of whether
it is in the womb or not. A fetus in the later months of pregnancy is
clearly just as human as it is when it is born from a biological point of
view. If it is a human then it has rights just as a baby has rights. If
the mother's life is in danger (where rights do in fact conflict), then she
has the right to defend herself and save her life but in most cases her life
isn't in jeopardy and thus doesn't have the right to aggress.
>> Do I have the right to murder a person in my home for failing to leave?
>
>What were the terms of the contract by which that person entered your
>home?
No contract. You decided that the person was an invader and decided to kill
the person.
>If you skim your posts to this thread you will find a clear pattern of
>reliance on handing over long quotes of others’ writings in lieu of
>argument in your own words. Often their content bore only a hazy
>similarity to the specific topic at hand. What you gained in reply-time
>you lost in understanding-productivity. Cut the cord. I will wait. It
>will be worth it.
Are you referring to the minarchist/anarchist stuff? If you are then I
plead guilty. Why put it in my own words when others say it better than me?
I use quotes because I happen to agree. I have yet to see someone show that
Rand's ideas weren't anarchist in nature. Smith's comments have been the
most persuasive stuff I've read on the subject.
>
>> The baby is still dependent on others whether
>> it's inside or outside.
>
>The baby is a dependent body part inside the mother. It is a dependent
>human being outside.
>
A "body part"? If it's a baby like you say, then it shouldn't be aggressed
unless you support infanticide.
-Eric
Kwag7693
>>
>>>So do parents have the right to abandon the baby to let it die? Do
>children
>>>have the right to protection from harm? Nathaniel Branden said, "the
>basic
>>>necessities of food, clothing, etc., are the child's by right."
>>
>>Did he justify this claim?
>>
>>Kevin
>
>
>Take a look.
>
"A child is the responsibility of his parents, because (a) they brought
him into existence, and (b) a child, by nature, cannot survive
independently. (The fact that the parents might not have desired the
child, in a given case, is irrelevant in this context; he is
nevertheless the consequence of their chosen actions-a consequence that,
as a possibility, was foreseeable.)
The essence of parental responsibility is: to equip the child for
independent survival as an adult. This means, to provide for the child's
physical and mental development and wellbeing: to feed, clothe and
protect her; to raise her in a stable, intelligible, rational home
environment, to equip him intellectually, training him to live as a
rational being; to educate him to earn his livelihood (teaching him to
hunt for instance, in a primitive society; sending him to college,
perhaps, in an advanced civilization). When the child reaches the age of
legal maturity and/or when she has been educated for a career, parental
obligation ends. Thereafter, parents may still want to help their child,
but he or she is no longer their responsibility. "
Can children survive before the age of legal responsibility? Would this
discharge the parent's responsibility earlier? I guess I was looking for a
more careful consideration than this. People are also responsible for the
creation of the puppies their dog bears and the table they comissioned to be
built. Neither of these things will survive without being cared for. I am
looking for a metaethical justification, perhaps? I mean, generally Rand
rejects duty as a non-concept, and finds positive rights to be sheer
contradiction. How do they arise here? Parent's responsibility is a nebulous
phrase.
Kevin
Eric
Kwag7693 wrote in message <19990813122557...@ng-ca1.aol.com>...
>
>Can children survive before the age of legal responsibility? Would this
>discharge the parent's responsibility earlier? I guess I was looking for a
>more careful consideration than this. People are also responsible for the
>creation of the puppies their dog bears and the table they comissioned to
be
>built. Neither of these things will survive without being cared for. I am
>looking for a metaethical justification, perhaps? I mean, generally Rand
>rejects duty as a non-concept, and finds positive rights to be sheer
>contradiction. How do they arise here? Parent's responsibility is a
nebulous
>phrase.
>
I agree. If I'm not mistaken, some libertarians such as Rothbard claim the
parents don't have any positive obligations to a child.
-Eric
Kwag7693
>I agree. If I'm not mistaken, some libertarians such as Rothbard claim the
>parents don't have any positive obligations to a child.
I disagree with that. I think the source of the "obligation" is the horrible
result that would come from a legally accepted policy of infanticide and
parental neglect. Caring for your kids is a good idea. I was just noting that
Branden had not justified his claims.
