Five Questions ("Government on Trial") -- Larken Rose

[jts]

He challenges people who believe in government (that includes Objectivists) to answer these 5 questions.

---- THE FIVE QUESTIONS ----

1) Is there any means by which any number of individuals can delegate to someone else the moral right to do something which none of the individuals have the moral right to do themselves?

2) Do those who wield political power (presidents, legislators, etc.) have the moral right to do things which other people do not have the moral right to do? If so, from whom and how did they acquire such a right?

3) Is there any process (e.g., constitutions, elections, legislation) by which human beings can transform an immoral act into a moral act (without changing the act itself)?

4) When law-makers and law-enforcers use coercion and force in the name of law and government, do they bear the same responsibility for their actions that anyone else would who did the same thing on his own?

5) When there is a conflict between an individual's own moral conscience, and the commands of a political authority, is the individual morally obligated to do what he personally views as wrong in order to "obey the law"?

[BaalChatzaf]

The answer is obvious. Do away with government....

[jts]

The answer is obvious. Do away with government....

How can you support war without government? This is your question back at you.

[Brant Gaede]

Good luck doing away with government. That's for a society as a whole. It's possible to greatly minimize government in one's own life.

--Brant

[Selene]

JTS:

What is the point of the five questions?

I did not watch the video?

A...

[jts]

JTS:

What is the point of the five questions?

I did not watch the video?

A...

Larken Rose is thumbs down on government. The questions are directed to all who think government is morally legit.

[Selene]

JTS:

What is the point of the five questions?

I did not watch the video?

A...

Larken Rose is thumbs down on government. The questions are directed to all who think government is morally legit.

Thks.

[BaalChatzaf]

The answer is obvious. Do away with government....

How can you support war without government? This is your question back at you.

You got me..... If we want an army we must put up with government....

[Derek McGowan]

1. maybe not delegate to others but certain circumstances can and do change the definition of what is moral. A easy example is imprisonment/execution of a criminal/murderer. The right to not be held prisoner or the morality against murder (when it comes to execution) can be trumped by the need for justice or protection from this person.

2. They require the right by virtue of the role they play. If you are a parent, you acquire the ability to defend your child (against harm from others) at all costs. This can be further played out in having to steal from a grocery store to feed your child in the event of Zombie Uprising or Nuclear Winter. As a CEO you have a responsibility to make as much profit for your shareholders as possible. As an leader, the group is looking to you to protect or guide them, thus they give your the right to protect or guide them.

3. As humans we make the definitions of what is moral. The process is to simply change the definition. This is done all the time by people in or out of government.

4. I was actually thinking about this question recently in regards to the Avengers. When they are done protecting the planet from aliens, do they have a responsibility to clean up the destruction caused by their protection. But in reality I think that police do pay if they kick your door in (? I really don't know?)

5. "morally obligated"? Maybe not morally but unless they want to incur the consequences of disobeying then they will. Same as a child parent relationship. Same as any relationship. A friend says they wont be your friend anymore unless you help them break into someone's house. Either you choose to go in with them or you take the consequences and lose a friend.

[Francisco Ferrer]

1. Executions and the killing of aggressors in self-defense are not murder for simple reason that the aggressor has forfeited his rights over himself by presenting a deadly threat to a peaceful citizen. (Everybody, not just tax-paid officials, enjoys the right of self-defense.) Thus "the definition of what is moral" has not changed nor has "the morality against murder" been "trumped."

2. Tax-paid officials are not legally or morally equivalent to parents. Parents assume the role of guardians only because their children are not yet capable of making critical decisions. That is not true of the relationship between government and adult citizens. If someone in
America needs another, stronger, wiser person to be his leader by taking a portion of the weaker man's salary and telling the weaker man what to do, that arrangement can be made--voluntarily. If there are governments on this planet that present their subjects with the option of whether or not to grant government authority over them, ours is not one of them.

3. I am not aware of any case in which a person has transformed a murderous act (say, the hanging of a "witch") into a moral act by merely changing the definition of "moral." The fact that the theocrats of Salem, Massachusetts believed with all their hearts that killing witches was their moral duty did not make those killings any less murderous.

4. If I knock down a wall in my neighbor's house in order to seize and destroy a chemical that I do not like, I owe him for the wall, the chemical and any inconvenience he suffered. The same is true for superheroes and tax-paid "heroes."

[Derek McGowan]

Fransisco, if you choose to ignore the reality that morality HAS been reinterpreted throughout the thousands of years of history and the implication that our agreed upon morality (i too believe in the morality that you espouse) will eventually change as well, that is your right.

