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

[Brant Gaede]

You can't use reason to both establish and dis-establish the NIOF principle. --Brant

True, but you might be able to use reason to justify exceptions to the NIOF principle. Rand did this, in effect, in her discussion of "emergency" situations. But such situations are very rare and don't have anything to do with how she applied the NIOF principle as a restraint on government.

I know of no case where Rand argued that a government may properly violate the NIOF principle. Indeed, her approach makes this virtually impossible, since she emphasized that the actions of government should be strictly limited to powers that have been delegated to it by individuals, for the purpose of self-defense.

Ghs

She may have gone a little too far with that delegation business. That there is a delegation doesn't mean not also retaining some ability to act in self defense. The various states have stautory limits and definitions of that. You can even act in self defense of another person and make citizen's arrest, but we aren't cops and legally they have it easier being in the clear on these things even to the point that I think it's actually legally sanctioned murder.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

A woman has a right to have an abortion. A doctor has the right not to perform an abortion. The right to have an abortion is not necessarily the right to kill the fetus, which can be sometimes aborted and life sustained and protected. The transitional period is biological context to social. In the social context the baby has all the human rights he can exercise, which will be true throughout his life. That's the nature of the basic right, the right to life and why it is inalienable. Now, the derivative rights are not inalienable, but an attack on any of them must always be an attack on the right to life too. Rights are a human invention, but human nature is not. The congruence between the two objectifies law. Note that the law must move toward the nature, the nature cannot move toward the law, no matter how adaptable a person may be to tyranny, that's because any tyranny violates the mind's best judgment respecting action and in a negative feedback loop will impact what the mind does think about and violate the pursuit of happiness and its achievement. Therefore, there is no primacy in NIOF, only in reason itself. --Brant

Reason is a faculty. NIOF is a principle that is derived and justified by using the faculty of reason.

Ghs

BTW, did I objectify law to your satisfaction?

--Brant

[George H. Smith]

You can't use reason to both establish and dis-establish the NIOF principle. I think Dennis started with NIOF as a given to be deconstructed. That's ass backwards. Sort of like climbing a mountain by climbing down the mountain. You can do that with a helicopter, just like Ben Bernacke, with much the same results at least in parallel.

--Brant

Dennis got himself all balled up in his discussion of the NIOF principle and its relationship to rights (in Rands approach). For example, he pointed out that the NIOF principle is not included in Rand's definition of a "right." This is true but irrelevant. The initiation of force is the method by which rights are violated, according to Rand, and it would be senseless to include the method of violation in the definition of a "right."

What Rand did do was to incorporate the notion of "freedom of action" in her definition of rights. She then said that rights define man's freedom of action in a social context. This means that we use rights to distinguish between the initiatory and retaliatory uses of force. Thus after we identify a given action as the initiation of force, we then condemn that action as a violation of rights.

Dennis said he agreed with this (having changed his mind from an earlier position), but he then ignored everything and went off on a tangent. He declared, in effect, that we first identify a rights violation and then call this the "initiation of force." This has everything ass-backward. It makes nonsense of Rand's basic point, because it leaves us no objective standard by which to identify a rights violation in the first place.

It was with good reason that Rand attempted to link fraud and breach of contract to the NIOF principle, by calling them "indirect" uses of force. (Herbert Spencer similarly called fraud and breach of contract "indirect aggression.") This was no idle exercise by Rand. It was an essential extension of her NIOF principle, as applied to situations that do not necessarily involve violence against individuals.

Ghs

[9thdoctor]

Peikoff’s latest has a bit about how “people who preach anarchism” use a “volitionally improper method”. I didn’t think he said anything worthwhile, but at least it’s timely for this thread.

http://www.peikoff.c...s-are-on-deriv/

[George H. Smith]

Peikoff’s latest has a bit about how “people who preach anarchism” use a “volitionally improper method”. I didn’t think he said anything worthwhile, but at least it’s timely for this thread.

http://www.peikoff.c...s-are-on-deriv/

Peikoff sounds drunk. He probably wasn't, but at least this would help to explain his discussion of those advocates of anarchism who ""define 'liberty' as the freedom to anything you want, regardless of what." According to these mythical creatures, we should act on whim, "without any institution to preserve order and stop those who transgress against others...."

I wonder if Peikoff lies volitionally, or whether he is just incredibly ignorant -- or both. In any case, he is definitely the gold standard of idiocy on this subject.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

I acquired a manuscript copy Peikoff's forthcoming book, Libertarian Anarchism: An Analysis and Refutation. Here is the complete text, as read by Daffy Duck:

Ghs

[merjet]

I wonder if Peikoff lies volitionally, or whether he is just incredibly ignorant -- or both. In any case, he is definitely the gold standard of idiocy on this subject.

Fool's gold standard?

