Standing naked on my property

[Darrell Hougen]

I was there in NYC during the height of NBI "reason" in Objectivism days where you were served the philosophy up on a plate. "It's your job to tell people that Objectivism is. It's our job to tell them what it is." "Reason" is the window dressing of Objectivism. Of course there is a lot of it inside, but it's not yours. If it was you'd have walked out the door.

--Brant

now, shall I repeat my critique of the philosophy as such, for the 100th time? (Rand's quote is all wrong)

Whether the principals of Objectivism were intolerant is irrelevant to the principles of the philosophy.

I happen to agree with Rand's quote, so I'd like to know what you think is wrong with it.

Darrell

[Brant Gaede]

I was there in NYC during the height of NBI "reason" in Objectivism days where you were served the philosophy up on a plate. "It's your job to tell people that Objectivism is. It's our job to tell them what it is." "Reason" is the window dressing of Objectivism. Of course there is a lot of it inside, but it's not yours. If it was you'd have walked out the door.

--Brant

now, shall I repeat my critique of the philosophy as such, for the 100th time? (Rand's quote is all wrong)

Whether the principals of Objectivism were intolerant is irrelevant to the principles of the philosophy.

I happen to agree with Rand's quote, so I'd like to know what you think is wrong with it.

Darrell

Sure. First it's a true statement about her philosophy--that is, the philosophy of Ayn Rand, although incomplete, of course, but that's not Objectivism. Everybody has a personal philosophy and it's theirs alone and she was no exception. Objectivism is a universal respecting its true basic principles of reason and reality, rational self interest and individual rights. Her philosophy (of Objectivism [we can call it that]) is like 90% cultural lard on and easily disputable qua its universality. The first principles encompassing reality and reason are basic and common with good science. The ethics need a lot of work off the basic set as do the politics, but the former the most. Understand the role here of the artist: first she created her ideal man then an ethics to go with him. She did not do much studying of actual human beings human being; she wasn't well--broadly and deeply--educated in the liberal arts. So you end up with a should-be ethics for a should-be man without even understanding true heroism or how to depict it, so as a classic Objectivist you put on your hero (Objectivist) clothes and parade about unknowingly imitating her heroes as statues although presented in literature. When you mix up heroism with perfection you make a perfect mistake. Hers and yours--you aren't the real you so so much for real individualism and critical thinking. (When I say "you" I don't mean the you you.)

A man, or a woman of course, is an heroic being after the heroic act or a consequence of acting heroically. Those acts can be small and numerous as to how one comports oneself mentally after babyhood, for instance, and also perhaps with how one deals with fear and /or corrects acts of cowardice so as to not be a coward going forward. Physical courage comes from mental courage even the courage to know when it's wise, right and proper to seem a coward so you can do the right thing tomorrow you cannot do today. Etc. In so far as Ayn Rand understood any of this she didn't understand enough to do much explication if any on how one becomes heroic so her statement about "man as an heroic being" seems quite empty to me even although Rand herself was tremendously one in her accomplishments, but lacking good introspection she never began to make that travel. Go on. Tell me about the childhoods of John Galt and Howard Roark. A heroic being has to make himself and it starts and is mostly done before adulthood, but we are told nothing. It might have to do with the pains of growth and self doubt and confusion and and falling down morally and recovering from that and going on, but that has nothing to do with a heroic being as a statue or even depicted in a painting. Literature is a dynamic medium but she spiked what she couldn't deal with and froze her heroes mostly in place.

(I'm not saying anything here about the content of her first novel, We the Living, which should have a separate evaluation, or even Anthem or The Simplest Thing In the World.)

Brant

yeah, I know, I've gone over the top, but such is my charm

[Jonathan]

Sorry, guys, I'm quitting this thread, no more to say.

Yeah.

As I said earlier:

You are kind of a dope, despite your intelligence.

It's hard as an observer -- but nevertheless intriguing -- trying to figure out why you come to your loopy conclusions and seem to be so thin-skinned and unable to answer criticism. It's like watching a skilled carpenter construct a house at the totally wrong scale and cant, and trying to figure out how he has so horribly mismeasured. Which of his tools might be defective, or why and how might he be misreading the blueprints?

