• Announcements

    • Michael Stuart Kelly

      New upgrade with simpler interface   05/13/2016

      Once again, the fine folks at IPB made a new upgrade and things might not be where you started to learn they were. However, this is one time where I think they actually improved things for navigation. There are only a few big buttons: When you click on one of those buttons, some other stuff opens up, depending on which button you click. (Later Note: These only appear when zoomed in or in the mode for smartphones/tablets.) I'm learning this as you are, so I suggest you do what I am doing: click on these big buttons, see what they open and fiddle with the software some. Ironically, you will find there is a lot that is intuitive. That's what I'm discovering. (Later note: I just discovered that I was viewing the site zoomed in too far to see the normal view. The menus are still there with the old buttons, but when I zoom in too much, they disappear and the new buttons appear. I believe this zoomed in way is what the site looks like on mobile devices. I'm going to mess with it some more, then maybe make some explanations.) Sorry for the inconvenience. Still, over time, I hope you end up liking these changes. Michael
BaalChatzaf

Please tell me as clearly as you can: What makes a law objective

28 posts in this topic

What makes a law objectives over and above the clarity of its statement the the definiteness of its objective and application?

If clarity of language, definiteness of application and definiteness of objective is what makes a law objective, then the Nazi racial laws were quite "objective".

Ba'al Chatzaf

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my assorted discussions on this topic in various forums I have concluded there are two basic forms of law - not necessarily correctly named.

Objective Law - intended to fairly protect the fundamental rights of individuals dealing with other individuals and greater society.

Arbitrary Law - intended for society directed goals or for ease or clarity of application/enforcement of law in general – law based on utility rather than ideals.

A 2 cent version of endless discussions.

Dennis

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gentlemen:

There is also the common law concept of:

Malum in se (plural mala in se) is a Latin phrase meaning wrong or evil in itself. The phrase is used to refer to conduct assessed as sinful or inherently wrong by nature, independent of regulations governing the conduct. It is distinguished from malum prohibitum, which is wrong only because it is prohibited.

For example, most human beings feel that murder, rape, and theft is wrong, regardless of whether a law governs such conduct or where the conduct occurs, and is thus recognizably malum in se. In contrast, consider driving laws. In the U.S., people drive on the right-hand side of the road. In the UK and other states of the Commonwealth, people drive on the left-hand side. Violation of these rules is an example of a malum prohibitum law because the act is not inherently bad, but is forbidden by law, as set forth by the lawmakers of the jurisdiction. Malum prohibitum crimes are criminal not because they are inherently bad, but because the act is prohibited by the law of the state.

This concept was used to develop the various common law offences.[1]

Another way to describe the underlying conceptual difference between "malum in se" and "malum prohibitum" is "iussum quia iustum" and "iustum quia iussum," namely something that is commanded (iussum) because it is just (iustum) and something that is just (iustum) because it is commanded (iussum).

This differs from Malum prohibitum (plural mala prohibita, literal translation: "wrong [as or because] prohibited") is a Latin phrase used in Law to refer to conduct that constitutes an unlawful act only by virtue of statute,[1] as opposed to conduct evil in and of itself, or malum in se.[2] Conduct that was is clearly violative of society's standards for allowable conduct that it is illegal under English common law is usually regarded as "malum in se". An offense that is malum prohibitum may not appear on the face to directly violate moral standards. The distinction between these two cases is discussed in State of Washington v. Thaddius X. Anderson[3]:

Criminal offenses can be broken down into two general categories
malum in se
and
malum prohibitum
. The distinction between
malum in se
and
malum prohibitum
offenses is best characterized as follows: a
malum in se
offense is "naturally evil as adjudged by the sense of a civilized community," whereas a
malum prohibitum
offense is wrong only because a statute makes it so.
State v. Horton
, 139 N.C. 588, 51 S.E. 945, 946 (1905).

"Public welfare offenses" are a subset of
malum prohibitum
offenses as they are typically regulatory in nature and often "'result in no direct or immediate injury to person or property but merely create the danger or probability of it which the law seeks to minimize.'" Bash, 130 Wn.2d at 607 (quoting Morissette v. United States, 342 U.S. 246, 255-56, 72 S. Ct. 240, 96 L. Ed. 288 (1952)); see also State v. Carty, 27 Wn. App. 715, 717, 620 P.2d 137 (1980).