[George H. Smith]

I wonder if Peikoff lies volitionally, or whether he is just incredibly ignorant -- or both. In any case, he is definitely the gold standard of idiocy on this subject.

Fool's gold standard?

I love the way Peikoff attempts to cover his own ass near the end of the podcast. He notes that Ayn Rand may not have agreed with everything that he has to say in his next book, but this is okay. Why? Because the issues he covers are so complex that reasonable disagreement is possible -- so even if he does deviate, he still qualifies as a bona fide "Objectivist."

Who cares about this sort of thing, other than human lemmings?

Ghs

[Xray]

The most basic right is the right to life, which mandates the freedom to take all those actions required by a rational being for the fulfillment and enjoyment of his life. A concomitant of that right is that the use of force is brought under objective control, and the only practical way to do that is through a government with procedural safeguards that strictly regulate the use of force. As I have been arguing consistently throughout this thread, we can therefore legitimately characterize any threat to such objective control of force as the initiation of force, and any action taken by the government to stop that threat as retaliatory force. Private defense agencies represent such a threat.

If it is stated that only the government can strictly regulate the use of force and private defense agencies present a threat to [the government's] "objective control of force", doesn't this statement allow the inference that the private possession of a gun would also be a threat to the government's objective control of force?

[Peter]

Xray wrote:

If it is claimed that only the government can strictly regulate the use of force and private defense agencies present a threat to [the government's] "objective control of force", then doesn't it follow from that claim that the private possession of a gun would also be a threat to the government's objective control of force?

end quote

It does from that claim, but neither I nor Objectivism make that claim. I do not think private defense agencies or the individual using retaliatory force are a threat to the government’s objective use of retaliatory force as long as the individual or agency is rational, and is abiding by the constitution (or a lawfully given order to desist from acting, by a government official.) You use the phrase "objective control of force," but I don’t use the word “control,” except in the sense that though an individual could objectively and in retaliation, use more powerful weapons like a fully automatic rifle, it is still a legitimate concern of government that too much fire power should not be in an individual’s hands. Dennis May once argued for the right of an individual to use retaliatory nuclear weapons with which I do not agree. Some control is objectively necessary, for us to coexist within a society.

I do not think private defense agencies in general NECESSARILY present a threat to individual liberty or to Government being the final arbiter of justice. So, with that point I agree with the rational anarchist’s position.

I think Government can be a much better protector of rights, and be less intrusive. The solution is to beef up the Ninth Amendment, and insist on an amendment to keep the Constitution strictly interpreted. I see no necessary slide towards Statism because of coercive taxation as long as the goal is “less and less taxation” and more “paying for services” AND as long as the ideal is eventually, “no coercive taxation.” So, with that point I once again agree with the rational anarchist’s position. Come to think of it, the means of attaining our “natural rights” is the only beef that Objectivists have with Rational Anarchism.

Objectivists work with the facts (Constitutional Government in theory and practice) as they now exist while the anarchist with little or no experimentation or examples, BELIEVES in his position of “my rights, my way, all the time,” and “his rights, his way, all the time,” and “their rights, their way, all the time” throughout a society. That is not objective even in a marriage which is a society of two. In “real life” Hank Rearden, Francisco, and John would have not have been so savoir faire, as concerned Dagny’s sexual encounters. Under “Personal Objectivist Living” the society of Ayn Rand, her husband Frank, Nathaniel and Barbara Branden were not so “French” about the whole affair. Likewise, a really, really rational anarchist society would not last . . . beyond how long? You fill in the blank.

Peter

[Brant Gaede]

The most basic right is the right to life, which mandates the freedom to take all those actions required by a rational being for the fulfillment and enjoyment of his life. A concomitant of that right is that the use of force is brought under objective control, and the only practical way to do that is through a government with procedural safeguards that strictly regulate the use of force. As I have been arguing consistently throughout this thread, we can therefore legitimately characterize any threat to such objective control of force as the initiation of force, and any action taken by the government to stop that threat as retaliatory force. Private defense agencies represent such a threat.

If it is stated that only the government can strictly regulate the use of force and private defense agencies present a threat to [the government's] "objective control of force", doesn't this statement allow the inference that the private possession of a gun would also be a threat to the government's objective control of force?

Yes.

--Brant

blood of tyrants

[Dglgmut]

Man needs freedom like he needs food. He can have food without freedom, and he can have freedom without food, but the two are equally essential for a life proper to man... Correct?

A monopoly on force (freedom) is like a monopoly on food. A monopoly on any necessity seems a bit irrational.

[caroljane]

Man needs freedom like he needs food. He can have food without freedom, and he can have freedom without food, but the two are equally essential for a life proper to man... Correct?

A monopoly on force (freedom) is like a monopoly on food. A monopoly on any necessity seems a bit irrational.

Man needs freedom like he needs food. He can have food without freedom, and he can have freedom without food, but the two are equally essential for a life proper to man... Correct?