Kevin
emic...@my-deja.com
Eric <roa...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> emic...@my-deja.com wrote in message <7ov2dc$fmp$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
> >
> >The parents have the freely chosen obligation to raise the child to
> >self-sufficiency because they are the ones who created the situation of
> >the child’s having the right to life without the means yet to sustain
> >that life, AND because the child is a single separate person with its
> >own individual right to life. The fetus is also a helpless product of
> >the parents actions BUT it is not a single separate person with its own
> >individual right to life. When the cord is cut, then it will be single
> >and separate and individual.
>
> I find this "separate entity" argument dubious. Do Siamese twins have the
> right to life?
I’ve been mulling this one over ever since we wandered into this topic,
and I am glad it took you a while to get to it yourself. This is how I
would apply the separate individual principle to Siamese twins:
The necessity for “rights” arises from the fact that life is a series of
actions chosen by a volitional consciousness that is fallible. Since
your life depends on making the right choices, and everyone can err, it
is “right” that each individual have the last word on the choices of
self-sustaining, self-generating actions for their own lives.
Most siamese twins have two consciousnesses with varying degrees of
control over their physical body. While this alone might lead one to
posit two rights to life, that would ignore the fact that there is -- so
long as they are connected -- only one body, albeit with multiple sets
of parts. Since life is not just choice, but rather choice directed
action, the existence of two consciousness is not as important as the
fact that the choices of the two can rarely be carried out as separate
actions. This supports the contention that there is only one life --
thence only one right -- because there is only one set of choice-
directed actions.
Obviously, given the variety of possible organ- and limb-sharing
combinations, the answer to “is this one or is this two human beings”
will not always fall effortlessly into two neat boxes. Since rights are
necessarily “neat” by definition however, here too I would send the
separate individual principle to the rescue:
If the twins are medically inseparable there is one right to life. If
they can be separated, there is one right to life until separation.
Prior to adulthood, the parents would have their usual responsibilities,
including the right to choose separation or not. Thereafter, the twin
consciousnesses would be able to choose to separate and accede to two-
right status or not. While they are joined, the government would have
no right to intervene if they differed on any action, including
separation. That would be their problem. If one portion is able to
destroy the other portion’s ability to function without destroying
itself, it could then authorize separation. The worst the surviving
portion could be accused of is self-maiming, which is not a violation of
any right.
If you post me back that the two portions should have separate rights to
life, you better attach some detailed speculations on how our force-
management agent institution (government) would use force to protect
and/or punish one separately from the other when situations
necessitating such action occur.
> If you support parental obligation then the crib might as
> well be the womb.
Not until you give me the principle, in the context of rights, by which
we can validate this assertion.
> The baby is dependent on the mother regardless of whether
> it is in the womb or not.
Dependency is not the source of rights.
> A fetus in the later months of pregnancy is
> clearly just as human as it is when it is born from a biological point of
> view.
I don’t think biology is the source of rights either.
> If it is a human then it has rights just as a baby has rights.
A fetus isn’t A human. It is A PART OF A human.
> If
> the mother's life is in danger (where rights do in fact conflict), then she
> has the right to defend herself and save her life but in most cases her life
> isn't in jeopardy and thus doesn't have the right to aggress.
If both she and the fetus have a right to life, she could not have a
right to terminate the fetus in order to save her life, because her
inability to carry through the pregnancy without dying is not the result
of force initiated by the fetus.
> >> Do I have the right to murder a person in my home for failing to leave?
> >
> >What were the terms of the contract by which that person entered your
> >home?
>
> No contract. You decided that the person was an invader and decided to kill
> the person.
Please. Your first sentence had nothing to do with terminating fetuses,
but I answered it anyway. Mistake, because you have now changed the
situation from murder to killing invaders. If you want to discuss that
topic, make something cogent out of it. If you still think there is
something here relevant to abortion, explain yourself.