Some examples of mala prohibita include parking violations, copyright violations, tax laws, cultural taboos, and doing certain things without a license.

It seems to me that the second "prohibitum" may be the objective law that you are referring too.

Whereas the common law could be viewed by Objectivists as the "objective" law in that it relates to what all moral persons would consider "wrong," similar to the Aristotelian concept of "common sense."

Adam

hope this helps

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gentlemen:

There is also the common law concept of:

Malum in se (plural mala in se) is a Latin phrase meaning wrong or evil in itself. The phrase is used to refer to conduct assessed as sinful or inherently wrong by nature, independent of regulations governing the conduct. It is distinguished from malum prohibitum, which is wrong only because it is prohibited.

For example, most human beings feel that murder, rape, and theft is wrong, regardless of whether a law governs such conduct or where the conduct occurs, and is thus recognizably malum in se. In contrast, consider driving laws. In the U.S., people drive on the right-hand side of the road. In the UK and other states of the Commonwealth, people drive on the left-hand side. Violation of these rules is an example of a malum prohibitum law because the act is not inherently bad, but is forbidden by law, as set forth by the lawmakers of the jurisdiction. Malum prohibitum crimes are criminal not because they are inherently bad, but because the act is prohibited by the law of the state.

This concept was used to develop the various common law offences.[1]

Another way to describe the underlying conceptual difference between "malum in se" and "malum prohibitum" is "iussum quia iustum" and "iustum quia iussum," namely something that is commanded (iussum) because it is just (iustum) and something that is just (iustum) because it is commanded (iussum).

This differs from Malum prohibitum (plural mala prohibita, literal translation: "wrong [as or because] prohibited") is a Latin phrase used in Law to refer to conduct that constitutes an unlawful act only by virtue of statute,[1] as opposed to conduct evil in and of itself, or malum in se.[2] Conduct that was is clearly violative of society's standards for allowable conduct that it is illegal under English common law is usually regarded as "malum in se". An offense that is malum prohibitum may not appear on the face to directly violate moral standards. The distinction between these two cases is discussed in State of Washington v. Thaddius X. Anderson[3]:

Criminal offenses can be broken down into two general categories
malum in se
and
malum prohibitum
. The distinction between
malum in se
and
malum prohibitum
offenses is best characterized as follows: a
malum in se
offense is "naturally evil as adjudged by the sense of a civilized community," whereas a
malum prohibitum
offense is wrong only because a statute makes it so.
State v. Horton
, 139 N.C. 588, 51 S.E. 945, 946 (1905).

"Public welfare offenses" are a subset of
malum prohibitum
offenses as they are typically regulatory in nature and often "'result in no direct or immediate injury to person or property but merely create the danger or probability of it which the law seeks to minimize.'" Bash, 130 Wn.2d at 607 (quoting Morissette v. United States, 342 U.S. 246, 255-56, 72 S. Ct. 240, 96 L. Ed. 288 (1952)); see also State v. Carty, 27 Wn. App. 715, 717, 620 P.2d 137 (1980).

Some examples of mala prohibita include parking violations, copyright violations, tax laws, cultural taboos, and doing certain things without a license.

It seems to me that the second "prohibitum" may be the objective law that you are referring too.

Whereas the common law could be viewed by Objectivists as the "objective" law in that it relates to what all moral persons would consider "wrong," similar to the Aristotelian concept of "common sense."

Adam

hope this helps

Yeah - what he said.

Dennis

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What makes a law objectives over and above the clarity of its statement the the definiteness of its objective and application?

If clarity of language, definiteness of application and definiteness of objective is what makes a law objective, then the Nazi racial laws were quite "objective".

Ba'al Chatzaf

This is quite an intricate question because "objective" is mostly used referring to the factual, to verifiable data, etc.

In that sense (as you have mentioned above) the Nazi racial laws were "objective" in that these laws actually existed.

