Standing naked on my property

[Samson Corwell]

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

This in spades. The first sentence at least.

[George H. Smith]

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.

First, since you previously told FF, "You have no idea of what you're saying or what it means," I thought you should get a taste of what you dish out.

Second, you should learn what the argument from authority actually means, given how off base your allegation is. I did not appeal to any authority whatsover. Even if my allegation about your lack of knowledge happened to be incorrect, a false assertion differs from a "fallacy."

Third, you wrote: "I'll wager $100 to a donut that you are incapable of answering this...." But an answer requires a question, and I found no questions. So what is the question?

Even before knowing what the question is, I will wager my donut against your $100 that I can answer it satisfactorily. Of course, being the expert in the philosophy of law that you are, you surely understand that impartiality is essential here, so no person should serve as judge in his own cause. We will therefore need an impartial judge, or panel of judges, to decide whether I owe you a donut or whether you owe me $100. I am open to nominations.

But let's suppose that by "answer" you meant "reply" in a general sense. Okay, here is my reply: You are wrong, absolutely wrong. This reply proves that I am capable of answering you, so you owe me $100. After all, you didn't specify that my reply had to be a good one. As a stickler for precision, you will surely agree.

Lastly, you wrote: "Until and unless you are engaged in the duty of creating a new nation, there is no occasion to innovate." This is positively bizarre. I am speechless, or nearly so, for once.

Ghs

Later edit: You wrote: "Definitions of justice proffered by others have been lengthy, covering hundreds of pages, intertwining dozens of terms." Really? Can you provide an example or two?

I don't recall ever reading any definition of "justice" that takes hundreds of pages, or anything close. Of course, a definition, which is necessarily brief, may be followed by hundreds of pages of analysis, but that is a different matter.

I recall reading somewhere that "logic is an exact science." You should keep that in mind.

Ghs

[Brant Gaede]

The "right to public justice" reads like a negative right in positive language. Thus it would be similar to one's "right to life." These neagtive rights are not the same as a "right to a chicken" in your pot.

What is not clear to me, Wolf, is what you mean by "public."

--Brant

[George H. Smith]

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]

You should stop quoting from your book, a practice that is at once annoying and pretentious. The passage you self-quoted has little if anything to do with my remark. I am not interested in your oracular pronouncements on unrelated topics. If you have a reasonable comment or criticism, then write it out.

Ghs

[Brant Gaede]

Oh, boy! It's popcorn time!

--Brant

[George H. Smith]

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

Rubbish. Courts and cops routinely initiate force.

I agree with this, btw, which is why I (and other libertarians) object to much of what cops and courts routinely do. Or didn't this possibility occur to you?

Ghs

[Wolf DeVoon]

George, I appreciate and understand your position, including liberal use of invective.

There's nothing much further to discuss. Initiation of force is routine in law enforcement and legal proceedings. Possession of property does not confer upon anyone immunity from legal inquiry as to its acquisition or transfer, occupancy, lease, water use, improvement, neglect, or criminal activity involving personal or shared property. Family law, probate, bankruptcy, and abatement of nuisance trump possession.

Go ahead. Refute the proposition that justice is the armed defense of innocent liberty, if you can.

[Wolf DeVoon]

What is not clear to me, Wolf, is what you mean by "public."

I don't subscribe to polycentric law, ad hoc private law courts, or Law Merchant.

[Selene]

Oh, boy! It's popcorn time!

--Brant

Damn...this is a seven course barbecue!!

Remember to pour beer on the chicken - seals in the juices...

A...

[Samson Corwell]

The "right to public justice" reads like a negative right in positive language. Thus it would be similar to one's "right to life." These neagtive rights are not the same as a "right to a chicken" in your pot.

What is not clear to me, Wolf, is what you mean by "public."

--Brant

Maybe the positive/negative dichotomy is inadequate. I mean crimes of commission don't necessarily involve rights talk.

[Brant Gaede]

Oh, boy! It's popcorn time!