> >If you skim your posts to this thread you will find a clear pattern of
> >reliance on handing over long quotes of others’ writings in lieu of
> >argument in your own words. Often their content bore only a hazy
> >similarity to the specific topic at hand. What you gained in reply-time
> >you lost in understanding-productivity. Cut the cord. I will wait. It
> >will be worth it.
>
> Are you referring to the minarchist/anarchist stuff? If you are then I
> plead guilty. Why put it in my own words when others say it better than me?
> I use quotes because I happen to agree.
You should minimize the use of quotes, because you cannot gain any
benefit from principles with which you agree unless you understand them
and can successfully apply them to situations which were never adressed
by the one with whom you agreed. Substituting quotes for your own
arguments diminishes your capactity to think, which diminishes the value
of your thoughts to those who would debate you, which diminishes both
your sources of ideas and your opportunity to test them, which
diminishes your capacity to evaluate, which diminishes the validity of
your choices, which diminishes the efficacy of your actions, which
diminishes your life...qua man, of course.
> >> The baby is still dependent on others whether
> >> it's inside or outside.
> >
> >The baby is a dependent body part inside the mother. It is a dependent
> >human being outside.
>
> A "body part"? If it's a baby like you say, then it shouldn't be aggressed
> unless you support infanticide.
The word “baby” has two different meanings in the two different contexts
of 1) inside the womb in which it means “fetus”, and 2) outside the womb
in which it means “child”.
The changes that comprise the development of an individual human being
out of sperm and ovum are continuous. The cutting of the cord is the
only single, physical, inherently objective event in that continuum that
irrevocably changes one set of self-sustaining, self-generating actions
by a distinct, rational, volitional being into two sets of self-
sustaining, self-generating actions by two distinct, rational,
volitional beings. Yes, the differences immediately before and
immediately after that event are all but indiscernable, and you may
dance among those clouds to your heart’s content; but sooner or later
you too will have to land somewhere.
If you have a different line you would like to draw, or if you would
like to draw the same line for reasons which would not be subject to the
shotgun attacks you have made against mine, now would be the perfect
time to do it, and with a little more support than just “for practical
reasons” in tow.
Eric
emic...@my-deja.com wrote in message <7p23du$hmd$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>Most siamese twins have two consciousnesses with varying degrees of
>control over their physical body. While this alone might lead one to
>posit two rights to life, that would ignore the fact that there is -- so
>long as they are connected -- only one body, albeit with multiple sets
>of parts. Since life is not just choice, but rather choice directed
>action, the existence of two consciousness is not as important as the
>fact that the choices of the two can rarely be carried out as separate
>actions. This supports the contention that there is only one life --
>thence only one right -- because there is only one set of choice-
>directed actions.
I'm not sure how decisions are made to control the body but I think it's
irrelevant if there are two minds.
>
>Obviously, given the variety of possible organ- and limb-sharing
>combinations, the answer to “is this one or is this two human beings”
>will not always fall effortlessly into two neat boxes. Since rights are
>necessarily “neat” by definition however, here too I would send the
>separate individual principle to the rescue:
>
>If the twins are medically inseparable there is one right to life. If
>they can be separated, there is one right to life until separation.
>Prior to adulthood, the parents would have their usual responsibilities,
>including the right to choose separation or not. Thereafter, the twin
>consciousnesses would be able to choose to separate and accede to two-
>right status or not. While they are joined, the government would have
>no right to intervene if they differed on any action, including
>separation. That would be their problem. If one portion is able to
>destroy the other portion’s ability to function without destroying
>itself, it could then authorize separation. The worst the surviving
>portion could be accused of is self-maiming, which is not a violation of
>any right.
>
>If you post me back that the two portions should have separate rights to
>life, you better attach some detailed speculations on how our force-
>management agent institution (government) would use force to protect
>and/or punish one separately from the other when situations
>necessitating such action occur.
Why does a problematic legal issue determine who has rights? You seem more
concerned on who enforces rights violations than what the fundamental
criteria for rights are.
You seem to imply that if someone killed one of the twins while not harming
the other one, that this is ok.
>
>> If you support parental obligation then the crib might as
>> well be the womb.
>
>Not until you give me the principle, in the context of rights, by which
>we can validate this assertion.