The mere objective existence of a law is one thing, the rationality (or irrationality) of the law, its ethical value (measured against a certain standard, like e. g. anti-racist, anti-cruelty) is another thing.

Imo "objective" needs therefore be completed by additional info, like for example: can a law be be justified as objectively as possible because it carefully takes into consideration a certain stage of knowledge that has been reached, the stage of ethical development that has been reached, etc.

In other words: do there exist objective justifications for a law?

Since laws change and evolve as we cultrurally evolve, things are in a constant flow. It makes therefore sense to work with the contextuality of "objective": given the context of a certain knowledge/ethical/political development one can try to 'make the case' pro or contra certain laws.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In other words do there exist objective justifications for a law?

I break it down into objective justifications/arbitrary utility justifications.

3rd class of bad law fitting neither can be quite large.

Dennis

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What makes a law objectives over and above the clarity of its statement the the definiteness of its objective and application?

If clarity of language, definiteness of application and definiteness of objective is what makes a law objective, then the Nazi racial laws were quite "objective".

Ba'al Chatzaf

About "objective law".

Theory 1:

That seems to be correct. Nazi racial laws apparently were objective. From Ayn Rand Lexicon.

All laws must be objective (and objectively justifiable): men must know clearly, and in advance of taking an action, what the law forbids them to do (and why), what constitutes a crime and what penalty they will incur if they commit it.

Theory 2:

Objective Law

This is a law that is discovered, not invented. For example a law in physics. It can be proved by evidence. It does not require police to enforce it. You can't violate it. A violation of this law (if that could be done) would not be a crime but a miracle.

Non-objective Law

This is a law that is invented, not discovered. For example a law made by government. A violation of this law is a crime. There ain't no such thing as objective government law.

Theory 3:

Ayn Rand couldn't dazzle us with brilliance so she tried to baffle us with bullshit.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
For example a law in physics. It can be proved by evidence.

A physical law is a general statement about the way the natural world works. This use of the word "law" is totally disjoint from "law" meaning rules of what is permitted or prohibited in society. The former is about the actual factual workings of nature. That latter are rules made by humans to regulate humans. The two uses are 100 % disjoint.

Ba'al Chatzaf

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What makes a law objectives over and above the clarity of its statement the the definiteness of its objective and application? If clarity of language, definiteness of application and definiteness of objective is what makes a law objective, then the Nazi racial laws were quite "objective". Ba'al Chatzaf
About "objective law". Theory 1: That seems to be correct. Nazi racial laws apparently were objective. From Ayn Rand Lexicon.
All laws must be objective (and objectively justifiable): men must know clearly, and in advance of taking an action, what the law forbids them to do (and why), what constitutes a crime and what penalty they will incur if they commit it.
Theory 2: Objective Law This is a law that is discovered, not invented. For example a law in physics. It can be proved by evidence. It does not require police to enforce it. You can't violate it. A violation of this law (if that could be done) would not be a crime but a miracle. Non-objective Law This is a law that is invented, not discovered. For example a law made by government. A violation of this law is a crime. There ain't no such thing as objective government law. Theory 3: Ayn Rand couldn't dazzle us with brilliance so she tried to baffle us with bullshit.
What makes a law objectives over and above the clarity of its statement the the definiteness of its objective and application? If clarity of language, definiteness of application and definiteness of objective is what makes a law objective, then the Nazi racial laws were quite "objective". Ba'al Chatzaf
About "objective law". Theory 1: That seems to be correct. Nazi racial laws apparently were objective. From Ayn Rand Lexicon.
All laws must be objective (and objectively justifiable): men must know clearly, and in advance of taking an action, what the law forbids them to do (and why), what constitutes a crime and what penalty they will incur if they commit it.
Theory 2: Objective Law This is a law that is discovered, not invented. For example a law in physics. It can be proved by evidence. It does not require police to enforce it. You can't violate it. A violation of this law (if that could be done) would not be a crime but a miracle. Non-objective Law This is a law that is invented, not discovered. For example a law made by government. A violation of this law is a crime. There ain't no such thing as objective government law. Theory 3: Ayn Rand couldn't dazzle us with brilliance so she tried to baffle us with bullshit.