It's fascinating to watch how angry you get in the face of criticism, and how you try to support your mismeasurements with evidence that doesn't actually support them.

[Wolf DeVoon]

Sorry, guys, I'm quitting this thread, no more to say.

Yeah.

As I said earlier:

You are kind of a dope, despite your intelligence.

It's hard as an observer -- but nevertheless intriguing -- trying to figure out why you come to your loopy conclusions and seem to be so thin-skinned and unable to answer criticism. It's like watching a skilled carpenter construct a house at the totally wrong scale and cant, and trying to figure out how he has so horribly mismeasured. Which of his tools might be defective, or why and how might he be misreading the blueprints?

It's fascinating to watch how angry you get in the face of criticism, and how you try to support your mismeasurements with evidence that doesn't actually support them.

A personal attack dressed up as amateur psychology. A mimeographed chorus no less, since once is never enough to keep away the chasm of unthinkable thoughts, unanswerable questions. Not to worry. We'll have Smith along presently for another One Minute Hate.

Meanwhile, I'll stand pat with my reply to Brant --

Courts of law and sworn law enforcement officers initiate force as a matter of necessary routine.

[George H. Smith]

I'm still going to read your L.F.L. so I can get my head around your ideas in this area. I still can't quite get what they come out of so their context is missing. First you have human being ("man") then his best if not necessary philosophy then political philosophy. Without the philosophy I'm having trouble with the political. Ayn Rand came with the philosophy but it's so ignorant of human being, though hardly all ignorance, it's still flapping around on the floor like a bird with a broken wing. Locke and the Founding Fathers were all about people and their needs and problems of getting along socially. Rand came with an ethics and lip service to "reason." Rand could not begin to stand up to this kind of Internet environment of give and take nor did she even indulge in more limited venues. So far you complain about "law givers," but all I see is a structure giver as a replacement but you still are a giver, if only would be, or a top-downer to hoi polloi and, in fact, to everyone. Givers need takers. That's the trade.

--Brant

You are much too hard on Rand, and you underestimate her. She could have held her own, and then some, in any Internet exchange, but even if she had lived during the Age of the Internet, I'm certain that she would not have participated -- except, perhaps, in some moderated Q&A format. After spending many years developing her ideas, Rand would have exposed herself to any moron who wanted to take pot shots at her, and that would have been a monumental waste of her time, not to mention demeaning.

Lastly, Rand did far more than give "lip service" to reason. She had a real talent for philosophy and a keen eye for fundamentals; and though some of her philosophy is sketchy, much of it is highly suggestive and fundamentally sound. ITOE, for example, is an ingenious monograph.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

Meanwhile, I'll stand pat with my reply to Brant --

Courts of law and sworn law enforcement officers initiate force as a matter of necessary routine.

Why is this "necessary?"

Ghs

[Brant Gaede]

I'm still going to read your L.F.L. so I can get my head around your ideas in this area. I still can't quite get what they come out of so their context is missing. First you have human being ("man") then his best if not necessary philosophy then political philosophy. Without the philosophy I'm having trouble with the political. Ayn Rand came with the philosophy but it's so ignorant of human being, though hardly all ignorance, it's still flapping around on the floor like a bird with a broken wing. Locke and the Founding Fathers were all about people and their needs and problems of getting along socially. Rand came with an ethics and lip service to "reason." Rand could not begin to stand up to this kind of Internet environment of give and take nor did she even indulge in more limited venues. So far you complain about "law givers," but all I see is a structure giver as a replacement but you still are a giver, if only would be, or a top-downer to hoi polloi and, in fact, to everyone. Givers need takers. That's the trade.

--Brant

You are much too hard on Rand, and you underestimate her. She could have held her own, and then some, in any Internet exchange, but even if she had lived during the Age of the Internet, I'm certain that she would not have participated -- except, perhaps, in some moderated Q&A format. After spending many years developing her ideas, Rand would have exposed herself to any moron who wanted to take pot shots at her, and that would have been a monumental waste of her time, not to mention demeaning.