This depends on when rights start. You say it's when the chord's cut but I
still find this unconvincing by itself. Natural rights supporters would say
that a conscious is required for rights while others such as Peikoff think a
social setting is required for rights. Or it could be a combination of
factors.
Extreme pro-choicers believe in infanticide.
>
>> The baby is dependent on the mother regardless of whether
>> it is in the womb or not.
>
>Dependency is not the source of rights.
What is?
>
>> If
>> the mother's life is in danger (where rights do in fact conflict), then
she
>> has the right to defend herself and save her life but in most cases her
life
>> isn't in jeopardy and thus doesn't have the right to aggress.
>
>If both she and the fetus have a right to life, she could not have a
>right to terminate the fetus in order to save her life, because her
>inability to carry through the pregnancy without dying is not the result
>of force initiated by the fetus.
If the fetus will cause her to die then it has placed her in harm's way
indirectly. Emergency ethics apply here.
>>
>> Are you referring to the minarchist/anarchist stuff? If you are then I
>> plead guilty. Why put it in my own words when others say it better than
me?
>> I use quotes because I happen to agree.
>
>You should minimize the use of quotes, because you cannot gain any
>benefit from principles with which you agree unless you understand them
>and can successfully apply them to situations which were never adressed
>by the one with whom you agreed. Substituting quotes for your own
>arguments diminishes your capactity to think, which diminishes the value
>of your thoughts to those who would debate you, which diminishes both
>your sources of ideas and your opportunity to test them, which
>diminishes your capacity to evaluate, which diminishes the validity of
>your choices, which diminishes the efficacy of your actions, which
>diminishes your life...qua man, of course.
Have you ever read a non-fiction book before? Some authors use quotes
liberally while others don't. Using quotes to support an argument is not
without value in itself. If it annoys you, then that's a different issue.
>> A "body part"? If it's a baby like you say, then it shouldn't be
aggressed
>> unless you support infanticide.
>
>The word “baby” has two different meanings in the two different contexts
>of 1) inside the womb in which it means “fetus”, and 2) outside the womb
>in which it means “child”.
>
>The changes that comprise the development of an individual human being
>out of sperm and ovum are continuous. The cutting of the cord is the
>only single, physical, inherently objective event in that continuum that
>irrevocably changes one set of self-sustaining, self-generating actions
>by a distinct, rational, volitional being into two sets of self-
>sustaining, self-generating actions by two distinct, rational,
>volitional beings. Yes, the differences immediately before and
>immediately after that event are all but indiscernable, and you may
>dance among those clouds to your heart’s content; but sooner or later
>you too will have to land somewhere.
I agree. Wendy McElroy writes,
"An essential characteristic--indeed, a prerequisite--of considering
something to be individual is that it be a discreet entity, a thing in and
of itself. Until the point of birth, however, the fetus is not a separate
entity; it is a biological aspect of the pregnant woman which possesses the
capacity to become discrete. At birth, the fetus is biologically autonomous
and is a self-owner with full individual rights. Although it cannot survive
without assistance, this does not affect its biological independence; it is
simply the dependence that any helpless individual experiences. Let's
rephrase this argument: having a DNA encoding, which is all that is probably
present at the point of conception when rights are assigned, is not
sufficient grounds upon which to claim individual rights.
What is missing? The missing piece is individuality ... auton- omy ... a
biologically discrete person. As long as the fetus is physically within the
woman's body, nourished by the food she eats, sustained by the air she
breathes, dependent upon her circulatory and respiratory system, it cannot
claim individual rights because it is not an individual. It is part of the
woman's body and subject to her discretion.
Birth is the point at which the fetus becomes an actual human being in the
legal sense of that term. There is no point, other than conception, at which
such a clear, objective change occurs in the status of the fetus. All other
changes are a matter of degree rather than of kind and, thus, are inadequate
for legal theory which demands a definable point of enforcement."
Like I said originally, I agree with birth being the legal point of rights
enforcement, but I still find it philosophically unsound.