No, she's seldom been clearer. I remain quite under-baffled.

Did you read any further on that Lexicon page?

"It is a grave error to suppose that a dictatorship rules a nation by means of strict, rigid laws which are obeyed and enforced with rigorous military precision, Such a rule would be evil, but almost bearable; men would endure the harshest edicts, provided these edicts were known, specific and stable; it is not the known that

breaks men's spirits, but the unpredictable. A dictatorship has to be capricious..." [AR]

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Objective law has two meanings: that it is objectively evident when someone breaks the law, or that a particular law is objectively justifiable. The latter is the one to question, and the one which I'm assuming this thread was made to analyze.

If the purpose of the law is to impose justice on society, then the question is, "What is objective justice?" or more specifically, "What would be the objective hierarchy of individuals' rights?"

Which right is greater: a person's to whistle in public, or a person's to peace and quiet in public?

While there may exist an objective answer, there may never exist universal agreements on such issues. Does anyone have anything to add or correct me on?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
For example a law in physics. It can be proved by evidence.
A physical law is a general statement about the way the natural world works. This use of the word "law" is totally disjoint from "law" meaning rules of what is permitted or prohibited in society. The former is about the actual factual workings of nature. That latter are rules made by humans to regulate humans. The two uses are 100 % disjoint. Ba'al Chatzaf

That's exactly it: if one can show as AR did that it is the law of identity (of human nature) that ultimately

defines his laws, you have the "actual factual workings of nature" as objective law.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Binswanger defined objective law in this article in the Fall of 1990:

#7 Fall 1990 Page 1
WHAT IS OBJECTIVE LAW?

Harry Binswanger
[see also a later version of this article at (Vol. 6, No. 1, January 1992 of The Intellectual Activist (www.intellectualactivist.com)]

__________________________________
A law is a rule of social conduct enforced by the government. In distinction to all other social rules and practices, laws are backed up by the government's legal monopoly on the use of physical force. Breaking the rules of a business, fraternal organization, educational institution, or other voluntary association may meet with disapproval, loss of privileges, or expulsion, but only a government can enforce its rules by subjecting those who break them to fines, imprisonment, and, ultimately, death. (Any fines levied by private organizations are enforceable only via the government's enforcement of contracts.)
In order to define a standard for evaluating law, one must refer to the purpose of government. In "The Nature of Government," Ayn Rand writes: "Since the protection of individual rights is the only proper purpose of a government, it is the only proper subject of legislation: all laws must be based on individual rights and aimed at their protection."
1
Rights can be violated only by the initiation of physical force. A proper, moral government limits its use of physical force to retaliating against those who initiate its use, in violation of rights.
By its monopoly on the use of physical force, a government is potentially the greatest rights-violator in a society. The threat to rights posed by private criminals is small compared to the threat posed by governments, as the mass slaughters perpetrated by statist governments throughout history testify. It is essential, therefore, that the government's use of physical force be "rigidly defined, delimited and circumscribed; no touch of whim or caprice

should be permitted in its performance; it should be an impersonal robot, with the laws as its only motive power."
2
This is the basis of the need for objective law. Laws must be objective in both derivation and form. And in both respects, "objective" refers to that which is based on a rational consideration of the relevant facts---as opposed to the subjective, the arbitrary, the whim-based.
<a href="
http://www.tafol.org/bulletins/b07.html">http://www.tafol.org/bulletins/b07.html

It is certainly one point of view.

Adam

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Binswanger defined objective law in this article in the Fall of 1990:

#7 Fall 1990 Page 1
WHAT IS OBJECTIVE LAW?