In fact Ayn rand specifically challenged accepted morality as further proof of the reinterpreting of morals

[Brant Gaede]

Fransisco, if you choose to ignore the reality that morality HAS been reinterpreted throughout the thousands of years of history and the implication that our agreed upon morality (i too believe in the morality that you espouse) will eventually change as well, that is your right.

In fact Ayn rand specifically challenged accepted morality as further proof of the reinterpreting of morals

Morality is based on human nature--biology, if you will. It's essentially immutable and there is too much disjunction between that and the seeming artificiality or incompleteness of Objectivism, which is too much a philosophy for Spock and too little for most of the rest of us. It is not incorrect at all insofar as it goes, but it was never designed to go anywhere else--expand--through additional, significant empirical considerations.

--Brant

selfishness is not enough; rational self interest is not enough; rational is enough, but there's not enough that's rational in Objectivism

[Francisco Ferrer]

I do not ignore the datum that moral theories may vary depending on cultural and historical context. However, variance in moral theories does not mean all theories are equally valid, any more than variance in cosmologies means that Flat Earth theory has an equal footing with Kepler's theory.

I hope we can agree that the Nazi ethics that the "master" race has the right to displace the "inferior" races in Europe is nonsense, that hanging women for witchcraft is wrong, and that putting college kids in prison for smoking pot is a bad idea. Thus, if some ethical theories can logically be ruled out, then there must be some objective criterion by which we can determine the truth of an ethical system.

I would argue that libertarian ethical theory is the only one that is not contradicted by its own premises or evidence in the physical world. In that light, I have no hesitation to call the military draft a form of kidnapping and slavery even though a majority of Americans may think it perfectly moral. And, regarding Post #1, there is no "process (e.g., constitutions, elections, legislation) by which human beings can transform an immoral act into a moral act (without changing the act itself)."

[Brant Gaede]

What is "libertarian ethical theory"? Is there one sans politics upon which politics is based? How does it not match up with the Objectivist Ethics if it doesn't?

--Brant

[moralist]

1) Is there any means by which any number of individuals can delegate to someone else the moral right to do something which none of the individuals have the moral right to do themselves?

Not rightfully.

2) Do those who wield political power (presidents, legislators, etc.) have the moral right to do things which other people do not have the moral right to do? If so, from whom and how did they acquire such a right?

Not rightfully.

3) Is there any process (e.g., constitutions, elections, legislation) by which human beings can transform an immoral act into a moral act (without changing the act itself)?

Not rightfully.

4) When law-makers and law-enforcers use coercion and force in the name of law and government, do they bear the same responsibility for their actions that anyone else would who did the same thing on his own?

Rightfully, yes.

5) When there is a conflict between an individual's own moral conscience, and the commands of a political authority, is the individual morally obligated to do what he personally views as wrong in order to "obey the law"?

Not rightfully.

Government plays no role in my life

because I don't need it to play a role in my life.

Greg

[jts]

The answer is obvious. Do away with government....

How can you support war without government? This is your question back at you.

You got me..... If we want an army we must put up with government....

Your options seem to be:

1. Answer the 5 questions in such a way as to justify government.

2. Do away with government. In this case you can't have an army, and without an army you can't make war. You seem to think mass murder war is important.

3. Have an unethical government. You probably would justify this by survival being more important than normal ethics.

My guess is you would choose #3.

[moralist]

It's possible to greatly minimize government in one's own life.

BINGO

Game host: "Johnny... tell the man what he's earned."

Johnny: "He's earned his FREEDOM!"

[Francisco Ferrer]

What is "libertarian ethical theory"? Is there one sans politics upon which politics is based? How does it not match up with the Objectivist Ethics if it doesn't?

--Brant

Those unfamiliar with the ethics of libertarianism can read a summary at Wikipedia: "Right-libertarians value self-ownership and the non-aggression principle, which leads to strong support of private property and free-market capitalism, while rejecting most or all state functions."

If you want "sans politics" you may skip the last seven words in the above sentence.

Libertarianism predates Objectivism, although Rand, fanning the flames of the myth that she owed nothing to any previous philosopher save Aristotle, claimed herself to have invented the core ideas of libertarianism and accused libertarians of stealing those ideas: "I've read nothing by Libertarians (when I read them, in the early years) that wasn't my ideas badly mishandled—i.e., the teeth pulled out of them—with no credit given."

In fact, the basic principles of libertarian ethics go back at least 200 years before Rand's birth to the publication of John Locke's Two Treatises of Government, in which he set forth the idea that

every individual· man has a property in his own

person [= ‘owns himself’]; this is something that nobody else

has any right to. The labour of his body and the work of

his hands, we may say, are strictly his. So when he takes

something from the state that nature has provided and left it

in, he mixes his labour with it, thus joining to it something

that is his own; and in that way he makes it his property. (p. 11)

By extension each individual owns the products he receives in free exchange with others.

