Anarcho-Capitalism: A Branden ‘Blast from the Past’

[George H. Smith]

You asked the question: “Do you seriously expect anyone to believe that rational people could not condemn these and similar agencies as bogus and illegal without the "objective law" supposedly decreed by your government?”

Your question seemed to assume that “rational people” will somehow stamp out agencies who wield force unjustly without the need for a single monopoly government.

To condemn an agency as bogus is to judge it by rational standards. This is a theoretical issue. (More specifically, it is an epistemological issue.) Whether or not market agencies could effectively eliminate bogus agencies, or prevent them from committing crimes, is a practical issue -- a problem of how to implement rational standards.

Using the example of an agency adhering to Sharia law emphasizes the fact that there will always be plenty of people who think they are being “rational” no matter how egregious the conduct of their “private defense agency,” and stopping them will not be as simple as you implied.

I never said anything, in this context, about "stopping" rogue agencies. I certainly never said anything about how "simple" this would supposedly be. (Even the U.S. government, powerful as it is, cannot come close to stopping organized crime.) What I said was that it would be relatively simple to identify rogue agencies. Again, you are confusing two separate and distinct issues.

In any realistic projection of a rational society, the vast majority of people would condemn the actions of the Sharia agency.

In other words, the majority of people in a rational society would be able to identify Sharia law as unjust -- or "nonobjective," if you prefer that term. But how can they possibly do this, by your standards, without a government to tell them that Sharia law is unjust? I maintain that rational people can arrive at this conclusion by rational means, without consulting a govenment or its laws. We don't need a government to tell us that Sharia law is unjust.

Sharia law is unjust because it contradicts the standards of a rational legal code. Sharia law is unjust regardless of what a particular government might say or do. Sharia law is unjust even if a monopolistic Islamic government sanctions and enforces it. And If your government condemns Sharia law, this does not mean that Sharia law is unjust because your government condemns it. Your government might follow rational legal standards, but it cannot create them out of thin air.

That’s why we need the “central planning” of a single government agency with a monopoly on the legitimate use of objectively limited force subject to democratic control. There would be no such regulatory democratic control mechanism on the use of coercion under anarcho-capitalism.

Once again, you have mixed a number of different issues together in a fast and loose manner. "Democratic control" has absolutely nothing to do with any of this; in fact, it opens up a different can of worms. A majority might wish to enforce Sharia law, after all.

As before, you link "objectively limited force" with "the 'central planning' of a single government agency" while making no effort to explain the link. So what makes this use of force "objective"? Is it objective (1) because your government (presumably) consists of rational people who are able to ascertain objective truth in the realm of ethics and legal philosophy; or (2) because your government decrees it? (This is similar to the old theological question: Does god command that which is objectively good, or is something good because God commands it?)

If you embrace option #1 -- i.e., if you believe that reason is able to tell us the proper limits of force -- then, like me, you hold that such matters are objective. If you embrace option #2 -- i.e., if you believe a government creates the standards of "objectively limited force," and that such limiting standards cannot be rationally ascertained by those outside government -- then your "objectively limited force" is in fact subjective. ("Arbitrary" might be a more precise description here, but most arbitrary standards are ultimately subjective.)

In truth, you alternate between #1 and #2, depending on which option serves your needs at the time.

I will pick this up in a subsequent post.

Ghs

[anthony]

The creation of a government is an establishment of a social contract, and I don't see how it is much different from a democratic agreement on what an individuals fundamental rights ought to be. If people can form a government, they can certainly from anything less than a government that's made of the same stuff. Why is it unrealistic that people could decide what the laws ought to be without deciding who should have the exclusive authority to enforce those laws? The power of the social contract is amazing.

The creation of a government is an establishment of a social contract, and I don't see how it is much different from a democratic agreement on what an individuals fundamental rights ought to be. If people can form a government, they can certainly from anything less than a government that's made of the same stuff. Why is it unrealistic that people could decide what the laws ought to be without deciding who should have the exclusive authority to enforce those laws? The power of the social contract is amazing.

The potential power of the social contract is indeed amazing. At those few times it has been

allowed to flourish, it has encouraged self-responsible people to become more so, in a spirit

of what is good for me, is good for others. It is when 'special interest' groups have been granted

extra "rights", and when guilt or coercion have been imposed, that men's natural good-will has been eroded.

Given this, and assuming a skeleton government with only one purpose - the protection of rights - one has

to ask: Why democracy?

What is democracy but a majority imposing its ideological will upon a minority?

De facto, a 'special interest' group.

I think that taking the Randian model to its conclusion, a nation will vote only once: For the implementation

of the ideology of capitalism, individual rights, rule of law, and a firm Constitution. After which, this "robotic"

government, run by professional bureaucrats who take pride in their work (like all professionals) just does its

simple job delegated by the citizenry - overseen by a neutral committee (like an Internal Affairs Department), and ultimately. by the Supreme Court.

As Ghs writes, it's all about de-mystifying government; 'de-celebrating' and de-fanging it also, of course.

Without the collectivism of democracy, through individualism, the "power of the social contract" would emerge, I believe.

(Interesting, that Rand makes no mention of democracy in CUI.)

[Selene]

All we are saying is give peace a chance...

[George H. Smith]

The creation of a government is an establishment of a social contract, and I don't see how it is much different from a democratic agreement on what an individuals fundamental rights ought to be. If people can form a government, they can certainly from anything less than a government that's made of the same stuff. Why is it unrealistic that people could decide what the laws ought to be without deciding who should have the exclusive authority to enforce those laws? The power of the social contract is amazing.