-Eric
emic...@my-deja.com
Eric <roa...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> emic...@my-deja.com wrote in message <7p23du$hmd$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>
> >Most siamese twins have two consciousnesses with varying degrees of
> >control over their physical body. While this alone might lead one to
> >posit two rights to life, that would ignore the fact that there is -- so
> >long as they are connected -- only one body, albeit with multiple sets
> >of parts. Since life is not just choice, but rather choice directed
> >action, the existence of two consciousness is not as important as the
> >fact that the choices of the two can rarely be carried out as separate
> >actions. This supports the contention that there is only one life --
> >thence only one right -- because there is only one set of choice-
> >directed actions.
>
> I'm not sure how decisions are made to control the body but I think it's
> irrelevant if there are two minds.
I think it is irrelevant that you think something I did not say is
irrelevant.
It is not HOW decisions are made, it is that to the degree there is only
ONE SET of decision-guided actions, there is only one life, and one
right to it.
Yes, there will be mixtures of one-set two-sets, but that I would wager
that will roughly parallel separability.
> >Obviously, given the variety of possible organ- and limb-sharing
> >combinations, the answer to Òis this one or is this two human beingsÓ
> >will not always fall effortlessly into two neat boxes. Since rights are
> >necessarily ÒneatÓ by definition however, here too I would send the
> >separate individual principle to the rescue:
> >
> >If the twins are medically inseparable there is one right to life. If
> >they can be separated, there is one right to life until separation.
> >Prior to adulthood, the parents would have their usual responsibilities,
> >including the right to choose separation or not. Thereafter, the twin
> >consciousnesses would be able to choose to separate and accede to two-
> >right status or not. While they are joined, the government would have
> >no right to intervene if they differed on any action, including
> >separation. That would be their problem. If one portion is able to
> >destroy the other portionÕs ability to function without destroying
> >itself, it could then authorize separation. The worst the surviving
> >portion could be accused of is self-maiming, which is not a violation of
> >any right.
> >
> >If you post me back that the two portions should have separate rights to
> >life, you better attach some detailed speculations on how our force-
> >management agent institution (government) would use force to protect
> >and/or punish one separately from the other when situations
> >necessitating such action occur.
>
> Why does a problematic legal issue determine who has rights?
It doesnÕt.
> You seem to imply that if someone killed one of the twins while not harming
> the other one, that this is ok.
You didnÕt get that out of anything I said. Read it again, and if you
still think so, draw me a map.
> >If both she and the fetus have a right to life, she could not have a
> >right to terminate the fetus in order to save her life, because her
> >inability to carry through the pregnancy without dying is not the result
> >of force initiated by the fetus.
>
> If the fetus will cause her to die then it has placed her in harm's way
> indirectly. Emergency ethics apply here.
You donÕt need emergency ethics, because there is no conflict, because
the fetus has no more rights than her appendix, which can also cause her
to die.
> >> I use quotes because I happen to agree.
> >
> >You should minimize the use of quotes, because you cannot gain any
> >benefit from principles with which you agree unless you understand them
> >and can successfully apply them to situations which were never adressed
> >by the one with whom you agreed. Substituting quotes for your own
> >arguments diminishes your capactity to think, which diminishes the value
> >of your thoughts to those who would debate you, which diminishes both
> >your sources of ideas and your opportunity to test them, which
> >diminishes your capacity to evaluate, which diminishes the validity of
> >your choices, which diminishes the efficacy of your actions, which
> >diminishes your life...qua man, of course.
>
> Have you ever read a non-fiction book before? Some authors use quotes
> liberally while others don't. Using quotes to support an argument is not
> without value in itself. If it annoys you, then that's a different issue.
Quotes are appropriate in histories and biographies, or as
acknowledgements of your source for a particular idea or definition, or
to validate your contention that the quoted person thought this or that.
But offering quotes as rebuttal, as opposed to applying the principles
underlying the quote with which you agree to the particular position you
want to rebut is self-damaging.
> >The changes that comprise the development of an individual human being
> >out of sperm and ovum are continuous. The cutting of the cord is the
> >only single, physical, inherently objective event in that continuum that
> >irrevocably changes one set of self-sustaining, self-generating actions
> >by a distinct, rational, volitional being into two sets of self-
> >sustaining, self-generating actions by two distinct, rational,
> >volitional beings. Yes, the differences immediately before and
> >immediately after that event are all but indiscernable, and you may
> >dance among those clouds to your heartÕs content; but sooner or later
> >you too will have to land somewhere.