A monopoly on force (freedom) is like a monopoly on food. A monopoly on any necessity seems a bit irrational.

I am no logician but there is something wrong here. . Man does not need freedom "Like" he needs food at all. Man needs food to sustain physical life. He, per your proposition, needs freedom for "proper life". Two different statements.

[Dglgmut]

I am no logician but there is something wrong here. . Man does not need freedom "Like" he needs food at all. Man needs food to sustain physical life. He, per your proposition, needs freedom for "proper life". Two different statements.

Well he's not going to have a proper life without food, is he? He needs freedom as much as he needs food to have a proper life. Maybe "like" was the wrong word.

[caroljane]

I am no logician but there is something wrong here. . Man does not need freedom "Like" he needs food at all. Man needs food to sustain physical life. He, per your proposition, needs freedom for "proper life". Two different statements.

Well he's not going to have a proper life without food, is he? He needs freedom as much as he needs food to have a proper life. Maybe "like" was the wrong word.

I am no logician but there is something wrong here. . Man does not need freedom "Like" he needs food at all. Man needs food to sustain physical life. He, per your proposition, needs freedom for "proper life". Two different statements.

Well he's not going to have a proper life without food, is he? He needs freedom as much as he needs food to have a proper life. Maybe "like" was the wrong word.

Sorry, I don't mean to be nit-picky about the point you are making. But you are arguing from analogy so the analogy must be balanced, and "life" (physical existence) does not equate logically with "proper life" --proper life presupposes physical existence.

[Dglgmut]

So freedom is not as necessary as food? Or more necessary? What are you saying?

I'm saying they are both absolutely necessary for a proper life. That was my point.

A monopoly on force is essentially a monopoly on freedom.

[caroljane]

So freedom is not as necessary as food? Or more necessary? What are you saying?

I'm saying they are both absolutely necessary for a proper life. That was my point.

A monopoly on force is essentially a monopoly on freedom.

I was just

So freedom is not as necessary as food? Or more necessary? What are you saying?

I'm saying they are both absolutely necessary for a proper life. That was my point.

A monopoly on force is essentially a monopoly on freedom.

I am just saying, that "life" and "proper life" are not synonymous.

[Brant Gaede]

Soon Dennis will wake up and the cycle will continue--all night long!

--Brant

[George H. Smith]

Soon Dennis will wake up and the cycle will continue--all night long!

--Brant

I think Dennis is taking a break. I can't say I blame him.

I like Dennis a great deal, but he really got on my nerves in this controversy. Not that anyone noticed....

Ghs

[Dennis Hardin]

So I'm being "dishonest" to point out that people frequently use metaphors in communication? I doubt Peikoff in his worst moments of mindless, vitriolic dogmatism would accuse someone of beng dishonest because he observed that people often use metaphors, and that this says nothing about any implied endorsement of a given theory.

Despite your expressed contempt for his "embarrassing" viewpoints, you remind me and more of Peikoff all the time.

Yes, you are being dishonest, because there is absolutely no basis in Rand's writings to support your claim that she rejected the notion of self-ownership. On the contrary, she expressly used the idea in a passage I quoted from "What is Capitalism?" And in an embarrassing display of self-refutation, you quoted another statement by her of the same sort, viz.:

Does one man have the right to dispose of the life of another? Once you have established that a man is the owner of his own life—that his life is his to dispose of and does not belong to anyone else—you then have the base from which all other rights are derived.

http://www.objectivi...ndpost&p=161055

All this is perfectly consistent with Rand's own definition of "ownership" -- "the right of use and disposal" -- that I quoted earlier. And in the passage that you unwittingly quoted, Rand places great stress on self-ownership, calling it the "base from which all other rights are derived."

There should be no problem here whatsoever; everything is clear and consistent. But you got a bug up your butt and declared:

Objectivism rejects the entire notion of "self-ownership" as the basis of the right to life. The acceptance of this idea is one more example of the failure to appreciate the underlying philosophical basis of rights.

So what evidence did you provide for this claim? Some brief verbal statement by Peikoff, made decades after Rand's death, that contradicted what Rand herself said about "ownership." You then trumped up the "metaphor" excuse, even though you yourself quoted a passage from Rand that supported my position.

We are now supposed to believe that when Rand said (in your quoted excerpt) that "man is the owner of his own life," that she was again speaking metaphorically, though she goes on to explain what she meant, i.e., that "his life is his to dispose of and does not belong to anyone else" -- a usage that fits perfectly with her own definition of ownership as the "right of use and disposal."

Rand goes on to stress the importance of self-ownership by noting that it is "the base from which all other rights are derived." Thus according to you, Rand formulated a metaphorical right in explaining the most fundamental of all rights.

In sum, you manufactured an explanation for something that required no explanation, since there was no doubt about what Rand meant. And then you dragged in that lame statement by Peikoff that flatly contradicts what Rand said.