[Brant Gaede]

Sorry, but the "non-aggression principle" is no axiom. (See your first link.)

Rand has many legit critics and criticisms, but obviously except for politics most libertarians cannot get out of their own way when it comes to philosophy generally. The non-aggression principle itself is only a way to push political philosophy qua philosophy onto the back burner by obscuring individual rights upon which it is derived. It's not even axiomatic politically. It's not an accident that theorectical libertarianism has slowly imploded since Hospers 1972 book of the same name with many so-called libertarians having no more overt philosophy about anything not directly into and out of that "principle."

I think you aren't sensitive to this because you have a vast knowledge of libertarian thought going back centuries, but most modern libertarians don't seem know anything comparatively. That's why libertarianism is so little to talk about any more. Same too for Objectivism, but for other reasons. Rand drove off libertarians who couldn't and wouldn't have any truck with her authoritarianism and anti-individualism and monopoly thinking and they left most of the philosophy behind because she and it as expressed by her were one and the same. It's not an accident you didn't begin to match up libertarian with Objectivist ethics or that libertarians can't even explain axioms regardless of the fact they're so basic there's no excuse being so simple.

--Brant

[Derek McGowan]

1. Executions and the killing of aggressors in self-defense are not murder for simple reason that the aggressor has forfeited his rights over himself by presenting a deadly threat to a peaceful citizen. (Everybody, not just tax-paid officials, enjoys the right of self-defense.) Thus "the definition of what is moral" has not changed nor has "the morality against murder" been "trumped."

Would you consider imprisonment to be moral being that the criminal has forfeited their rights?

Would you then consider it moral for the government to be able to imprison criminals on behalf of the citizens who need their own rights defended?

Would you say that it is moral for individuals to delegate that right to government?

Since the original question is whether you can delegate a right which is not moral for individuals to government,

would you say that it is moral for individuals to imprison others even in the case of self-defense?

So if someone attacks me, it is moral/well within my rights to imprison them in my basement for 5 years?

ps. it appears we have to definitions on what "trumped" means

[Brant Gaede]

1. Executions and the killing of aggressors in self-defense are not murder for simple reason that the aggressor has forfeited his rights over himself by presenting a deadly threat to a peaceful citizen. (Everybody, not just tax-paid officials, enjoys the right of self-defense.) Thus "the definition of what is moral" has not changed nor has "the morality against murder" been "trumped."

Would you consider imprisonment to be moral being that the criminal has forfeited their rights?

Would you then consider it moral for the government to be able to imprison criminals on behalf of the citizens who need their own rights defended?

Would you say that it is moral for individuals to delegate that right to government?

Since the original question is whether you can delegate a right which is not moral for individuals to government,

would you say that it is moral for individuals to imprison others even in the case of self-defense?

So if someone attacks me, it is moral/well within my rights to imprison them in my basement for 5 years?

ps. it appears we have to definitions on what "trumped" means

We can start with two crimes don't make a right. Absent real law they used to hang rustlers. If you have a basement we can assume without contradictory supplementary information you have generous access to the law.

--Brant

if you have a mess, start over--don't try to de-mess it, and the delegation of self defense is for the governed as a whole imposed by a minority as in the creation of this country which doesn't mean you delegate anything at all for that's been done over 200 years ago so all you can do respecting that is to leave the country or foment a revolution for law qua law will not be displaced only replaced

[Francisco Ferrer]

Sorry, but the "non-aggression principle" is no axiom. (See your first link.)

Rand has many legit critics and criticisms, but obviously except for politics most libertarians cannot get out of their own way when it comes to philosophy generally. The non-aggression principle itself is only a way to push political philosophy qua philosophy onto the back burner by obscuring individual rights upon which it is derived. It's not even axiomatic politically. It's not an accident that theorectical libertarianism has slowly imploded since Hospers 1972 book of the same name with many so-called libertarians having no more overt philosophy about anything not directly into and out of that "principle."

I think you aren't sensitive to this because you have a vast knowledge of libertarian thought going back centuries, but most modern libertarians don't seem know anything comparatively. That's why libertarianism is so little to talk about any more. Same too for Objectivism, but for other reasons. Rand drove off libertarians who couldn't and wouldn't have any truck with her authoritarianism and anti-individualism and monopoly thinking and they left most of the philosophy behind because she and it as expressed by her were one and the same. It's not an accident you didn't begin to match up libertarian with Objectivist ethics or that libertarians can't even explain axioms regardless of the fact they're so basic there's no excuse being so simple.