> Like I said originally, I agree with birth being the legal point of rights
> enforcement, but I still find it philosophically unsound.
If the purpose of a government and its laws is to subordinate the use of
force to a moral code, how did you come to agree with the idea that it
should be subordinated in spite of your moral code?
Eric
emic...@my-deja.com wrote in message <7p85j1$e2k$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>
>> >If both she and the fetus have a right to life, she could not have a
>> >right to terminate the fetus in order to save her life, because her
>> >inability to carry through the pregnancy without dying is not the result
>> >of force initiated by the fetus.
>>
>> If the fetus will cause her to die then it has placed her in harm's way
>> indirectly. Emergency ethics apply here.
>
>You donÕt need emergency ethics, because there is no conflict, because
>the fetus has no more rights than her appendix, which can also cause her
>to die.
Can you clearly explain when rights do and do not apply, or begin and end?
Start with a rock which is "separate". Then explain why animals don't have
rights. They are separate and have a conscious. The next category would be
a fetus which has brainwaves at 24 weeks I believe and has the capacity to
reason. Siamese twins aren't separate but have two consciousness's. And
then explain why severely mentally retarded or old/senile people have
rights. They are separate but don't have the ability to reason. What
non-arbitrary combination is needed to justify rights?
>> Have you ever read a non-fiction book before? Some authors use quotes
>> liberally while others don't. Using quotes to support an argument is not
>> without value in itself. If it annoys you, then that's a different
issue.
>
>Quotes are appropriate in histories and biographies, or as
>acknowledgements of your source for a particular idea or definition, or
>to validate your contention that the quoted person thought this or that.
>But offering quotes as rebuttal, as opposed to applying the principles
>underlying the quote with which you agree to the particular position you
>want to rebut is self-damaging.
I used the quotes acknowledging a source of particular ideas so there's no
self-damage is occurring. But thanks for looking out for me.
>> Like I said originally, I agree with birth being the legal point of
rights
>> enforcement, but I still find it philosophically unsound.
>
>If the purpose of a government and its laws is to subordinate the use of
>force to a moral code, how did you come to agree with the idea that it
>should be subordinated in spite of your moral code?
>
I find the concept of "rights" unclear in some marginal cases. Even Rand
admitted that the issue of abortion can be argued after the 1st trimester.
And I've already made it clear that governments are morally illegitimate.
If it is funded voluntarily and secession is sanctioned, then it's not a
government, despite the fictional account of Galt's Gulch.
-Eric
Chris Wolf
them slipped though the cracks. Endless apologies.
Eric writes:
>Chris Wolf wrote in message <37b0881...@news.supernews.com>...
>>
>>Different states have different requirements. For example, the state of
>>Michigan, and the state of Arizona would need very different state laws,
>>governing water rights, because of their enormous differences in climate.
>>A common set of Federal laws, wouldn't get the job done.
>Then you would delete the 10th amendment?
Dunno. What's in the 10th amendment?
>>Everyone has the right to self-defense. Everyone does NOT have the right
>>to be a private justice agency. You have the right to defend yourself from
>>attack. You do NOT have the right to then mete out "punishment" or
>>"justice" to your attacker, if there is an existing government to do the
>>job.
>As long as the "government" is just, then I agree. And so do anarchists
>like George Smith. He says,
>
>"Our primary concern should be with the justice of a legal system i.e.,
>with WHAT laws are enforced, not with WHO enforces them. (2) This justice
>can be ascertained by OBJECTIVE standards of right.
>
>If the legal system of an agency (whether governmental or private) is truly
>just as evaluated by objective standards -- and if, by "competition," we
>mean any attempt forcibly to overturn this legal system, replacing it with
>an unjust system -- then our agency may forcibly resist and overthrow the
>outlaw agency, owing to its effort to violate individual rights.
Sure. I have no problem with that. But that is not what is generally
meant by "competing" justice agencies. Normally it means more than one
agency, selling justice in the same geographical area, with the citizens
free to shop around for the justice agency they prefer.