Harry Binswanger

[see also a later version of this article at (Vol. 6, No. 1, January 1992 of The Intellectual Activist (www.intellectualactivist.com)]

__________________________________

A law is a rule of social conduct enforced by the government. In distinction to all other social rules and practices, laws are backed up by the government's legal monopoly on the use of physical force. Breaking the rules of a business, fraternal organization, educational institution, or other voluntary association may meet with disapproval, loss of privileges, or expulsion, but only a government can enforce its rules by subjecting those who break them to fines, imprisonment, and, ultimately, death. (Any fines levied by private organizations are enforceable only via the government's enforcement of contracts.)
In order to define a standard for evaluating law, one must refer to the purpose of government. In "The Nature of Government," Ayn Rand writes: "Since the protection of individual rights is the only proper purpose of a government, it is the only proper subject of legislation: all laws must be based on individual rights and aimed at their protection."
1
Rights can be violated only by the initiation of physical force. A proper, moral government limits its use of physical force to retaliating against those who initiate its use, in violation of rights.
By its monopoly on the use of physical force, a government is potentially the greatest rights-violator in a society. The threat to rights posed by private criminals is small compared to the threat posed by governments, as the mass slaughters perpetrated by statist governments throughout history testify. It is essential, therefore, that the government's use of physical force be "rigidly defined, delimited and circumscribed; no touch of whim or caprice

should be permitted in its performance; it should be an impersonal robot, with the laws as its only motive power."2

This is the basis of the need for objective law. Laws must be objective in both derivation and form. And in both respects, "objective" refers to that which is based on a rational consideration of the relevant facts---as opposed to the subjective, the arbitrary, the whim-based.
<a href="
http://www.tafol.org/bulletins/b07.html">http://www.tafol.org/bulletins/b07.html

It is certainly one point of view.

Adam

Straight out of Hobbe's Leviathan.

In short, it is GORT, the robot from The Day The Earth Stood Still that will rule us.

GORT! B'ringa!

Klaatu Barada Nicto!

Ba'al Chatzaf

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Straight out of Hobbe's Leviathan.

In short, it is GORT, the robot from The Day The Earth Stood Still that will rule us.

GORT! B'ringa!

Klaatu Barada Nicto!

Patricia Neal had to do that scene over and over again because when she tried to say those words she kept breaking out in laughter.

Objective law is only objective respecting its congruence to a philosophy--any philosophy. Congruence to reality is too big a jump. An intermediary is needed. In a system designed to protect individual rights--we can call that Objectivism though it's not the only applicable ism--"objective law" is a confusing redundancy.

--Brant

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Binswanger defined objective law in this article in the Fall of 1990:

#7 Fall 1990 Page 1
WHAT IS OBJECTIVE LAW?

Harry Binswanger

[see also a later version of this article at (Vol. 6, No. 1, January 1992 of The Intellectual Activist (www.intellectualactivist.com)]

<...> In "The Nature of Government," Ayn Rand writes: "Since the protection of individual rights is the only proper purpose of a government, it is the only proper subject of legislation: all laws must be based on individual rights and aimed at their protection."
1
Rights can be violated only by the initiation of physical force. A proper, moral government limits its use of physical force to retaliating against those who initiate its use, in violation of rights.

If the government is solely seen as the protector of individual rights, who decides what kind of rights are to be bestowed upon whom?
Take the right to private property for example:
Imo to argue that in today's modern civilized societies, real estate property is already regulated via ownership deeds, etc. does not address the core problem:
Who is it that can claim ownership to e. g. a piece of land? Is it the one who happened to have been there first and claimed "This is mine"? If yes, then a lot property would have to be given back to the original inhabitants of the five continents ...
:smile:
Land ownership would also pose quite a problem in an anarchist society. Imagine five anarchists, each of them wanting to settle down in undeveloped land belonging to no one yet. Can each anarchist claim individual right to ownership? Right of ownership bestowed by whom?
They cannot agree on who is going to own the piece of land. What do they do?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the government is solely seen as the protector of individual rights, who decides what kind of rights are to be bestowed upon whom?
Take the right to private property for example:
Imo to argue that in today's modern civilized societies, real estate property is already regulated via ownership deeds, etc. does not address the core problem:
Who is it that can claim ownership to e. g. a piece of land? Is it the one who happened to have been there first and claimed "This is mine"? If yes, then a lot property would have to be given back to the original inhabitants of the five continents ...
:smile:
Land ownership would also pose quite a problem in an anarchist society. Imagine five anarchists, each of them wanting to settle down in undeveloped land belongng to no one yet. Can each anarchist claim individual right to ownership? Right of ownership bestowed by whom?
They cannot agree on who is going to own the piece of land. What do they do?