--Brant

Damn...this is a seven course barbecue!!

Remember to pour beer on the chicken - seals in the juices...

A...

Your primary function here is to post some some of the thingies that jump around in drunken animation.

--Brant

I like the "beer on the chicken," though--I've created some good visuals in my head using a T-Rex on a rotating spit using fire hoses for the beer

[Samson Corwell]

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

Rubbish. Courts and cops routinely initiate force.

I agree with this, btw, which is why I (and other libertarians) object to much of what cops and courts routinely do. Or didn't this possibility occur to you?Ghs

George, the problem with "initiation of force" is that it's basically used to mean whatever libertarians are opposed to. It's like Google's motto. According to one I've read, failing to give to someone what you owe to them is "coercion". That's an awfull unorthodox use of that word. All this so they don't have to do away with "initiation of force".

[George H. Smith]

George, I appreciate and understand your position, including liberal use of invective.

There's nothing much further to discuss. Initiation of force is routine in law enforcement and legal proceedings. Possession of property does not confer upon anyone immunity from legal inquiry as to its acquisition or transfer, occupancy, lease, water use, improvement, neglect, or criminal activities.

The fact that x is routine in current law enforcement does not mean that x should be routine, or that law enforcement would be impossible without x. You should deal with fundamentals before giving yet another laundry list of legal problems, whether real or imaginary.

Go ahead. Refute the proposition that justice is the armed defense of innocent liberty, if you can.

I will comment on that assertion, but first you need to define or explain what you mean by "innocent liberty." To the extent I can make sense of that term, I take it to mean liberty or freedom of action that does not violate the rights of other people, but you obviously cannot fall back on that conception, or anything similar to it. Moreover, "innocent" is a peculiar word in this context. Innocent liberty as opposed to what? Guilty liberty?

Lastly, even if I were to agree that justice entails, as a consequence, the right to use physical force ("armed" is highly misleading, since a person who defends himself with his fists is not "armed") in defense of innocent liberty (however defined), it would not follow that you have given a definition of justice. But more on this later, provided you can explain what "innocent liberty" is supposed to mean. And don't quote from your book. Just give me a simple, straightforward explanation.

Ghs

[Brant Gaede]

The George H. Smith rules for adversarial public discourse:

>argue like hell

>both go into the kitchen and drink beer

>argue like hell

--Brant

the Internet is a little bit different

[George H. Smith]

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

Rubbish. Courts and cops routinely initiate force.

I agree with this, btw, which is why I (and other libertarians) object to much of what cops and courts routinely do. Or didn't this possibility occur to you?Ghs

George, the problem with "initiation of force" is that it's basically used to mean whatever libertarians are opposed to. It's like Google's motto. According to one I've read, failing to give to someone what you owe to them is "coercion". That's an awfull unorthodox use of that word. All this so they don't have to do away with "initiation of force".

The problem you note haunts every key term in political philosophy, including "justice," "rights," "government," and "consent." So what? The point of political philosophy is to hammer out and clarify those concepts.

"Coercion" has indeed been defined in various ways, but the same is generally not true of the "initiation of force." Nor is it true that libertarian philosophers have adjusted their definitions to conform to predetermined conclusions. On the contrary, there are a number of conclusions that follow from the NIOF principle that I have never been entirely comfortable with. Grappling with unresolved problems is part of what it means to "do" philosophy.

I dealt with these and similar problems (such as "threats" of force), sometimes in considerable detail, in a number of my Cato Essays from around 2 years ago. I will provide some links if you are interested.

Ghs

[Samson Corwell]

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

Rubbish. Courts and cops routinely initiate force.

I agree with this, btw, which is why I (and other libertarians) object to much of what cops and courts routinely do. Or didn't this possibility occur to you?Ghs

George, the problem with "initiation of force" is that it's basically used to mean whatever libertarians are opposed to. It's like Google's motto. According to one I've read, failing to give to someone what you owe to them is "coercion". That's an awfull unorthodox use of that word. All this so they don't have to do away with "initiation of force".

