Standing naked on my property

[Wolf DeVoon]

under pure laissez-faire, people would be free to rely on mere statements or statements coupled with evidence. In the long-run, which would better serve them?

Further discussion here.

Completely misguided, sir. One of multiple errors in "polycentric" hokum.

Comment forums are little better than slander, lacking rules of evidence, testimony in open court, cross-examination, and enforceable penalties for perjury. I can scarcely think of a worse mechanism of due process, than the "moral suasion" of a toothless, gossiping wall newspaper. [Laissez Faire Law, p.65]

An extraordinary display of ‘agents of foreign influence’ has been erected in Crimea, denouncing Russian opposition figures such as the Pussy Riot singers, implying they are tools of the West. It is unknown who is behind the controversial ‘wall of shame’ which appeared at Simferopol Airport and railway station, but it evokes memories of the vilification of supposed traitors from Stalin times.

http://www.therightplanet.com/2014/04/putins-critics-are-denounced-in-a-soviet-style-wall-of-shame-in-crimea

On May 25, 1966, at Beijing University, Nie Yuanzi and six others put up a "°big-character poster" attacking the authorities of Beijing University for being "members of a black gang," putting out a call to "firmly, thoroughly, cleanly, and totally eliminate any ox-ghosts and snake-demons." On the evening of June 1, 1966, the Central People's Radio Station broadcast the text of this poster. The poster sent a shock wave throughout the country. Students took Beijing University as their example and started attacking the authorities of their schools with the same set of words... Students were encouraged write "big-character posters" to "expose" their teachers. In addition to political terms such as "counterrevolutionary, anti-party, anti-socialist, anti-Maoist," and so on, they also used derogatory words (such as "pig" or "poisonous snake") to condemn their teachers. Almost every teacher was attacked verbally on the big-character posters or at the "exposing and denouncing meetings." The teachers who were accused were not allowed to defend themselves... I am not able to calculate how many educators died from the persecutions during the first three years of the Cultural Revolution. Anecdotal evidence does, however, give us a glimpse into the extent of the violent prosecution. For instance, according to one interviewee, at the First Gate of Building No. 9 (a dormitory for average teachers and staff of Beijing Agricultural University), where a total of only eleven families lived, five people committed suicide between 1966 and 1968.

http://hum.uchicago.edu/faculty/ywang/history/1966teacher.htm

[Francisco Ferrer]

I am not at all sure what polycentrism has to do with questioning the legitimacy of libel and slander codes. The case against defamation laws is the logical outcome of an attempt to arrive at a legal system grounded entirely in individual rights. To be clear, laws protecting a person's reputation are incompatible with free speech.

No doubt some may not be entirely comfortable biding adieu to our venerable anti-defamation laws. But can they answer this question, how do we arrive at a law that preserves reputation against falsehoods unless we grant one man ownership over another's opinions?

[Wolf DeVoon]

how do we arrive at a law that preserves reputation against falsehoods unless we grant one man ownership over another's opinions?

I don't think you're interested in the answer. A sues B. A jury decides whether to award damages.

[Wolf DeVoon]

... incompatible with free speech.

I am not in favor of free speech. Nor do I believe that free speech exists in contemporary society. Speech is the weapon of broadcasters... As far as I'm concerned, CBS is a predatory force and their NY headquarters should be short-listed for a surgical strike. [ibid, p.45]

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

.If the Lord had wanted people to run around naked, he'd of had them born without clothes.

Stephen,

That's really cute.

I haven't heard it in decades, and it still pushes a smile in me to emerge.

Michael

[Extropy]

Some people would consider a fully clothed obese person shopping for chocolate covered potato chips on a scooter a lot more offensive, or obscene, than a venus or an adonis sun tanning in the nude.

[Francisco Ferrer]

how do we arrive at a law that preserves reputation against falsehoods unless we grant one man ownership over another's opinions?

I don't think you're interested in the answer. A sues B. A jury decides whether to award damages.

I am not in favor of free speech. Nor do I believe that free speech exists in contemporary society. Speech is the weapon of broadcasters... As far as I'm concerned, CBS is a predatory force and their NY headquarters should be short-listed for a surgical strike. [ibid, p.45]

Trial by jury is an excellent system for settling disputes. But before a case can be sent to a jury, it has to have cause of action, i.e. some basis in rights. For example, Reader A could not reasonably sue Author B because B killed off A's favorite character. Even if the jury were sympathetic to him, A has no legitimate claim to how another person's novel is written.