Lastly, Rand did far more than give "lip service" to reason. She had a real talent for philosophy and a keen eye for fundamentals; and though some of her philosophy is sketchy, much of it is highly suggestive and fundamentally sound. ITOE, for example, is an ingenious monograph.

Ghs

You're right, I was too hard on her. It's not that she couldn't hold her own, it's that she wouldn't subject herself to it. As for reason and Objectivism, I was thinking mostly about its presentation, more than what is in it. "The moderated format," however, is about what happened to her unpublished papers published after her death including the appendix to ITOE, the difference being one moderation having her approval as to who gets in and the other moderation of what she said and wrote. The very worst example I can think of is Peikoff sticking his introduction into the front of Atlas Shrugged.

--Brant

[Wolf DeVoon]

Courts of law and sworn law enforcement officers initiate force as a matter of necessary routine.

Why is this "necessary?"

Empirical evidence: not one of the 2,000 criminals I met in prison went to court voluntarily.

Logical basis: due process

What laissez faire law courts can (and must) do is public justice, when the wrong is great and there is nowhere else to turn for closure. Consider a few examples. 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 due process can restrain an epidemic of private vengeance, if there is bloodshed...

Another example: a spectacular banking fraud or embezzlement suddenly wipes out hundreds of accountholders. Each accountholder was wronged, and each can sue. But some wrongs damage the public good — especially if an innocent man or group is falsely accused of misconduct. The law establishes limits of liability, enforceability of contracts, and the obligation of a fiduciary. Due process exonerates the falsely accused, as well as those who may be guilty but against whom no provable case can be made.

Another example: people die of old age. You cannot forever manage your own affairs, and laissez faire courts are needed to probate the disposition of your estate. If you die or declare yourself bankrupt, your remaining assets should be properly distributed to your creditors, according to a complex hierarchy of contract and property law. Your heirs must be discharged and held harmless.

Lastly, perhaps most importantly, the imperative of national security will never recede.A laissez faire community, however small, is a nation of bandits and scofflaws, each of our names destined to appear on a list somewhere as suspected criminals, perhaps revolutionaries. Every day of a freeman's life involves breaking some nation state's regulations and edicts. This compels freemen to adopt and observe a rigorous system of disguises and financial defenses, including the use of aliases. A mole in our midst can do enormous damage to the community, and so, we logically support the activities, if any, of our Intelligence and Security agencies, if such groups exist. We need a laissez faire constitution to stop the 'good guys' from falsely accusing and peremptorially punishing innocent people. It has happened before. It will happen again. The most urgent responsibility of a laissez faire judiciary is to propagate the rule of law as a counterweight to secret use of explusion and surveillance by Executive Order. It feels foolish to pretend that there is no Executive Branch or administrative agency in our community, no central bank, no stock exchange, etc, but I'm willing to do so, for national security reasons. What I am not willing to do is to cede arbitrary power to a defacto state, policed by anonymous spooks. If the Executive wants to conduct a digital search or seizure, make them apply for a court order. Laissez faire judges, upholding the Freeman's Constitution, are sworn to defend innocent liberty and privacy, unless there is probable cause to investigate...

I respect very sincerely the prejudice of my fellow freemen, who are angrily contemptuous of all lawyers and law. No doubt they believe themselves able to compose their own contracts and corporate charters, unaided by advice of legal counsel. Not everyone is equally competent. Many need representation, especially in the event of a dispute. All of us need recourse to an impartial tribunal when shit comes to holler and tests our community's institutions. It is good that no one wants government. But the law is not government. Law is a profession, like medicine or engineering, and freemen need objective public justice, if they wish to enjoy their liberty and privacy. To some, it is a painful truth, that science is not arbitrary supposition. To others, it is intolerable to be legally answerable to a summons (i.e., to be called into court, either as a witness or defendant). The rule of law is not fun. It is a difficult duty that no one much enjoys, not even when you prevail over an adversary in court.