--Brant

Since I made no claim for the non-aggression principle (NAP) as an axiom, nor quoted anything to the effect that it is an axiom, I hope I may be forgiven for not defending NAP as axiomatic.

It may or may not be true that "libertarians cannot get out of their own way when it comes to philosophy generally," but that has no relevance to the questions posed in Post #1 or the questions you raised in Post #14.

I cannot think of any instances of a person who argues for NAP while "obscuring individual rights." For example, those who take the position that government may not initiate force to collect taxes seem without exception to endorse the idea of a right to the fruit of one's labor. But if you feel this is a widespread problem, by all means make it your personal crusade.

I am not aware that "theoretical libertarianism has slowly imploded since Hospers 1972." In the past 20 years, there have been scores of articles on the foundations of libertarianism published in The Journal of Libertarian Studies, The Cato Journal, and The Independent Review, as well as in books such as Ronald Hamowy's The Encyclopedia of Libertarianism (2008), Edward P. Stringham's Anarchy and the Law: The Political Economy of Choice (2007), Robert P. Murphy's Chaos Theory (2007), Hans-Hermann Hoppe's Democracy: The God That Failed (2001) and the republication of many nearly forgotten classics such as Wilhelm von Humboldt's On the Limits of State Action (1792). The paper and online library of this forum's own George H. Smith outdoes anything written by John Hospers.

As for not matching up libertarian and Objectivist ethics, I provided a link to Locke's Second Treatise on Government and quoted a key passage from it. If you want boxes and arrows drawn, feel free to perform that task yourself.

[Brant Gaede]

I referred to your first link. I'm glad to know all the work's that's been done. I don't see it getting into the culture much. What George is doing today is essentially going back to America's ideological roots which are great as far as far as they go BUT it's been all downhill in practical politics since suggesting something more is needed than what preceded what we have today than our very libertarian-Lockean beginnings. Anyway, they'll be reading and using George many hundreds of years from now. He's that good. And since you put up more authors for reference, maybe them too. In the meantime the bulk of humankind goes along to get along, sort of, with considerable success. I mean, there's billions and billions of people with billions and billions more to come. The only thing that will stop it is an ice age, maybe, or something big from outer space. General Thermonuclear War would just be a blip, albeit horrible enough in itself. I don't think it would trump the Black Plague.

--Brant

[Francisco Ferrer]

The cultural impact of a libertarian ethical theory is quite separate from the existence of such a theory, which is specifically what you you asked about in Post #14. It is safe to say only a tiny part of any population will ever engage in a thoughful, close analysis of the foundation of ethical principles. The popularity of the novel Atlas Shrugged hardly implies that that millions of people have adopted the non-initiation of force based on a painstaking reading of Galt's speech.

I would argue that compared to Rand, Locke's ethical/polirical argument has left a much larger footprint on "the course of human events" in American history, simply because it was at the core of the Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution is its early form, and many state constitutions. When the nexus of ethics and politics are discussed in an academic setting, it is more likely that Locke than Rand will be on the reading list.

In terms of what you call "practical politics," I cannot imagine how one would keep score today on crediting the election of officeholders or the enactment of legislation to a particular political philosopher.

In any case, I hope we will not judge the worth of a set of ideas by its popularity in the culture. If so, pragmatism, majoritarianism, and collectivism would be the clear winners.

[Francisco Ferrer]

1. Executions and the killing of aggressors in self-defense are not murder for simple reason that the aggressor has forfeited his rights over himself by presenting a deadly threat to a peaceful citizen. (Everybody, not just tax-paid officials, enjoys the right of self-defense.) Thus "the definition of what is moral" has not changed nor has "the morality against murder" been "trumped."

Would you consider imprisonment to be moral being that the criminal has forfeited their rights?

Yes.

Would you then consider it moral for the government to be able to imprison criminals on behalf of the citizens who need their own rights defended?

Yes, but with the addendum that government is by its nature a coercive, criminal organization. When one is attacked by two gangs, one often has to align with the less monstrous.

Would you say that it is moral for individuals to delegate that right to government?

Yes, but more out of lack of moral alternatives than pure principle.

Since the original question is whether you can delegate a right which is not moral for individuals to government,

would you say that it is moral for individuals to imprison others even in the case of self-defense?

So if someone attacks me, it is moral/well within my rights to imprison them in my basement for 5 years?

ps. it appears we have to definitions on what "trumped" means

There is nothing immoral about imprisoning a violator of rights, provided that the imprisonment "fits the crime." The imprisonment could not, say, consist of weeks of being chained in a standing position for the theft of ten dollars.

The essential point is that collecting a tax-funded salary does not automatically make a law enforcement officer wiser, fairer, more just than a private citizen.