Similarly, we have no moral authority to ask a jury to decide whether X should be compensated for Y's loose talk about X's sexual preferences. Individual rights are logically derived from self-ownership and the property one further acquires through labor and trade. X cannot claim a right to control what the public may think of him or his alleged non-conformist sexuality, unless he has through previous voluntary agreements been granted legal control over the separate opinions of each member of the public.

I suppose it might be possible to create a society which is free in every respect except speech. It's just that my limited imagination is having trouble envisioning it.

[Wolf DeVoon]

Individual rights are logically derived from self-ownership

You assert it. It cannot be proved, and the claim is full of exceptions for infants, incompetents, and persons convicted of felony.

Initiation of force is not limited to small children. If I pass out, have a stroke, or crash my car, I will have no power

to resist what's done to me by others. If I'm called for jury duty, I have to appear in court. [COGIGG, p.46]

To me, it seems plain that women and men have contrary moral purposes... Liberty means actual, substantive moral

freedom, equal to one's powers. It is impossible to abuse power which you do not possess. [Laissez Faire Law, p.213]

[Francisco Ferrer]

Granted, self-ownership is a theory. However, it has the advantage of being more reasonable and feasible than the alternatives:

1. One person or a few people in society own everybody else

2. We all own our own bodies and every other person's body

3. No person owns his own or any other person's body

The alternatives lead to dictatorship; a chaos in which rape and murder would have to go unpunished; or a society in which starvation would quickly ensue.

As to the alleged exceptions, everyone, regardless of age becomes emancipated when he declares himself so. Criminals (and by that I mean real, property-violating criminals, not outlaws in a no-free speech dystopia) have forfeited their rights (short or long-term) by trespassing on the rights of others.

Involuntary jury service, like the draft, should be abolished.

[Wolf DeVoon]

Granted, self-ownership is a theory. However, it has the advantage of being more reasonable and feasible that the alternatives:

1. One person or a few people in society own everybody else

2. We all own our own bodies and every other person's body

3. No person owns his own or any other person's body

The alternatives lead to dictatorship; a chaos in which rape and murder would have to go unpunished; or a society in which starvation would quickly ensue.

As to the alleged exceptions, everyone, regardless of age becomes emancipated when he declares himself so. Criminals (and by that I mean real, property-violating criminals, not outlaws in a no-free speech dystopia) have forfeited their rights (short or long-term) by trespassing on the rights of others.

I hereby certify that the law cannot catch or deter a clever evildoer. That's not the purpose of law, which exists first as a means of

restraining mob violence, ignorant prejudice, and statist tyranny. If we apprehend a callous predator, from time to time, that's laudatory.

But ending systemic, wholesale injustice is far more urgent, especially the heavy lifting of securing constitutional rights, which are few

in number — no summary punishment, fair trial by jury, no perjury, no secret evidence, and the right of appeal... [COGIGG, p.66]

"Ownership" is not a first principle. Utility is not a yardstick of due process.

[Francisco Ferrer]

I hereby certify that the law cannot catch or deter a clever evildoer. That's not the purpose of law, which exists first as a means of

restraining mob violence, ignorant prejudice, and statist tyranny.

Those are all laudable goals for the law. But we must first ask why mob violence and statist tyranny are immoral. And to do that we have to have first principles, a theory of individual rights.

[Wolf DeVoon]

I hereby certify that the law cannot catch or deter a clever evildoer. That's not the purpose of law, which exists first as a means of

restraining mob violence, ignorant prejudice, and statist tyranny.

Those are all laudable goals for the law. But we must first ask why mob violence and statist tyranny are immoral. And to do that we have to have first principles, a theory of individual rights.

Nope. Mob violence and tyranny frustrate due process.

Honestly, I don't even know why I try. The basic principle is plain, and I get tired of explaining it.

Legal philosophy addresses impersonal administration of public justice, litigation among parties in dispute, the combined might of a community, and custodial guardianship of certain individuals who are unable or legally prohibited to conduct their own affairs. [Preamble, The Freeman's Constitution]

[Francisco Ferrer]

I hereby certify that the law cannot catch or deter a clever evildoer. That's not the purpose of law, which exists first as a means of

restraining mob violence, ignorant prejudice, and statist tyranny.

Those are all laudable goals for the law. But we must first ask why mob violence and statist tyranny are immoral. And to do that we have to have first principles, a theory of individual rights.

Nope. Mob violence and tyranny frustrate due process.

Honestly, I don't even know why I try. The basic principle is plain, and I get tired of explaining it.