The reason that the Indians lost their land to the White Eyes is because those savages never invented property rights and deeds.

Apparently hunting and otherwise using the land for ten thousand years was not a sufficient claim.

Ba'al Chatzaf

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If the government is solely seen as the protector of individual rights, who decides what kind of rights are to be bestowed upon whom?

Take the right to private property for example:

Imo to argue that in today's modern civilized societies, real estate property is already regulated via ownership deeds, etc. does not address the core problem:

Who is it that can claim ownership to e. g. a piece of land? Is it the one who happened to have been there first and claimed "This is mine"? If yes, then a lot property would have to be given back to the original inhabitants of the five continents ...
:smile:

Land ownership would also pose quite a problem in an anarchist society. Imagine five anarchists, each of them wanting to settle down in undeveloped land belongng to no one yet. Can each anarchist claim individual right to ownership? Right of ownership bestowed by whom?

They cannot agree on who is going to own the piece of land. What do they do?

The reason that the Indians lost their land to the White Eyes is because those savages never invented property rights and deeds. Apparently hunting and otherwise using the land for ten thousand years was not a sufficient claim. Ba'al Chatzaf

A: "All property is theft!!"

B: "Uh-huh - theft from whom?"

A: "Why, from the people, of course!"

B: "And who did they steal it from?"

Anytime you guys want to return your properties to their original,

rightful owners, I'm sure nobody will get in your way.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Binswanger defined objective law in this article in the Fall of 1990:

#7 Fall 1990 Page 1
WHAT IS OBJECTIVE LAW?

Harry Binswanger

[see also a later version of this article at (Vol. 6, No. 1, January 1992 of The Intellectual Activist (www.intellectualactivist.com)]

<...> In "The Nature of Government," Ayn Rand writes: "Since the protection of individual rights is the only proper purpose of a government, it is the only proper subject of legislation: all laws must be based on individual rights and aimed at their protection."
1
Rights can be violated only by the initiation of physical force. A proper, moral government limits its use of physical force to retaliating against those who initiate its use, in violation of rights.

If the government is solely seen as the protector of individual rights, who decides what kind of rights are to be bestowed upon whom?
Take the right to private property for example:
Imo to argue that in today's modern civilized societies, real estate property is already regulated via ownership deeds, etc. does not address the core problem:
Who is it that can claim ownership to e. g. a piece of land? Is it the one who happened to have been there first and claimed "This is mine"? If yes, then a lot property would have to be given back to the original inhabitants of the five continents ...
:smile:
Land ownership would also pose quite a problem in an anarchist society. Imagine five anarchists, each of them wanting to settle down in undeveloped land belonging to no one yet. Can each anarchist claim individual right to ownership? Right of ownership bestowed by whom?
They cannot agree on who is going to own the piece of land. What do they do?

Isn't it when you mix your labor with unclaimed material that it becomes yours? (claimed?) Rules for untouched resources were not needed when everything was abundant, now that a lot of stuff is scarce we treat it as a commodity even before it's been turned into something of use.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't it when you mix your labor with unclaimed material that it becomes yours?

I'm interested in the political justification of "unclaimed material + labor of individual X resulting in the material becoming the property of X.

Even if one accepted this, what does one do in the case of several individuals wanting to own the same patch of unclaimed land?

(See my above exampe with the five anarchists)?

(claimed?) Rules for untouched resources were not needed when everything was abundant, now that a lot of stuff is scarce we treat it as a commodity even before it's been turned into something of use.

But wasn't it mostly scarce resources that drove our stone-age ancestors to battle each other?

The "everything was there in adundance" reminds me more of a paradise-like idyll that exists only in the head. Since many of the natives populating those 'idylls' waged wars on other tribes, there must have existed conflicts about the distribution of resources that at first glance look "abundant".

The biological explanation of the human urge to "possess" something is easy: the one who possesses something furthering his life (a piece of meat for example) has a survival advantage over the one who does not

How strong this impulse is still vivid in us one can see e. g. each time people flock to the freshly opened delicious buffet at festive occasions.