>As I said, however, this right to suppress the outlaw agency has nothing to
>do with the alleged necessity for a final arbiter. Rather, it is simply an
>application of the right of every individual, whether by himself or in
>combination with others, to resist and repel despotism, whatever the source
>of that despotism may be. The pertinent issue, therefore, is not whether we
>need a coercive monopoly to enforce justice; but whether we can determine
>the justice of legal system by objective methods, and whether, having
>objectively condemned a given system as unjust, we can then forcibly resist
>any individual or agency which seeks to impose that system.
You ALWAYS have the right to oppose an unjust system. Period.
>>It can certainly end up that way, but it's also possible for a centralized
>>justice agency to deliver justice. It depends on the prevailing philosophy
>>of the country. With private justice, there is no such possibility.
>Rand's ideal government is a private justice agency.
It is also a monopoly.
>It is voluntarily funded, no?
It is indeed voluntarily funded.
>Do you know of any governments in history that have existed
>without taxation?
No. But the idea of the government as a protector of individual rights, is
also a pretty recent development.
>>>And there's nothing about centralization that creates a just agency.
>>It just makes it possible to have justice, by eliminating the competition.
>Again, anarchists regard competition as the right to overthrow an unjust
>agency.
You always have the right to overthrow an unjust agency. But I don't think
that's what most anarchists mean by "competition."
>>If you want to REPLACE a corrupt institution with a just one, I will cheer
>>you on. What you won't be allowed to do is COMPETE with an existing
>>institution.
>Once a utopian Randian government is in place, then I agree that
>"competitors" don't have the right to offer unjust services.
Or competing services.
>But because
>this is highly unlikely, especially for a lengthy period of time, I agree
>with Smith when he says, "hence, while defending the State in theory, these
>consent-minarchists should oppose all existing governments in practice. And
>this, I dare say, is a kind of minarchism that I can live with quite well --
>for we are more likely to be visited by angels than to find a government
>based on consent."
Can't argue with that.
Eric
Chris Wolf wrote in message <37e4dc00...@news.supernews.com>...
>
>Sure. I have no problem with that. But that is not what is generally
>meant by "competing" justice agencies. Normally it means more than one
>agency, selling justice in the same geographical area, with the citizens
>free to shop around for the justice agency they prefer.
>
>
>that's what most anarchists mean by "competition."
>
>
You might want to read this brief essay if you haven't already. Smith makes
a strong case illustrating why Rand's ideas were anarchist in nature, which
you seem to agree with for the most part.
http://home.att.net/~eknauer/in_defense_of_rational_anarchism.htm
-Eric
Robert J. Kolker
Chris Wolf wrote:
>
> Dunno. What's in the 10th amendment?
Amendment 10: The Powers not delegated to the United States (i.e. the Fed)
by the Constitution nor prohibited by it to the States are reserved to
the States respectively, or to the people.
In short the Fed is only allowed to do what it is * specifically * empowered
to do the the States and the people are allowed to do anything that is
not prohibited.
This amendment was crafted to prevent the Fed from eating up the States.
Historically this has failed, particularly the way the 14-th Amendment is
interpreted by the Federal courts. The States have now become more
like subordinate departments, similar to what is the case in France.
The War Between the States and the way it turned out effectively killed
State sovereignty.
The Fed has now become what the Founders did not want to become, an
over powerful Natzional government. All the sadder for u.
Bob Kolker
Chris Wolf
I always thought George Smith made a lot of sense, so I'll take a look at
it. Thanks!
Eric
Chris Wolf wrote in message <37bc1da9....@news.supernews.com>...
>
>>You might want to read this brief essay if you haven't already. Smith
makes
>>a strong case illustrating why Rand's ideas were anarchist in nature,
which
>>you seem to agree with for the most part.
>>
>>http://home.att.net/~eknauer/in_defense_of_rational_anarchism.htm
>>
>>-Eric
>
>I always thought George Smith made a lot of sense, so I'll take a look at
>it. Thanks!
>
Feel free to pass along any thoughts you may have about the article.
-Eric