Legal philosophy addresses impersonal administration of public justice, litigation among parties in dispute, the combined might of a community, and custodial guardianship of certain individuals who are unable or legally prohibited to conduct their own affairs. [Preamble, The Freeman's Constitution]

Due process is an essential foundation of law. It is not an ultimate end, however, but a means to an end.

[Wolf DeVoon]

You have no idea of what you're saying or what it means. This conversation is finished.

[Francisco Ferrer]

"Ownership" is not a first principle. Utility is not a yardstick of due process.

Not ownership, not utility.

Justice, determining what is properly mine and yours, is a first principle.

[Wolf DeVoon]

determining what is properly mine and yours, is a first principle.

Not even close. Justice is the armed defense of innocent liberty. Has nothing to do with property.

Like I said, this conversation is finished.

[Francisco Ferrer]

Innocent liberty? Liberty to do what? Shoot a man's barking dog? Take fruit from the vines he planted? Confiscate shirts from his clothes line?

Not even the best system of law can serve society unless we first define--through ethical principles--what rightfully belongs to Citizen A.

[George H. Smith]

determining what is properly mine and yours, is a first principle.

Not even close. Justice is the armed defense of innocent liberty. Has nothing to do with property.

Like I said, this conversation is finished.

It appears that Wolf has redefined traditional concepts in the philosophy of law to suit his own tastes, after which he becomes impatient when others are unable to peer into the private world of his mind to figure out what he means. Wolf appears to know little about the history of political and legal philosophy, and even less about the history of libertarian thought. To say that the concept of justice "has nothing to do with property" is an astonishingly silly thing to say; it flies in the face of around 2000 years of western legal thinking; and it ignores the crucial connection between justice and property that has existed throughout 4 centuries of classical liberal/libertarian thought.

FF has a much better grasp of these issues.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

Sorry to keep making so many new threads but you guys/gals have such amazing viewpoints and you always keep me thinking. The other night I was watching Redeye and they were debating a story about a man who was arrested for being naked in his front yard. From an Objectivist viewpoint should he be allowed to stand in his front yard naked?

Thanks,

David C.

If the man is a laughing, brilliant, unappreciated architect, then the answer is yes.

Ghs

One qualifier, George: said architect must be standing on the edge of a cliff. His own cliff.

The issue of Roark naked on a cliff was discussed around 4 years ago on OL. This post by me will take you to the thread.

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=8558&page=3#entry97607

Ghs

[Brant Gaede]

Property consists of things you possess. It can be created, found, kept, traded--or taken (by force). The use of force concerns the area of political philosophy. Public justice concerns the effective and right use of retaliatory force. The concept of justice is much broader than that and can have extremely serious revenge aspects. From the proper standpoint of law, law is used to create and maintain social peace by obviating the need for private justice, whatever that might consist of. See: the Hatfields and McCoys.

--Brant

[George H. Smith]

Property consists of things you possess. It can be created, found, kept, traded--or taken (by force). The use of force concerns the area of political philosophy. Public justice concerns the effective and right use of retaliatory force. The concept of justice is much broader than that and can have extremely serious revenge aspects. From the proper standpoint of law, law is used to create and maintain social peace by obviating the need for private justice, whatever that might consist of. See: the Hatfields and McCoys.

--Brant

A classic definition of justice, which is found in ancient Roman law, is "rendering to each man his own." Despite some problems born of brevity, this statement is essentially how libertarians have conceived of justice for centuries; and the notion of one's "own" involves the notion of "property" (or "propriety" or "proprietorship") in the classic sense of exclusive moral jurisdiction over something, including one's body, labor, fruits of one's labor, etc. (For more on this notion of "property" see the last half of my Cato Essay here. )

Your notion of "public justice" is confusing. Justice necessarily pertains to interpersonal relationships (one cannot be unjust to oneself), so all justice is "public" in that sense. But even in your sense of "public," both the public and private enforcement of justice (in libertarian theory) work from the same concept of justice. A just interaction is one that does not involve the initiation of force (i.e., the violation of rights), and this condition can be maintained and enforced by either private or public agencies. I happen to think, of course, that public (i.e., government) enforcement causes many more problems that it solves. (For more on this, I highly recommend Randy Barnett's book, The Structure of Liberty.)

Ghs

Later edit: After checking the Cato Essay I linked, I noticed that it ends with the following quotation from James Madison, one that succinctly illustrates the point I made in my post about "justice" and "property."