The creation of a government is an establishment of a social contract, and I don't see how it is much different from a democratic agreement on what an individuals fundamental rights ought to be. If people can form a government, they can certainly from anything less than a government that's made of the same stuff. Why is it unrealistic that people could decide what the laws ought to be without deciding who should have the exclusive authority to enforce those laws? The power of the social contract is amazing.

The potential power of the social contract is indeed amazing. At those few times it has been allowed to flourish, it has encouraged self-responsible people to become more so, in a spirit of what is good for me, is good for others. It is when 'special interest' groups have been granted extra "rights", and when guilt or coercion have been imposed, that men's natural good-will has been eroded. Given this, and assuming a skeleton government with only one purpose - the protection of rights - one has to ask: Why democracy? What is democracy but a majority imposing its ideological will upon a minority? De facto, a 'special interest' group. I think that taking the Randian model to its conclusion, a nation will vote only once: For the implementation of the ideology of capitalism, individual rights, rule of law, and a firm Constitution. After which, this "robotic" government, run by professional bureaucrats who take pride in their work (like all professionals) just does its simple job delegated by the citizenry - overseen by a neutral committee (like an Internal Affairs Department), and ultimately. by the Supreme Court. As Ghs writes, it's all about de-mystifying government; 'de-celebrating' and de-fanging it also, of course. Without the collectivism of democracy, through individualism, the "power of the social contract" would emerge, I believe. (Interesting, that Rand makes no mention of democracy in CUI.)

One of the most important ideas in the English tradition of common law (on which much of early American law was based) is that law is discovered, not created, by governments. The notion of a "higher law" -- a natural law by which we can rationally assess and judge positive law -- was the foundation of the rights of resistance and revolution.

In my second debate on anarchism with Phil Coates (held at Laissez-Faire Books in SF c. 1999), I began by asking the audience for a show of hands. I asked how many would agree with the American revolutionaries that we have a right to resist unjust laws. As I recall, only one person did not raise his hand.

I then based my initial case on this idea. I explained how the individual right to resist unjust laws presupposes the ability of individuals to distinguish between just and unjust laws, regardless of what a particular government might say. This is precisely the point that I am now arguing with Dennis, who doesn't seem to appreciate the absolutist implications of his contention that "central planning" is essential to an objective legal system. But we will get to that -- or at least I will.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

This is my flag of choice. Fortunately, the eighteenth-century Americans who flew this flag didn't agree with Dennis that only a monopolistic government -- the British government, in their case -- could define and determine "objective law."

Ghs

[Selene]

This is my flag of choice. Fortunately, the eighteenth-century Americans who flew this flag didn't agree with Dennis that only a monopolistic government -- the British government, in their case -- could define and determine "objective law."

Ghs

Mine also George, mine is black on white.

[Dennis Hardin]

Once again, you have mixed a number of different issues together in a fast and loose manner. "Democratic control" has absolutely nothing to do with any of this; in fact, it opens up a different can of worms. A majority might wish to enforce Sharia law, after all.

In truth, you alternate between #1 and #2, depending on which option serves your needs at the time.

Ghs

Fast and loose? Shifting meanings to suit my purpose? Well, obviously. One has to be an irresponsible cheat to disagree with you. Right? (Are you sure you’re not an objectivist?)

It’s just possible that the alternatives you offer don’t exhaust the alternatives for the meaning of ‘objective law.’ You offer these options:

(A) Law is objective because the government consists of rational people who are able to ascertain objective truth in the realm of ethics and legal philosophy; or

(B) Law is objective because the government decrees it.

You equate objective law and objective truth in option A. You make objective law whatever the government says it is in option B. I wouldn’t accept either premise. There are two senses in which law should be objective. The law must clearly (objectively) define what people are forbidden to do, and it must be objectively justified—i.e., rationally defensible, not simply an arbitrary decree. But the fact that the law must be objectively justified does not mean it will be totally rational and in accord with objective reality (or “truth”).

That’s one problem with democracy: Those who make the law are democratically elected representatives of the people—and they are very human. They are not Gods. (In fact, as things stand today, they are about as far away from being Gods as one might imagine it’s possible to be.) Consequently, the content of the law is unlikely to exactly coincide with objective reality. The hope is that it will come as close to objective reality as the limits of human fallibility and rational inconsistency permit.

If you embrace option #1 -- i.e., if you believe that reason is able to tell us the proper limits of force -- then, like me, you hold that such matters are objective. If you embrace option #2 -- i.e., if you believe a government creates the standards of "objectively limited force," and that such limiting standards cannot be rationally ascertained by those outside government -- then your "objectively limited force" is in fact subjective.

So the only alternatives are (a) government officials who are infallible in their perception of the truth, a majority of whom always vote on bills correctly, or (b) the divine right of kings.

I hardly think so. Rather, we are talking about a clearly defined code of comprehensible law offered by a group of rational, but fallible elected officials doing the best they can to get it right but falling somewhat short of the mark due to the nature of bureaucracy.

You say: “As before, you link ‘objectively limited force’ with ‘the 'central planning' of a single government agency’ while making no effort to explain the link.”

I don’t really get where the confusion is, quite frankly. I hope this helps to explain the “link,” and the role of democracy, but I’m not holding my breath.