[Laissez Faire Law, excerpts, p.154-57]

Dictators in particular and men in general never admit to evil. The bloodiest villains always cling to the idea that they're right and just; that their actions, however cruel and horrible, are sanctified by some sort of 'mission' or moral code.

Some of my critics have asserted that the best law is no law, pleading a bald contradiction in terms, as if acquittal was their birthright, a perfect haven of immunity, guarded by an impassable moat. Men are incapable of confessing openly that they want to escape justice. Friend or enemy of due process, we declare with one voice that our conduct is fair and honorable, with malice toward none. The claim is usually false. In simple, 18th century language: 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. Men lie. We also remember wrongly, forget, etc. 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.

The need for justice overlays so closely the enterprise of human life that no man can leave the subject unattended for very long.

[The Constitution of Government in Galt's Gulch, p.131]

[Darrell Hougen]

Meanwhile, I'll stand pat with my reply to Brant --

Courts of law and sworn law enforcement officers initiate force as a matter of necessary routine.

Why is this "necessary?"

Ghs

That was going to be my question.

As an aside, I just finished reading the series of essays linked on your signature line. Quite interesting. I had never dug into the history of the term or the concept of altruism and knew barely anything about Auguste Comte. I had always thought Rand exaggerated a bit in her description of the altruist morality, but now I see that wasn't so. Altruism, as described by Comte, is every bit the abomination that Rand portrayed it to be. I also enjoyed your scholarship with respect to some of the lesser known works of Rand including her letter to John Hospers. I have to admit I've never delved into a lot of that stuff.

I liked this quote of Comte (emphasis added):

Positivism never admits anything but duties, of all to all. For its persistently social point of view cannot tolerate the notion of rights, constantly based on individualism. We are born loaded with obligations of every kind, to our predecessors, to our successors, and to our contemporaries. Later they only grow or accumulate before we can return any service. On what human foundation then could rest the idea of right, which in reason should imply some previous efficiency. Whatever may be our efforts, the longest life well employed will never enable us to pay back but an imperceptible part of what we received. And yet it would only be after a complete return that we should be justly authorized to require reciprocity for the new services. All human rights then are as absurd as they are immoral.

Sounds a lot like someone that's been in the news in the last couple of years:

“I hear all this, you know, ‘Well, this is class warfare, this is whatever,’” she said. “No. There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own. Nobody. “You built a factory out there? Good for you. But I want to be clear: you moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for; you hired workers the rest of us paid to educate; you were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn’t have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory, and hire someone to protect against this, because of the work the rest of us did. “Now look, you built a factory and it turned into something terrific, or a great idea? God bless. Keep a big hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along.”

Sounds a lot like the the altruist code of ethics propounded by Comte.

Darrell

[Samson Corwell]

Meanwhile, I'll stand pat with my reply to Brant --

Courts of law and sworn law enforcement officers initiate force as a matter of necessary routine.

Why is this "necessary?"

Ghs

Well it's necessary for enforcement, I suppose. If someone is served an arrest warrant, then no force is used if they comply with it of their own will. If they resist arrest, then force is used. I think that might be what he means.

[Samson Corwell]

Meanwhile, I'll stand pat with my reply to Brant --

Courts of law and sworn law enforcement officers initiate force as a matter of necessary routine.

Why is this "necessary?"

Ghs

That was going to be my question.

As an aside, I just finished reading the series of essays linked on your signature line. Quite interesting. I had never dug into the history of the term or the concept of altruism and knew barely anything about Auguste Comte. I had always thought Rand exaggerated a bit in her description of the altruist morality, but now I see that wasn't so. Altruism, as described by Comte, is every bit the abomination that Rand portrayed it to be. I also enjoyed your scholarship with respect to some of the lesser known works of Rand including her letter to John Hospers. I have to admit I've never delved into a lot of that stuff.