The problem you note haunts every key term in political philosophy, including "justice," "rights," "government," and "consent." So what? The point of political philosophy is to hammer out and clarify those concepts.

"Coercion" has indeed been defined in various ways, but the same is generally not true of the "initiation of force." Nor is it true that libertarian philosophers have adjusted their definitions to conform to predetermined conclusions. On the contrary, there are a number of conclusions that follow from the NIOF principle that I have never been entirely comfortable with. Grappling with unresolved problems is part of what it means to "do" philosophy.

I dealt with these and similar problems (such as "threats" of force), sometimes in considerable detail, in a number of my Cato Essays from around 2 years ago. I will provide some links if you are interested.

Ghs

Links are welcomed. I've just always had problems with the phrasing, I suppose.

[George H. Smith]

I presented my views on objective legal procedures, as based on and derived from the NIOF principle, in my 1978 paper, Justice Entrepreneurship in a Free Market. pdf .

For my replies to 3 critics, including Randy Barnett (who later came to agree with most of my arguments), see Justice Entrepreneurship Revisited: A Reply to Critics. pdf.

Ghs

[Wolf DeVoon]

give me a simple, straightforward explanation.

Innocence is a question to be determined by the rules of evidence, adversarial due process, and fair trial by jury.

viz:

Your moral life is real: it grows from innocent childhood to maturity. [COGIGG, p.33]

The Freeman's Constitution doesn't say anything about substantive civil rights or responsibilities, except the Article I guarantee of due process, a persistent procedural right to be heard in open court to explain yourself and your beef with an adversary, both of you presumed innocent. Presuming someone to be wrong or guilty is anathema to fair trial. [p.45]

The rule of law has nothing to do with a sovereign state, except in the narrow sense that such states exist and when they comply with the rule of law they are viewed as 'legal persons' (litigants) possessed of competent legal standing to sue or be sued with the presumption of innocence, no greater or lesser in legal character than a single infant child. [p.54]

Due process is not an end in itself. There is a principle which logically informs due process — the presumption of innocence... The most important implementation (Art. I) is an enduring, uninterruptible right to petition the courts, which includes habeas corpus to inquire whether someone's liberty is being wrongly denied... The courts have to remain open to those in custody. Persistent presumption of innocence forbids cruel and unusual punishment, and in my view ought to block capital punishment. You never know about guilty verdicts, not really. Might be brutalizing or murdering an innocent guy. [p.56]

We need common law juries and strong adversarial due process. To be convicted of fraud or adjudged a debtor does not end one's right to life or his persistent presumption of innocence, nor does a verdict of legal 'guilt' appoint and constitute a complainant counterparty or lender to an office of retribution. [p.58]

My solution is to let ownership be decided case by case on the merits of the pleadings, with the presumption of innocence expanded to a presumption of no jurisdiction, unless someone alleges wrongful dispossession of his putative property... [p.64-65]

Nothing is more respectable or fearsome than a fair trial by jury in open court with rigorous rules of evidence and competent counsel free to debate the guilt or innocence of an accused. [p.96]

Assume that a prominent man, an honored patriot of our society is assassinated by culprit or culprits unknown. Who investigates his murder? Who prosecutes? How is guilt or innocence determined? What punishment can we impose for a heinous political act? Leaders exist now at the forefront of our emergent free society, and many more will arise. Only a widely held respect for due process can restrain an epidemic of private vengence, if there is bloodshed. [p.117]

Very early in the history of Anglo-American law it was asserted that a freeman was at liberty to conduct his own affairs, unless restrained by due process of law (i.e., a constitution). The notion of "innocent liberty" is easily discerned in this ancient statement of political right. Freemen were at liberty, presumed innocent unless proved guilty of violating the law, which applied equally to all freemen. I do not suggest that this provision of Magna Carta should be construed as an obligatory legal or constitutional precedent. Rather, I cite it to suggest that my theory of justice is not at odds with historical understanding of civil liberty and the rule of law. [p.121]