[George H. Smith]

Once again, you have mixed a number of different issues together in a fast and loose manner. "Democratic control" has absolutely nothing to do with any of this; in fact, it opens up a different can of worms. A majority might wish to enforce Sharia law, after all. In truth, you alternate between #1 and #2, depending on which option serves your needs at the time. Ghs

Fast and loose? Shifting meanings to suit my purpose? Well, obviously. One has to be an irresponsible cheat to disagree with you. Right? (Are you sure you’re not an objectivist?) It’s just possible that the alternatives you offer don’t exhaust the alternatives for the meaning of ‘objective law.’ You offer these options: (A) Law is objective because the government consists of rational people who are able to ascertain objective truth in the realm of ethics and legal philosophy; or (B) Law is objective because the government decrees it. You equate objective law and objective truth in option A. You make objective law whatever the government says it is in option B. I wouldn’t accept either premise.

I presented two options. You say that you "wouldn't accept either premise." I take this to mean that, in rejecting option #1, you don't think that objective law requires ascertaining "objective truth in the realm of ethics and legal philosophy." Is that what you mean to say?

There are two senses in which law should be objective. The law must clearly (objectively) define what people are forbidden to do, and it must be objectively justified—i.e., rationally defensible, not simply an arbitrary decree.

A totalitarian government can "objectively define" what people are forbidden to do. An anti-Semetic government, for example, can forbid Jews to intermarry with Gentiles, while objectively defining what it means by "Jew."

But this doesn't seem to be what you mean by "define," for you then proceed to equate "define" with "objectively justified" and "rationally defensible." Although we can define a principle or law without justifying it, I will assume you misspoke and proceed to the key question:

Are only governments capable of discerning legal principles (laws, in this case) that are "objectively justified" and "rationally defensible"? If such laws are rationally defensible, then why can't any rational person discern and justify the same laws? You surely don't wish to say that government employees have a monopoly on reason. Right?

But the fact that the law must be objectively justified does not mean it will be totally rational and in accord with objective reality (or “truth”). That’s one problem with democracy: Those who make the law are democratically elected representatives of the people—and they are very human. They are not Gods. (In fact, as things stand today, they are about as far away from being Gods as one might imagine it’s possible to be.) Consequently, the content of the law is unlikely to exactly coincide with objective reality. The hope is that it will come as close to objective reality as the limits of human fallibility and rational inconsistency permit.

Okay, let us agree, for the sake of argument, that it is neither necessary nor possible for all laws to be "totally rational and in accord with objective reality." I have two questions:

1) Is it possible for us to tell, via the use of reason, which laws are totally rational and which laws are not?

2) Why does your government get a pass in regard to laws that are not "totally rational" but market agencies do not? Why, in other words, do you demand complete legal objectivity from market agencies, while arguing that complete objectivity is not possible from "fallible men," and therefore not necessary for your government? Why the double-standard? How can you hold market agencies to a standard of infallibility that you yourself concede is impossible?

If you embrace option #1 -- i.e., if you believe that reason is able to tell us the proper limits of force -- then, like me, you hold that such matters are objective. If you embrace option #2 -- i.e., if you believe a government creates the standards of "objectively limited force," and that such limiting standards cannot be rationally ascertained by those outside government -- then your "objectively limited force" is in fact subjective.

So the only alternatives are (a) government officials who are infallible in their perception of the truth, a majority of whom always vote on bills correctly, or (b) the divine right of kings. I hardly think so. Rather, we are talking about a clearly defined code of comprehensible law offered by a group of rational, but fallible elected officials doing the best they can to get it right but falling somewhat short of the mark due to the nature of bureaucracy. You say: “As before, you link ‘objectively limited force’ with ‘the 'central planning' of a single government agency’ while making no effort to explain the link.” I don’t really get where the confusion is, quite frankly. I hope this helps to explain the “link,” and the role of democracy, but I’m not holding my breath.

I never said anything about infallibility. On the contrary, as a good O'ist in epistemology, I deny that infallible procedures are required for rational justification.

The confusion I referred to relates to your claim -- which you still have not explained -- that a government can somehow arrive at objective laws in a manner that market agencies cannot. You now concede that some laws of a government will not be rationally defensible. But this was the crux of your argument against market agencies, namely, that some of their laws will not be rationally defensible.

So, again, what is the difference? Nowhere in your discussion have you shown how only a government can arrive at objective laws. Everything you have said applies equally well to Rothbardian justice agencies.

Ghs

[Dglgmut]

What is democracy but a majority imposing its ideological will upon a minority?

Why is it necessary that they impose their ideological will on a minority? A suicidal individual could go on a shooting spree killing dozens of people, but that doesn't imply that all people are evil. My point is that just because someone holds power does not mean they will necessarily use it.

How did the republic of the United States emerge in the first place if not for a relatively rational majority to approve of such restrictions on government powers?

The potential of the social contract is more frightening than anything, because it's what leads to collectives so removed from humanity. So far, social contracts have been used for intimidation much more than reassurance.

If soldiers of an army were ordered to shoot any deserters, it would create a disposition among the lot of them where they would all be afraid to leave even if every single one of them wanted to. Why? Not because they know that they will be shot, or they know that anyone wants to shoot them, but because they know the order was given.

I think social contracts might always lead to bad things, because they can easily lead to misunderstandings, and discourage an open social environment.

Another example would be taxes... Even if everyone didn't believe in taxation, and even though everyone resisting the government at once would be successful, the odds are that it would never happen because the power to organize has been monopolized.