I liked this quote of Comte (emphasis added):

Positivism never admits anything but duties, of all to all. For its persistently social point of view cannot tolerate the notion of rights, constantly based on individualism. We are born loaded with obligations of every kind, to our predecessors, to our successors, and to our contemporaries. Later they only grow or accumulate before we can return any service. On what human foundation then could rest the idea of right, which in reason should imply some previous efficiency. Whatever may be our efforts, the longest life well employed will never enable us to pay back but an imperceptible part of what we received. And yet it would only be after a complete return that we should be justly authorized to require reciprocity for the new services. All human rights then are as absurd as they are immoral.

Sounds a lot like someone that's been in the news in the last couple of years:

“I hear all this, you know, ‘Well, this is class warfare, this is whatever,’” she said. “No. There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own. Nobody. “You built a factory out there? Good for you. But I want to be clear: you moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for; you hired workers the rest of us paid to educate; you were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn’t have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory, and hire someone to protect against this, because of the work the rest of us did. “Now look, you built a factory and it turned into something terrific, or a great idea? God bless. Keep a big hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along.”

Sounds a lot like the the altruist code of ethics propounded by Comte.

Darrell

Darrell, I don't think anyone, even a Democrat, would like what Comte's views are.

[Darrell Hougen]

Courts of law and sworn law enforcement officers initiate force as a matter of necessary routine.

Why is this "necessary?"

Empirical evidence: not one of the 2,000 criminals I met in prison went to court voluntarily.

If they were criminals, presumably, they initiated force.

If they were not criminals and were falsely compelled to go to court, that is a problem. However, the implementation of a principle is never perfect. The goal should be to eliminate force to the maximum degree possible or practicable. That's why, "no warrants shall issue but on probably cause" --- to reduce the probability of falsely arresting innocent persons.

The fact that innocent persons may be arrested is due to a limitation of human abilities. Humans must operate on limited knowledge and are not infallible. That, in itself, is not a problem with the non-initiation of force principle.

A similar argument applies to age-of-consent laws. The reason for having a specific age cutoff rather than judging each case on it merits, i.e., based on the maturity levels of the people involved, is because the latter is impractical.

Previously, you've argued for the need to compel witness testimony. Witnesses may well be innocent, so why should they be subject to force? That's a good question. I'm not sure their testimony should be compelled. Witnesses that are forced to testify are often lousy witnesses anyway. If they fear for their lives, they may pretend they didn't hear or see anything or give false testimony. Countries and regions where witnesses are not willing to come forth voluntarily are virtually ungovernable regardless of laws that compel their testimony.

You've argued for the need to compel juries. Is that really necessary? What about having professional juries? What about paying them more? What about the notion that when you sign up to vote you're giving your pledge to serve on a jury if you're called? Many "duties" could be tied to the privileges associated with a certain level of citizenship. One can criticize such ideas on their specifics, but that doesn't affect the argument that the goal should be to minimize compulsion in human relations.

Darrell

[Darrell Hougen]

Meanwhile, I'll stand pat with my reply to Brant --

Courts of law and sworn law enforcement officers initiate force as a matter of necessary routine.

Why is this "necessary?"

Ghs

Well it's necessary for enforcement, I suppose. If someone is served an arrest warrant, then no force is used if they comply with it of their own will. If they resist arrest, then force is used. I think that might be what he means.

The threat of force is equivalent to the use of force.

Darrell

[Darrell Hougen]

Meanwhile, I'll stand pat with my reply to Brant --

Courts of law and sworn law enforcement officers initiate force as a matter of necessary routine.

Why is this "necessary?"

Ghs

That was going to be my question.

As an aside, I just finished reading the series of essays linked on your signature line. Quite interesting. I had never dug into the history of the term or the concept of altruism and knew barely anything about Auguste Comte. I had always thought Rand exaggerated a bit in her description of the altruist morality, but now I see that wasn't so. Altruism, as described by Comte, is every bit the abomination that Rand portrayed it to be. I also enjoyed your scholarship with respect to some of the lesser known works of Rand including her letter to John Hospers. I have to admit I've never delved into a lot of that stuff.