Although the danger of starving does not exist anymore for the nobel laureate swiftly trying to be first in line with his plate, the laureate is driven by the same impulse that drove his stone-age ancestor: to get the best bite fast, before others grab it. :smile:

But I doubt that a political justification for property can work on the sole basis of "man's survival".

Arguing form biology alone has many snags.

Religion too has been used to justify ownership:

The highly influential New England Puritan minister John Cotton (1585-1652), in "God's Promise to his Plantation":

"If therefore any Sonne of Adam come and find a place empty, he hath liberty to come, and fill, and subdue the earth there."

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm interested in the political justification of "unclaimed material + labor of individual X resulting in the material becoming the property of X.

Even if one accepted this, what does one do in the case of several individuals wanting to own the same patch of unclaimed land?

By the time people are arguing about where to live, they've already got stuff to trade. A resource and a commodity aren't the same because a commodity is the result of a resource + work. A piece of meat cannot be claimed without hunting for it, or trading for it with someone who did the hunting.

With the five anarchists, I imagine it'd be like an auction (even though the scenario would never happen). One of them would say, "Alright, I'll give you four $10 000 if you go and build a house somewhere else and let me have this."

Resources have not been treated as super valuable until semi-recently. Consider that steel was once worth more than gold, which indicates that effective work was more scarce than raw materials. Now that we're much more advanced, there's so many uses for raw materials and less of them to go around.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A: "All property is theft!!"

B: "Uh-huh - theft from whom?"

A: "Why, from the people, of course!"

B: "And who did they steal it from?"

Anytime you guys want to return your properties to their original,

rightful owners, I'm sure nobody will get in your way.

Does it say anything in AS about who was the "rightful owner" of the gulch where Galt & friends ensconced themselves? :wink:

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A: "All property is theft!!"

B: "Uh-huh - theft from whom?"

A: "Why, from the people, of course!"

B: "And who did they steal it from?"

Anytime you guys want to return your properties to their original,

rightful owners, I'm sure nobody will get in your way.

Does it say anything in AS about who was the "rightful owner" of the gulch where Galt & friends ensconced themselves? :wink:

Yes, Midas Mulligan...

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Objective law has two meanings: that it is objectively evident when someone breaks the law, or that a particular law is objectively justifiable. The latter is the one to question, and the one which I'm assuming this thread was made to analyze.

If the purpose of the law is to impose justice on society, then the question is, "What is objective justice?" or more specifically, "What would be the objective hierarchy of individuals' rights?"

Which right is greater: a person's to whistle in public, or a person's to peace and quiet in public?

While there may exist an objective answer, there may never exist universal agreements on such issues. Does anyone have anything to add or correct me on?

Good thinking.

Objectivity and the Rule of Law

(& from H. Binswanger)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does it say anything in AS about who was the "rightful owner" of the gulch where Galt & friends ensconced themselves? :wink:

Yes, Midas Mulligan...

Thanks for the Info, Adam. I seem to have forgotten quite a bit of what it says in AS; I've only read the book once, past the age of fifty (where the brain's capacity to store new info is already slowing down). But such is life.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't it when you mix your labor with unclaimed material that it becomes yours?

I'm interested in the political justification of "unclaimed material + labor of individual X resulting in the material becoming the property of X.

From John Locke's Second Treatise of Government, Chapter V "Of Property":

Sect. 27. Though the earth, and all inferior creatures, be common to all men, yet every man has a property in his own person: this no body has any right to but himself. The labour of his body, and the work of his hands, we may say, are properly his. Whatsoever then he removes out of the state that nature hath provided, and left it in, he hath mixed his labour with, and joined to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his property. It being by him removed from the common state nature hath placed it in, it hath by this labour something annexed to it, that excludes the common right of other men: for this labour being the unquestionable property of the labourer, no man but he can have a right to what that is once joined to, at least where there is enough, and as good, left in common for others.

But what about descendants who inherit a property without having laboured on it? Going by Locke's principles outlined above, they would have no right of ownership then?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now