The essential function of law is to distinguish between innocence and guilt, truth and falsehood, political right and wrong. [p.122]

The presumption of innocence is integral to due process. [p.124]

The most serious crime of all is abuse of the police power, and the Constitution provides the sternest possible punishment (basically, the death penalty) for willfully and wrongfully denying another person's legal presumption of innocence and right to due process. [p.128]

Evildoers should not be allowed to judge their own innocence. Nor is it sane or wise to treat accusation as proof, condemning someone without fair trial of fact. [p.131]

The essential question is illuminated by a case in equity. Suppose that a neighbor, visitor, or stranger decides to go fishing with dynamite, instead of using hook and line. It's irrelevant whether he's rich or poor. Explosions and indiscriminate slaughter affect everyone living near the lake and deprive their children's children of fish stock. If one fellow is lazy and brazen enough to fish with dynamite to the obvious detriment of his neighbors and their innocent progeny, what grievous mayhem might be next? [p.148]

Equity jurisdiction is especially important for the protection of innocents. "Great inadequacy of consideration, joined with great disparity of mental ability in contracting a bargain, may justify equity in setting aside a sale or other contract." (Georgia 23-2-2) [p.149]

---------------

Honor, justice, and humanity forbid us tamely to surrender that freedom which we received from our gallant ancestors, and which our innocent posterity have a right to receive from us. [Declaration of Taking Up Arms, 2nd Continental Congress, July 6, 1775]

[George H. Smith]

give me a simple, straightforward explanation.

Innocence is a question to be determined by the rules of evidence, adversarial due process, and fair trial by jury.

You still have not explained what "innocent liberty" is supposed to mean. You have merely stated how, in your opinion, innocent liberty should be determined. But what is it that is to be determined by evidence, due process, and a jury? Merely whether or not someone broke a particular law?

The rest of your post was irrelevant to this problem. You should omit similar filler in any subsequent replies.

Ghs

[Wolf DeVoon]

Up yours, George.

[George H. Smith]

Links are welcomed. I've just always had problems with the phrasing, I suppose.

Linking the most relevant Cato Essays on the meaning of "coercion" is a little tricky, since I haven't reviewed those old essays for a long time and discussions are spread throughout a number of them. I will look for the most relevant pieces. For now, here is the first of five parts of my response to philosopher Matt Zwolinski's criticism of the NAP (non-aggression principle). The internal links within each part will take you to the other parts.

As I recall, this series discusses the implications of the NAP for fraud, children's rights, threats, etc.

Defending the Non-Aggression Principle: A Reply to Matt Zwolinksi.

Here is a standalone piece that may also be relevant:

Negative and Positive Liberty: Some Historical Reflections.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

Up yours, George.

No donut for you.

Ghs

[Wolf DeVoon]

No donut for you.

"I will continue to view pollution as merely one among numerous problems in libertarian theory that requires additional work."

No place in history for you.

[George H. Smith]

Links are welcomed. I've just always had problems with the phrasing, I suppose.

Linking the most relevant Cato Essays on the meaning of "coercion" is a little tricky, since I haven't reviewed those old essays for a long time and discussions are spread throughout a number of them. I will look for the most relevant pieces. For now, here is the first of five parts of my response to philosopher Matt Zwolinski's criticism of the NAP (non-aggression principle). The internal links within each part will take you to the other parts.

As I recall, this series discusses the implications of the NAP for fraud, children's rights, threats, etc.

Defending the Non-Aggression Principle: A Reply to Matt Zwolinksi.

Here is a standalone piece that may also be relevant:

Negative and Positive Liberty: Some Historical Reflections.

Ghs

This essay, which discusses some theoretical problems associated with threats of coercion, deals with some very important issues.

Tracking Freedom with the Human Sciences, Part 2

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

No donut for you.

"I will continue to view pollution as merely one among numerous problems in libertarian theory that requires additional work."

No place in history for you.

If you ever figure out what you mean by "innocent liberty," please let us know.

Ghs