I liked this quote of Comte (emphasis added):

Positivism never admits anything but duties, of all to all. For its persistently social point of view cannot tolerate the notion of rights, constantly based on individualism. We are born loaded with obligations of every kind, to our predecessors, to our successors, and to our contemporaries. Later they only grow or accumulate before we can return any service. On what human foundation then could rest the idea of right, which in reason should imply some previous efficiency. Whatever may be our efforts, the longest life well employed will never enable us to pay back but an imperceptible part of what we received. And yet it would only be after a complete return that we should be justly authorized to require reciprocity for the new services. All human rights then are as absurd as they are immoral.

Sounds a lot like someone that's been in the news in the last couple of years:

“I hear all this, you know, ‘Well, this is class warfare, this is whatever,’” she said. “No. There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own. Nobody. “You built a factory out there? Good for you. But I want to be clear: you moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for; you hired workers the rest of us paid to educate; you were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn’t have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory, and hire someone to protect against this, because of the work the rest of us did. “Now look, you built a factory and it turned into something terrific, or a great idea? God bless. Keep a big hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along.”

Sounds a lot like the the altruist code of ethics propounded by Comte.

Darrell

Darrell, I don't think anyone, even a Democrat, would like what Comte's views are.

That's why the politicians never recite the non-highlighted parts of Comte's philosophy.

Darrell

[Samson Corwell]

Meanwhile, I'll stand pat with my reply to Brant --

Courts of law and sworn law enforcement officers initiate force as a matter of necessary routine.

Why is this "necessary?"

Ghs

Well it's necessary for enforcement, I suppose. If someone is served an arrest warrant, then no force is used if they comply with it of their own will. If they resist arrest, then force is used. I think that might be what he means.

The threat of force is equivalent to the use of force.

Darrell

It's really not. That's why threats made over the Internet are treated differently than walking up and hitting someone. If we take this tact, then we could make property equivalent to force.

[Brant Gaede]

Thanks for the heads up about George's essays on Rand and altruism, Darrell. George did an excellent job. I had only one quibble. In section 4 George mentions that Hospers was "then a professor at USC." I can't tell if George meant in 1961-1962 when Hospers was not or later on when he was, say in the 1970s or 80s. If the latter, which I suspect, it's hard to figure out.

--Brant

[Ellen Stuttle]

Thanks for the heads up about George's essays on Rand and altruism, Darrell. George did an excellent job. I had only one quibble. In section 4 George mentions that Hospers was "then a professor at USC." I can't tell if George meant in 1961-1962 when Hospers was not or later on when he was, say in the 1970s or 80s. If the latter, which I suspect, it's hard to figure out.

--Brant

I think that Hospers was teaching at both USC and Brooklyn College in 1961-1962.

Ellen

[Brant Gaede]

Thanks for the heads up about George's essays on Rand and altruism, Darrell. George did an excellent job. I had only one quibble. In section 4 George mentions that Hospers was "then a professor at USC." I can't tell if George meant in 1961-1962 when Hospers was not or later on when he was, say in the 1970s or 80s. If the latter, which I suspect, it's hard to figure out.

--Brant

I think that Hospers was teaching at both USC and Brooklyn College in 1961-1962.

Ellen

Bi-Coastal?

--Brant

they did have jet airplanes then

[Wolf DeVoon]

the goal should be to minimize compulsion in human relations.

Darrell, you asked a number of questions in good faith, which I'll answer briefly.

Laissez faire law is discovered by what means? -- litigation and trial

Using what facts? -- legally admissible evidence introduced by the parties

With reference to what principles? -- impartiality, fundamental fairness

Should judges consult their own moral codes? -- never, except to recuse if they have an interest in the case

Or their own feelings? -- never

Or should they base their concept of right on reason? -- This is a complex matter. In common law civil and criminal cases a jury is empaneled to weigh the evidence and arguments of opposing counsel. In cases of hearing probable cause, petition for equitable relief, juvenile proceedings, family law, and probate, it is customary for the judge to hear the evidence and rule according to the facts and arguments presented by interested parties. Personally, I think juries (composed of women) should be an option in family law trial.