With organization comes power, and the only way to ensure a free future is if people can organize a self benefiting social system; one where nobody is cannibalized and competition is friendly.

[Dglgmut]

An argument for a true democracy, one where the people can vote on every action of government, is that people learn by making mistakes (trial and error). When a politician makes an honest mistake, with society's best interest as his motive, he/she learns more about what people need. But ordinary citizens are not involved in politics enough to learn what happens when you try to forcefully shape society.

And another one is that if a law can be objectively justified, then it is unavoidable that someone with society's best interest at heart would eventually discover the evidence. If a democracy decides to tax too much, they will see the effects. They will not have corrupt politicians to blame for dysfunctional governance.

The question is, who has society's best interest at heart? The most accurate answer would be exactly society... and that's who ought to be entitled to make mistakes, as that is who needs to learn.

[Dennis Hardin]

I presented two options. You say that you "wouldn't accept either premise." I take this to mean that, in rejecting option #1, you don't think that objective law requires ascertaining "objective truth in the realm of ethics and legal philosophy." Is that what you mean to say?

I am saying that there are numerous issues where it is not realistic to think that every rational person will agree on what constitutes “objective truth,” even though that is our ideal goal. Ascertaining truth and obtaining universal agreement on what is “objective truth” are very different things.

Here are some examples of such issues (from post #4):

In regard to the question of gun control, when does the mere possession of a weapon constitute a violation of other’s rights—e.g., for an extreme example, placing an anti-aircraft weapon on one’s front lawn next door to an airport? Or pointing a missile launcher at your neighbor’s house? Or merely possessing a nuclear suitcase? Or an AK 47 rifle?

Date rape is another example. When does a man’s use of benevolent aggression in the sexual act constitute rape and when is it masculine self-assertiveness? Some uses of a fundamentally benevolent kind of “force” can be highly erotic and desirable to a woman. If you can’t verify this from your own personal experience, just look at the popularity of so-called “bodice-ripper” romance novels. Or the ‘rape’ scene in The Fountainhead. So where do we draw the line between mutually stimulating “force” and date rape?

In car accidents, there is often strong disagreement about who caused the accident—i.e., who forcibly damaged the other’s property and who should be legally forced to provide restitution. What rules of evidence apply in adjudicating the dispute? How do we assess the validity of witness testimony? As with many similar issues, arbitration would only solve the problem if both parties agree to arbitration.

Or consider the whole abortion issue. When (if ever) does abortion constitute murder? After the first trimester? What about partial birth abortion? Where do we draw the line-- before or after the umbilical cord is cut?

In contract law, there can be numerous disputes about what constitutes a violation of a contract. In real estate, for one example, there is usually a clause pertaining to “full disclosure.” Following completion of a sale of property, the buyer might maintain that the plumbing in the purchased home was not up to expectations. Some contracts might contain definitions that adequately cover that issue, but others may not. Again, it is not a simple matter to determine whether force should be used to extract restitution.

In divorce situations, it can be very difficult to determine what constitutes equitable distribution of shared assets. At some point, as in all unresolved civil disputes, the threat of force must be used to finalize the settlement.

There are two senses in which law should be objective. The law must clearly (objectively) define what people are forbidden to do, and it must be objectively justified—i.e., rationally defensible, not simply an arbitrary decree.

A totalitarian government can "objectively define" what people are forbidden to do. An anti-Semetic government, for example, can forbid Jews to intermarry with Gentiles, while objectively defining what it means by "Jew."

But this doesn't seem to be what you mean by "define," for you then proceed to equate "define" with "objectively justified" and "rationally defensible." Although we can define a principle or law without justifying it, I will assume you misspoke and proceed to the key question:

I don’t know why you would assume I misspoke. I did not. Arbitrary laws imposed wthout rational justification, no matter how well-defined, are not objective. That’s why I made clear that laws must be objective in both senses. Nazi Germany could have had a well-defined law that all Jews must die. Because such a law is arbitrary and egregious, it would hardly be considered objective.

Are only governments capable of discerning legal principles (laws, in this case) that are "objectively justified" and "rationally defensible"? If such laws are rationally defensible, then why can't any rational person discern and justify the same laws? You surely don't wish to say that government employees have a monopoly on reason. Right?

No. Government officials do not have a monopoly on reason. Yes, every rational person can make up his own mind on what consitutes a law that is "objectively justified" and "rationally defensible.” But because rational people will inevitably have reasonable disagreements on issues such as those referenced above, the only way to have a civilized society is for there to be one agency, subject to democratic control, charged with responsibility for defining what constitutes “objective truth” in these situations. In some cases the government will be right. In other cases, it may be wrong. To let everyone decide such issues is to create unmitigated chaos. The democratic process allows everyone to advocate for changes without such chaos.

But the fact that the law must be objectively justified does not mean it will be totally rational and in accord with objective reality (or “truth”). That’s one problem with democracy: Those who make the law are democratically elected representatives of the people—and they are very human. They are not Gods. (In fact, as things stand today, they are about as far away from being Gods as one might imagine it’s possible to be.) Consequently, the content of the law is unlikely to exactly coincide with objective reality. The hope is that it will come as close to objective reality as the limits of human fallibility and rational inconsistency permit.

Okay, let us agree, for the sake of argument, that it is neither necessary nor possible for all laws to be "totally rational and in accord with objective reality." I have two questions:

1) Is it possible for us to tell, via the use of reason, which laws are totally rational and which laws are not?