"Government is instituted to protect property of every sort; as well that which lies in the various rights of individuals, as that which the term particularly expresses. This being the end of government, that alone is a just government which impartially secures to every man, whatever is his own."

Ghs

[Brant Gaede]

Every time I nudge George, all kinds of goodies fall out onto the ground.

--Brant

at least I'm good for something

[Wolf DeVoon]

It appears that Wolf has redefined traditional concepts in the philosophy of law to suit his own tastes, after which he becomes impatient when others are unable to peer into the private world of his mind to figure out what he means. Wolf appears to know little about the history of political and legal philosophy, and even less about the history of libertarian thought. To say that the concept of justice "has nothing to do with property" is an astonishingly silly thing to say; it flies in the face of around 2000 years of western legal thinking; and it ignores the crucial connection between justice and property that has existed throughout 4 centuries of classical liberal/libertarian thought.

Nice smear ("appears to know little about the history of political and legal philosophy").

To argue from authority is a fallacy, especially 2000 years.

I have no expectation of good will or a fair hearing. But I'll wager $100 to a donut that you are incapable of answering this:

"Justice is the armed defense of innocent liberty."

The purposes and limitations of a first principle are: (1) to establish the context and scope of discussion; (2) to affirm the existence of a fundamental truth pertaining to the topic generally; and (3) to define that truth, employing the least ambiguous and most cognitively fruitful concepts that are logically germane to the definition. Men and women have reasoned about law for centuries. Familiar terms, the relations of which are obvious in the structure of a predicate, compel any adversary to concede or to contradict squarely, because a first principle necessarily addresses a fundamental question. The most fundamental issue in law is justice — not electoral processes or delegated powers, but the right to public justice.

Definitions of justice proffered by others have been lengthy, covering hundreds of pages, intertwining dozens of terms. However, logic is an exact science. Verbosity indicates lack of understanding or deliberate obfuscation. That's why my definition of justice is succinct. A complete theory of justice is presented in one proposition, consisting of one object, one action, and two qualifiers: Justice = armed defense of innocent liberty. The qualifiers are necessary for precision. Verbal defense of liberty isn't justice. It must be armed defense. Not all liberty, just innocent liberty (e.g., the liberty of women and children, who are often unable to defend themselves).

My definition does not refer to or imply any ethical principle. The philosophy of law is a separate branch of science, independent of ethics. Moral inquiry pertains specifically to the interests, powers, and dilemmas of an individual, epitomized by the question: "What shall I do?" Legal philosophy addresses impersonal administration of public justice, litigation among parties in dispute, the combined might of a community, and custodial guardianship of certain individuals who are unable or legally prohibited to conduct their own affairs.

[Preamble, The Freeman's Constitution; COGIGG, p.121-122]

Until and unless you are engaged in the duty of creating a new nation, there is no occasion to innovate.

[Samson Corwell]

To be clear, laws protecting a person's reputation are incompatible with free speech.

Only if one assumes a view of free speech that is absolute, which almost no one does. If we did, then they're couldn't be any laws against fraud.

No doubt some may not be entirely comfortable biding adieu to our venerable anti-defamation laws. But can they answer this question, how do we arrive at a law that preserves reputation against falsehoods unless we grant one man ownership over another's opinions?

Seriously? Laws against defamation assume ownership of opinions and reputation? I guess imprisonment assumes ownership of criminals, too, right? This is so absurd on its face that it doesn't merit an answer.

[Wolf DeVoon]

A just interaction is one that does not involve the initiation of force

Rubbish. Courts and cops routinely initiate force.

"NAP denies the existence of any legal regime other than or prior to 'non-aggression.' It's a child's view of the law: You be nice and I'll be nice, okay? No rule for bankruptcy, property, probate, or family law... NAP deems all possessors to be unchallengeable and exempt from legal inquiry. NAP kills compulsory production of evidence, jury duty, execution of court orders by bankers in a civil case or law enforcement officers in a criminal case... The Declaration of Independence of 1776 created no substitute government. It merely refuted the property claims of George III." [COGIGG, pp.59, 68]

"Men are not angels. Our protestations of innocence and truth are frequently exaggerated and unwarranted. That's why we need courts of justice, with compulsory production of evidence, cross-examination, and felony penalties for perjury... Impartial public justice spans many lifetimes and liberties of equally-free persons engaged in myriad controversies, of which yours may be the least important, if you seldom sue anyone and commit no crime. The law labors longest and most diligently on behalf of those who rightly seek its protection from those who wrongly think themselves above it." [Laissez Faire Law, pp.161, 164]