Is the outcome irrelevant so long as the right procedure has been followed? -- Another complex matter; there are thousands of procedural motions and objections available during preliminary appearance, settlement or plea bargain, grand jury indictment, trial jury selection, introduction of evidence, examination of witnesses, verdict, award of damages or sentencing, grounds for dismissal, retrial, or appeal.

There is no one "right" procedure for every case.

With respect to prisoners:

If they were criminals then, presumably, they initiated force -- very few of them

If they were not criminals and were falsely compelled to go to court -- you are describing the current state

Implementation of a principle is never perfect -- We disagree. Law courts ought to be an impartial, deliberative, unbiased venue.

The goal should be to eliminate force to the maximum degree possible -- We disagree again. Justice must be backed by armed force.

The fact that innocent persons may be arrested is due to a limitation of human abilities -- In the current state, half of all murders go unsolved. The great problem is not wrongful conviction, but failure of law enforcement. I've written about this extensively. Moreover, you have an overly narrow view of jurisdiction. Most court cases are not prosecution of common law felonies. In a laissez faire jurisdiction there would be practically none.

Why should witnesses be compelled to testify? -- bank transactions, title deeds, lab tests, misconduct, anything relevant to the case

[George H. Smith]

Thanks for the heads up about George's essays on Rand and altruism, Darrell. George did an excellent job. I had only one quibble. In section 4 George mentions that Hospers was "then a professor at USC." I can't tell if George meant in 1961-1962 when Hospers was not or later on when he was, say in the 1970s or 80s. If the latter, which I suspect, it's hard to figure out.

--Brant

I will need to correct this. I relied on Berliner's preface, in Letters, which says: "at the time of the following correspondence, John Hospers taught philosophy at Brooklyn College and at the University of California, Los Angeles." And since the letter I referenced is the last one, I assumed that Hospers was teaching at the time at the latter location. But I obviously misread the statement, which refers to Cal State, LA, not to USC. I didn't know that Hospers ever taught at CSLA, so I must have read USC instead.

Thanks for the heads up.

Ghs

[Brant Gaede]

Hospers did end up at USC of course. He was editor in the 1970s of The Personalist. He was the Ph.D. advisor to Jack Wheeler (philosophy).

--Brant

[Samson Corwell]

the goal should be to minimize compulsion in human relations.

Darrell, you asked a number of questions in good faith, which I'll answer briefly.

Laissez faire law is discovered by what means? -- litigation and trial

Using what facts? -- legally admissible evidence introduced by the parties

With reference to what principles? -- impartiality, fundamental fairness

Should judges consult their own moral codes? -- never, except to recuse if they have an interest in the case

Or their own feelings? -- never

Or should they base their concept of right on reason? -- This is a complex matter. In common law civil and criminal cases a jury is empaneled to weigh the evidence and arguments of opposing counsel. In cases of hearing probable cause, petition for equitable relief, juvenile proceedings, family law, and probate, it is customary for the judge to hear the evidence and rule according to the facts and arguments presented by interested parties. Personally, I think juries (composed of women) should be an option in family law trial.

Is the outcome irrelevant so long as the right procedure has been followed? -- Another complex matter; there are thousands of procedural motions and objections available during preliminary appearance, settlement or plea bargain, grand jury indictment, trial jury selection, introduction of evidence, examination of witnesses, verdict, award of damages or sentencing, grounds for dismissal, retrial, or appeal.

There is no one "right" procedure for every case.

With respect to prisoners:

If they were criminals then, presumably, they initiated force -- very few of them

If they were not criminals and were falsely compelled to go to court -- you are describing the current state

Implementation of a principle is never perfect -- We disagree. Law courts ought to be an impartial, deliberative, unbiased venue.

The goal should be to eliminate force to the maximum degree possible -- We disagree again. Justice must be backed by armed force.

The fact that innocent persons may be arrested is due to a limitation of human abilities -- In the current state, half of all murders go unsolved. The great problem is not wrongful conviction, but failure of law enforcement. I've written about this extensively. Moreover, you have an overly narrow view of jurisdiction. Most court cases are not prosecution of common law felonies. In a laissez faire jurisdiction there would be practically none.