No, not with anything resembling a “final answer” on what is “objective truth” in a vast number of situations such as those described above.

2) Why does your government get a pass in regard to laws that are not "totally rational" but market agencies do not? Why, in other words, do you demand complete legal objectivity from market agencies, while arguing that complete objectivity is not possible from "fallible men," and therefore not necessary for your government? Why the double-standard? How can you hold market agencies to a standard of infallibility that you yourself concede is impossible?

There is no double standard. It’s possible, with respect to such issues, that a private defense agency might have a resolution that is superior to the government’s current law. But to allow private defense agencies to offer different interpretations of each of these complex laws, and then back up their interpretation with force, will lead to endless civil war. The only practical solution is to have one agency with a monopoly on force and allow private individuals or agencies to advocate for change through the democratic process.

So the only alternatives are (a) government officials who are infallible in their perception of the truth, a majority of whom always vote on bills correctly, or (b) the divine right of kings. I hardly think so. Rather, we are talking about a clearly defined code of comprehensible law offered by a group of rational, but fallible elected officials doing the best they can to get it right but falling somewhat short of the mark due to the nature of bureaucracy.

I never said anything about infallibility. On the contrary, as a good O'ist in epistemology, I deny that infallible procedures are required for rational justification.

The confusion I referred to relates to your claim -- which you still have not explained -- that a government can somehow arrive at objective laws in a manner that market agencies cannot. You now concede that some laws of a government will not be rationally defensible. But this was the crux of your argument against market agencies, namely, that some of their laws will not be rationally defensible.

I’m not sure what I may have said to imply that “some laws of a proper government would not be rationally defensible." If a law is objective, to repeat, it must be rationally defensible. In my last post, I also explained that, with respect to many complex issues, the laws of private defense agencies might also be seen as rationally defensible. Lack of rational defensibility was not the crux of my argument against private defense agencies. My argument against such agencies is that to have multiple agencies defining “objective law” will lead to clashes that can only be resolved by one (or more) agency using force to impose its interpretation on those who disagree. (It's true that a government must also impose their viewpoint, but that's the price we must pay for civilization.)

So, again, what is the difference? Nowhere in your discussion have you shown how only a government can arrive at objective laws. Everything you have said applies equally well to Rothbardian justice agencies.

Ghs

The difference is that rule by objective law requires one agency with the final authority when there are disputes about what is or is not rationally defensible. The alternative is civil warfare and chaos. Multiple agencies with conflicting "objective laws" will destroy all semblance of rule by objective law. Democratically controlled representative government--strictly limited to the protection of individual rights--is the only workable system for keeping force in check.

[anthony]

An argument for a true democracy, one where the people can vote on every action of government, is that people learn by making mistakes (trial and error). When a politician makes an honest mistake, with society's best interest as his motive, he/she learns more about what people need. But ordinary citizens are not involved in politics enough to learn what happens when you try to forcefully shape society. And another one is that if a law can be objectively justified, then it is unavoidable that someone with society's best interest at heart would eventually discover the evidence. If a democracy decides to tax too much, they will see the effects. They will not have corrupt politicians to blame for dysfunctional governance. The question is, who has society's best interest at heart? The most accurate answer would be exactly society... and that's who ought to be entitled to make mistakes, as that is who needs to learn.

"If men are to live together in a peaceful, productive, rational society and deal with one another

to mutual benefit, they must accept the basic social principle without which no moral or civilized

society is possible: the principle of individual rights." [AR: The Nature of Government.]

and my favorite which Dennis quoted earlier:

"Under a proper social system, a private individual is legally free to take any action he pleases

(so long as he does not violate the rights of others), while a government official is bound by law in his

every official act. A private individual may do anything except that which is legally FORBIDDEN; a

government official may do nothing except that which is legally PERMITTED."

It's really as simple as that. If the government is "the agent or servant of the citizens", deriving its

authority from "the consent of the governed" - then (with due and stringent oversight) we should trust them to

do their allocated job of protecting rights, exclusively.

Even if we presuppose a preponderance of rational citizens in this society, I personally would

have more trust in the above defined system, than in my fellow citizens' majority vote on issues.

There would be little need for new laws to be written in an Objectivist society - but on those occasions

only (or issues of national defence), that I think the populace should vote.

Mostly, it's business as usual, with our Agent repetitively upholding our rights, so individuals can live, and let live.

"Society" as such, should not be our daily concern. The outcome could be collectivist.

(I'm glad Dennis cleared up the 'objective law' thing: an objective law can be good or bad, it is just identifiable

and consistently applied - not "capricious". IMO, the ideal is Objective, and objective, law - a redundancy, of course!)

[Dglgmut]

Tony, I don't disagree with the fundamentals of Rand's ideal society. I'm only trying to determine an ideal way of getting there. For everyone to wake up one day and suddenly decide to minimize government is not realistic, neither is it to establish such a government by force, against the will of the American majority.

So what are you left with?

If people could control their government, they could govern themselves. There's no need for "us" and "them".

Again, objectively justified laws will be discovered, so individual rights will be proven necessary to anyone who truly wants civility and prosperity.

[George H. Smith]

I could not get the following quotes to nest properly, despite repeated attempts. I have therefore placed my new comments in boldface.