Why should witnesses be compelled to testify? -- bank transactions, title deeds, lab tests, misconduct, anything relevant to the case

I'd like to hear more about this "laissez-faire law" thing. It's certainly a welcome relief from the "private law" and arbitration nonsense I keep running into

[George H. Smith]

Courts of law and sworn law enforcement officers initiate force as a matter of necessary routine.

Why is this "necessary?"

Empirical evidence: not one of the 2,000 criminals I met in prison went to court voluntarily.

Suppose a waitress at IHOP observes that out of 2000 people who ordered pancakes, everyone put syrup on them. Would this be "empirical evidence" of a "necessary" relationship between eating pancakes and using syrup? In other words, would this constitute empirical evidence that it is impossible for pancake eaters not to use syrup?

Btw, why were you in prison?

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

the goal should be to minimize compulsion in human relations.

Darrell, you asked a number of questions in good faith, which I'll answer briefly.

Laissez faire law is discovered by what means? -- litigation and trial

Using what facts? -- legally admissible evidence introduced by the parties

With reference to what principles? -- impartiality, fundamental fairness

Should judges consult their own moral codes? -- never, except to recuse if they have an interest in the case

Or their own feelings? -- never

Or should they base their concept of right on reason? -- This is a complex matter. In common law civil and criminal cases a jury is empaneled to weigh the evidence and arguments of opposing counsel. In cases of hearing probable cause, petition for equitable relief, juvenile proceedings, family law, and probate, it is customary for the judge to hear the evidence and rule according to the facts and arguments presented by interested parties. Personally, I think juries (composed of women) should be an option in family law trial.

Is the outcome irrelevant so long as the right procedure has been followed? -- Another complex matter; there are thousands of procedural motions and objections available during preliminary appearance, settlement or plea bargain, grand jury indictment, trial jury selection, introduction of evidence, examination of witnesses, verdict, award of damages or sentencing, grounds for dismissal, retrial, or appeal.

There is no one "right" procedure for every case.

With respect to prisoners:

If they were criminals then, presumably, they initiated force -- very few of them

If they were not criminals and were falsely compelled to go to court -- you are describing the current state

Implementation of a principle is never perfect -- We disagree. Law courts ought to be an impartial, deliberative, unbiased venue.

The goal should be to eliminate force to the maximum degree possible -- We disagree again. Justice must be backed by armed force.

The fact that innocent persons may be arrested is due to a limitation of human abilities -- In the current state, half of all murders go unsolved. The great problem is not wrongful conviction, but failure of law enforcement. I've written about this extensively. Moreover, you have an overly narrow view of jurisdiction. Most court cases are not prosecution of common law felonies. In a laissez faire jurisdiction there would be practically none.

Why should witnesses be compelled to testify? -- bank transactions, title deeds, lab tests, misconduct, anything relevant to the case

I'd like to hear more about this "laissez-faire law" thing. It's certainly a welcome relief from the "private law" and arbitration nonsense I keep running into

Careful, you may get what you ask for. In every detailed account by Wolf that I've read, there are lots of trees but no forest. To switch to a another metaphor, Wolf seems afflicted with a proofreader's mentality.

Ghs

[Ellen Stuttle]

Not that the detail of Hospers' whereabouts when matters at all re substantive issues, but from an historical-accuracy standpoint:

The "Letters to a Phillosopher" section of the Ayn Rand Letters starts with a header statement that:

pg. 502

At the time of the following correspondence, John Hospers taught philosophy at Brooklyn College and at the University of California, Los Angeles [not USC].

A letter from Rand to Hospers dated August 29, 1960, includes:

pg. 509

Frank asks me to thank you for your comments on his painting (the cityscape), on your last visit here, which I told him. [....]

I am sending my three novels (the hard-cover editions) to your California address [...].

It looks like Hospers had a split appointment and taught part of the year in California and part of the year in NYC.

Ellen