I presented two options. You say that you "wouldn't accept either premise." I take this to mean that, in rejecting option #1, you don't think that objective law requires ascertaining "objective truth in the realm of ethics and legal philosophy." Is that what you mean to say?

I am saying that there are numerous issues where it is not realistic to think that every rational person will agree on what constitutes “objective truth,” even though that is our ideal goal. Ascertaining truth and obtaining universal agreement on what is “objective truth” are very different things. Here are some examples of such issues (from post #4):

In regard to the question of gun control, when does the mere possession of a weapon constitute a violation of other’s rights—e.g., for an extreme example, placing an anti-aircraft weapon on one’s front lawn next door to an airport? Or pointing a missile launcher at your neighbor’s house? Or merely possessing a nuclear suitcase? Or an AK 47 rifle? Date rape is another example. When does a man’s use of benevolent aggression in the sexual act constitute rape and when is it masculine self-assertiveness? Some uses of a fundamentally benevolent kind of “force” can be highly erotic and desirable to a woman. If you can’t verify this from your own personal experience, just look at the popularity of so-called “bodice-ripper” romance novels. Or the ‘rape’ scene in The Fountainhead. So where do we draw the line between mutually stimulating “force” and date rape? In car accidents, there is often strong disagreement about who caused the accident—i.e., who forcibly damaged the other’s property and who should be legally forced to provide restitution. What rules of evidence apply in adjudicating the dispute? How do we assess the validity of witness testimony? As with many similar issues, arbitration would only solve the problem if both parties agree to arbitration. Or consider the whole abortion issue. When (if ever) does abortion constitute murder? After the first trimester? What about partial birth abortion? Where do we draw the line-- before or after the umbilical cord is cut? In contract law, there can be numerous disputes about what constitutes a violation of a contract. In real estate, for one example, there is usually a clause pertaining to “full disclosure.” Following completion of a sale of property, the buyer might maintain that the plumbing in the purchased home was not up to expectations. Some contracts might contain definitions that adequately cover that issue, but others may not. Again, it is not a simple matter to determine whether force should be used to extract restitution. In divorce situations, it can be very difficult to determine what constitutes equitable distribution of shared assets. At some point, as in all unresolved civil disputes, the threat of force must be used to finalize the settlement.

Again, you have not shown why such disputes must be resolved and enforced by a coercive monopoly called "government." If you had read anything by by Rothbard, Barnett, and others on this problem, you would know that they have discussed in considerable detail how final arbiters can be provided in a market setting.

It will not do to posit a problem, refuse to read or consider the answers given by your adversaries, and then proclaim victory by repeating the same problem.

Btw, it is manifestly untrue that the threat of force must be ultimately be used to resolve all unresolved civil disputes. Social sanctions have been used in some societies for centuries.

There are two senses in which law should be objective. The law must clearly (objectively) define what people are forbidden to do, and it must be objectively justified—i.e., rationally defensible, not simply an arbitrary decree.

A totalitarian government can "objectively define" what people are forbidden to do. An anti-Semetic government, for example, can forbid Jews to intermarry with Gentiles, while objectively defining what it means by "Jew." But this doesn't seem to be what you mean by "define," for you then proceed to equate "define" with "objectively justified" and "rationally defensible." Although we can define a principle or law without justifying it, I will assume you misspoke and proceed to the key question:

I don’t know why you would assume I misspoke. I did not. Arbitrary laws imposed wthout rational justification, no matter how well-defined, are not objective. That’s why I made clear that laws must be objective in both senses. Nazi Germany could have had a well-defined law that all Jews must die. Because such a law is arbitrary and egregious, it would hardly be considered objective.

Are only governments capable of discerning legal principles (laws, in this case) that are "objectively justified" and "rationally defensible"? If such laws are rationally defensible, then why can't any rational person discern and justify the same laws? You surely don't wish to say that government employees have a monopoly on reason. Right?

No. Government officials do not have a monopoly on reason. Yes, every rational person can make up his own mind on what consitutes a law that is "objectively justified" and "rationally defensible.” But because rational people will inevitably have reasonable disagreements on issues such as those referenced above, the only way to have a civilized society is for there to be one agency, subject to democratic control, charged with responsibility for defining what constitutes “objective truth” in these situations. In some cases the government will be right. In other cases, it may be wrong. To let everyone decide such issues is to create unmitigated chaos. The democratic process allows everyone to advocate for changes without such chaos.

Again, you arbitrarily proclaim what is required for a "civilized society" and speak in vague generalities about "democratic control." You can repeat the same general ideas as many times as you like, but it still won't constitute an argument.

You have conceded that your government will sometimes be wrong, i.e., that it will enforce unjust laws. Since when can anyone, especially an O'ist, demand that people obey unjust laws? To what end? For your notion of a greater social good?

And who "charges" the government with the responsibility of "defining what constitutes 'objective truth' in certain areas? What rational person would surrender his reason in this manner?

This brings us back to the pivotal issue of consent, which you have never dealt with in even a semi-satisfactory manner. All you have done in the area is to cite NB's scenario of a small number of people in a room agreeing to the same arbitration agency, which he (misleadingly) calls "government." Okay, suppose people in other rooms decide they want different agencies. Do they have the same right as the people attending one of NB's Seminar recordings?

In any case, the U.S. government never got anywhere near unanimous consent. Only a minority of Americans originally voted for ratification of the U.S. Constitution, and even if a majority had voted for it, or even if it had gotten unanimous consent, how can the decisions of people living in 1788 generate moral obligations for people living now?

Contrary to NB's example, no government in history (that I know of) has ever received the unanimous consent of the people over which it claims jurisdiction. Thus, by the standard NB laid down and that you cited, no government in history, including the U.S. government has been legitimate. This conclusion follows from your own premises, as specified in the NB passage.

It is clear that I will never persuade you to theoretical anarchism, but if you endorse the kind of practical anarchism that I have described here, according to which legitimate governments could be established in theory but have never been established in fact, then I will happily settle for that. For since no de facto government has ever been legitimate, no de facto government has ever qualified, morally speaking, as anything more than a private protection agency, i.e., an agency that some people but not others have consented ro obey. And if some people, by your standard, may establish their own private agency, then others must have the same right.

To be continued....

[Brant Gaede]

No government is basically legitimate in the moral sense being discussed here. Government can be moved toward legitimacy, that is all.

Governments arise through tribal conglomerations of concentrated force to impose order through power. Rights were invented to control government. They are the greatest human invention of all time. The wheel isn't even close. The practical legitimacy of this debate here going on is found in the fact that just under the surface all that is really being talked about is those rights. "That to secure these rights . . . . "

--Brant

even the anarchist is trying to mold force with force though dressed out in idealism, it's just I've never run into a libertarian anarchist who was personally wanting to be a judge, cop or prison warden even in competing defense agencies, which will actually be using force against each other in a struggle for top-dogism called "WAR!"

[Brant Gaede]

There is no legitimacy in purity. There are no moral virgins in government much less virginal, functioning governments. Legitimacy is in the struggle for freedom, both by people in and out of government. It's mostly quiet on the freedom front as freedom is being plowed under in myriad ways by the moronically uneducated.

--Brant

[George H. Smith]

There is no legitimacy in purity. There are no moral virgins in government much less virginal, functioning governments. Legitimacy is in the struggle for freedom, both by people in and out of government. It's mostly quiet on the freedom front as freedom is being plowed under in myriad ways by the moronically uneducated.

--Brant

Rand established the purity standard, especially in her arguments against compromises in matters of principle. Libertarian anarchists have taken her seriously in this regard; her minarchists followers have not.

If an O'ist and theoretical defender of limited government is willing to concede that no legitimate government has ever existed in fact and that no legitimate government is ever likely to exist, then we don't really have much of practical value to argue about. But this is not what typically happens. Instead, the O'ist makes an implicit and illicit jump from an ideal Randian government to the current U.S. government, suggesting that his theoretical justification for limited government somehow applies to the U.S. govenment.

How can this be done? Blank out, as Rand would say.

Ghs

[Brant Gaede]

There is no legitimacy in purity. There are no moral virgins in government much less virginal, functioning governments. Legitimacy is in the struggle for freedom, both by people in and out of government. It's mostly quiet on the freedom front as freedom is being plowed under in myriad ways by the moronically uneducated.

--Brant

Rand established the purity standard, especially in her arguments against compromises in matters of principle. Libertarian anarchists have taken her seriously in this regard; her minarchists followers have not.

If an O'ist and theoretical defender of limited government is willing to concede that no legitimate government has ever existed in fact and that no legitimate government is ever likely to exist, then we don't really have much of practical value to argue about. But this is not what typically happens. Instead, the O'ist makes an implicit and illicit jump from an ideal Randian government to the current U.S. government, suggesting that his theoretical justification for limited government somehow applies to the U.S. govenment.

How can this be done? Blank out, as Rand would say.

Ghs

This triumph of the Objectivist philosophy over objective reality has helped marginalize Objectivism over time. Instead of fighting for freedom one fights for Objectivism. The desire for freedom, implicit and explicit, is the one great moral human commonality, but Objectivism is all about exclusiveness starting with that ideal, perfect man crap that had its place in her art, not her philosophy save philosophy as art.

--Brant

[George H. Smith]

There is no legitimacy in purity. There are no moral virgins in government much less virginal, functioning governments. Legitimacy is in the struggle for freedom, both by people in and out of government. It's mostly quiet on the freedom front as freedom is being plowed under in myriad ways by the moronically uneducated.

--Brant

Rand established the purity standard, especially in her arguments against compromises in matters of principle. Libertarian anarchists have taken her seriously in this regard; her minarchists followers have not.

If an O'ist and theoretical defender of limited government is willing to concede that no legitimate government has ever existed in fact and that no legitimate government is ever likely to exist, then we don't really have much of practical value to argue about. But this is not what typically happens. Instead, the O'ist makes an implicit and illicit jump from an ideal Randian government to the current U.S. government, suggesting that his theoretical justification for limited government somehow applies to the U.S. govenment.

How can this be done? Blank out, as Rand would say.

Ghs

This triumph of the Objectivist philosophy over objective reality has helped marginalize Objectivism over time. Instead of fighting for freedom one fights for Objectivism. The desire for freedom, implicit and explicit, is the one great moral human commonality, but Objectivism is all about exclusiveness starting with that ideal, perfect man crap that had its place in her art, not her philosophy save philosophy as art.

--Brant

I think Objectivism can be of great practical value, so long as its practitioners are willing to think for themselves and apply its principles consistently, even if these involve deviating from Rand's application of her own principles.

Ghs

[Bosco]

Ayn Rand opposed anarchism, and despite the fact she she was almost always precise in her arguments, she didn't leave minarchists with much to go on except some passing thoughts in VOS. So I don't think she considered the position to be credible or worthy of any real serious consideration beyond regarding it as a lunatic fringe of a deluded libertarian movement. I have a feeling that had she examined it more closely, what she might have left behind would have made debates between O'ist minarchists and "anarcho-objectivists" more interesting and informative for both sides.

[anthony]

Tony, I don't disagree with the fundamentals of Rand's ideal society. I'm only trying to determine an ideal way of getting there. For everyone to wake up one day and suddenly decide to minimize government is not realistic, neither is it to establish such a government by force, against the will of the American majority. So what are you left with? If people could control their government, they could govern themselves. There's no need for "us" and "them". Again, objectively justified laws will be discovered, so individual rights will be proven necessary to anyone who truly wants civility and prosperity.

Tony, I don't disagree with the fundamentals of Rand's ideal society. I'm only trying to determine an ideal way of getting there. For everyone to wake up one day and suddenly decide to minimize government is not realistic, neither is it to establish such a government by force, against the will of the American majority. So what are you left with? If people could control their government, they could govern themselves. There's no need for "us" and "them". Again, objectively justified laws will be discovered, so individual rights will be proven necessary to anyone who truly wants civility and prosperity.

I think the understandable temptation is to attempt to fuse together the US status quo, with the Randian model of government, but I can't see how in the present context of

progressive/conservative mindsets, or false dichotomies.

As you know, Rand considered capitalism and the US Constitution as the only moral system to ever exist.

She revered the Constitution, and was inspired by its spirit - if not completely by its framing. (She inspired some non-Americans, too. I have admired that document for a long time.)

However, any short-falls and contradictions she spotted in it gave rise to her stated misgivings - in her lifetime, and for the future.

The basic fact remains, that a society will eventually get what they ask for, and/or what they deserve.

An unlimited government and its politicians always panders to that. Which is an aspect of majority rule.

Without a severely curtailed government, and strict observation of its role - only - in defence of individual rights, it seems to me the most marvellous Constitution becomes a "living, breathing" document, vulnerable to the whims of g-ment and populace. (I don't have to add that I am not a political expert, though.)

So the question remains: how can we individuals be protected from fellow citizens, as well as from Government?

Rand's revolutionary answer is a return to principle: a skeleton and "robotic" government, and its laws derived from the One Big Law, that no one may mess with another's person or property. (Government, especially.)

Objectivist law, derived from individual rights, in turn derived from O'ist ethics.

If my interpretation is faulty, I'd be glad for correction.

To get from 'here', to 'there', is a whole other story, conditional upon the enlightenment of large numbers of people, achieving a 'tipping point'.

[Xray]

Here is an interesting question:

Suppose a member of Galt's Gulch committed a crime of passion, say, by killing the lover of his adulterous wife. Would the Gulchers have called a Colorado police force and turned him over for trial, or would they have handled the matter themselves?

Imo crimes of passion would fall outside the gamut of action for a Randian rational man.

Just think of how 'rationally' both Rearden and D'Anconia acted in accepting that the love of the their lives, Dagny, was now with Galt.

And since no irrational individual would be accepted in Galt's Gulch anyway, it would be impossible for a crime of passion (any crime, actually) to happen in this eu-topian place.

[Selene]

Here is an interesting question:

Suppose a member of Galt's Gulch committed a crime of passion, say, by killing the lover of his adulterous wife. Would the Gulchers have called a Colorado police force and turned him over for trial, or would they have handled the matter themselves?

Imo crimes of passion would fall outside the gamut of action for a Randian rational man.

Just think of how 'rationally' both Rearden and D'Anconia acted in accepting that the love of the their lives, Dagny was now with Galt.

And since no irrational individual would be accepted in Galt's Gulch anyway, it would be impossible for a crime of passion (any crime, actually) to happen in this eu-topian place.

Angela:

Drop the tautological answer and venture off the pages of the novel and answer the man's question.

Adam

[Xray]

Here is an interesting question:

Suppose a member of Galt's Gulch committed a crime of passion, say, by killing the lover of his adulterous wife. Would the Gulchers have called a Colorado police force and turned him over for trial, or would they have handled the matter themselves?

Imo crimes of passion would fall outside the gamut of action for a Randian rational man.

Just think of how 'rationally' both Rearden and D'Anconia acted in accepting that the love of the their lives, Dagny was now with Galt.

And since no irrational individual would be accepted in Galt's Gulch anyway, it would be impossible for a crime of passion (any crime, actually) to happen in this eu-topian place.

Angela:

Drop the tautological answer and venture off the pages of the novel and answer the man's question.

Adam

Adam,

Since the man's question referred to an imagined scenario taking place in a Randian novel, an answer that applied Randian premises was warranted imo.

One could of course also have chosen to answer that to speculate about scenarios that don't figure in the novel makes no sense - that it is like e. g. speculating about what would have happened to Madame Bovary if she had not committed suicide.

But since Ghs's question addresses a crucial issue (crime in an anarchistically structured group), venturing off the pages of the novel would lead me to ask him back how he thinks crimes are to be dealt with in an anarchist society.

[Selene]

But since Ghs's question addresses a crucial issue (crime in an anarchistically structured group), venturing off the pages of the novel would lead me to ask him back how he thinks crimes are to be dealt with in an anarchist society.

Angela:

Good. I will take that as positive movement towards answering a key issue in terms of how an anarchistic society/mineanarchistic society could resolve the murder of one citizen by another citizen.

Adam