So what's going on here? Why did you fabricate this artificial and pointless controversy? Why did you waste my time with it? I cannot say for certain, but I have a good idea. In the modern libertarian movement, the term "self-ownership" is associated with Rothbard and Rothbardian anarchists. And in your blind hatred of this group, which you know virtually nothing about, you decided to go after the notion of "self-ownership." But you stuck your foot in your mouth, because you didn't realize that Rand herself employed the concept. So, after I posted the relevant passage, instead of admitting that you may have been wrong, you concocted the "metaphor" excuse out of thin air. And you continue to stick with that dimwitted explanation.

Yes, Dennis, this is dishonest. It is one of the most dishonest intellectual games I have ever had the misfortune to witness. If there had been a problem with Rand's usage, then you might have had a point. But her usage of "ownership" was not the same as Peikoff's, and her statements were absolutely intelligible and consistent.

In short, there was no problem to begin with, no puzzle that required a solution. You pulled this entire controversy out of your ass. As I said before, "self-ownership"is simply a different way of saying "right to life." They mean the same thing.

[i later deleted the last paragraph of this post. It was a bit over the top, even for me.]

Ghs

Classical liberal thinkers needed the concept of self-ownership to defend the idea of individual rights. People who do not understand Objectivism, such as George H. Smith, like to claim that Rand’s theory of individual rights is not fundamentally different from the classical view. Sadly, George thinks he understands Objectivism. He does not.

Like his devotion to the frivolous cause of anarcho-capitalism, George is heavily invested in the notion that his bombastic expertise in classical liberalism enables him to speak condescendingly to all those who would suggest that Ayn Rand’s philosophy is radically different from all those historical thinkers he loves to quote. He wants us all to be impressed with his superior historical perspective, and does not appreciate it when anyone questions his authoritative brilliance. One would obviously have to be “dishonest” to take issue with the infinite wisdom of George H. Smith.

George H. Smith says: "there is absolutely no basis in Rand's writings to support your claim that she rejected the notion of self-ownership." So George thinks it’s perfectly okay to attribute to Ayn Rand any theory she did not explicitly deny. And if we can find one phrase which we can interpret as meaning “self-ownership,” then we can assume she believed in the theory of self-ownership.

Now he says that her reference to “owning one’s life” is the equivalent of “self-ownership.” Of course, George. What possible difference could there be between owning one’s “self” and owning one’s life?

He also thinks he can reasonably attribute the statements of those who disagree with him to “dishonesty,” “blind hatred” and “ignorance.”

By the way, he would also like you to believe his methods are “scholarly.”

Like NIOF, the concept of “self-ownership” is an another axiomatic approach to the defense of individual rights—an approach which conveniently bypasses all that troublesome philosophical stuff about metaphysics, epistemology and ethics.

Incidentally, the nonsense of self-ownership is another example of the mind-body dichotomy. Since it is nonsensical to speak of the self owning the self, the only sensible explanation for such a bizarre view is that there is a split between mind and body, so that one’s body becomes a separate piece of property controlled by the mind. That perspective was understandable in antiquity, before the advances of science provided mankind with a rational understanding of the world. When people exhibit that same disintegrated pattern in the modern era, one can only conclude that we may well have evidence of underlying pathology. (But I cannot say that for certain.)

[Dennis Hardin]

If some minarchist on OL would care to give me a definition of "objective law" -- a definition that does not beg the question by including "government" as part of the definition -- please do so.

I'll bite up to a point. At least to supply some fundamental syllogisms that I often find lacking in the all-or-nothing arguments that permeate this debate. Premise: In order to apply reason correctly, you must include context or axioms. Premise: Objective means being based on reason. Conclusion: Anything considered objective must include context or axioms. Or to state another syllogism: Premise: In order to apply reason correctly, you must include context or axioms. Premise: The principle of NIOF is based on reason. Conclusion: The application of NIOF must include context or axioms. If NIOF is taken as an axiom and not a principle, as David Kelley and Chris Sciabarra mentioned that several libertarians do, then context doesn't matter and the claim that reason is involved stands. But the basic condition of an axiom--that you must use it in the attempt to refute it--does not hold up for NIOF. In other words, for the axiom of existence, you must exist to refute existence, for consciousness, you must be conscious to refute consciousness, etc. That's how axioms are logically validated and context is not applicable to them. In other words, this is a correct way of using reason. This manner of thinking doesn't work with NIOF.....

I'm not aware of any libertarians that view NIOF as axiomatic. Even the usual exception, Walter Block, doesn't hold that the NIOF principle is self-evident.

I therefore don't know of whom you are speaking. Are these real libertarians? If not, then what is the point of discussing a position that no one defends?

Ghs

The libertarian creed rests upon one central axiom: that no man or group of men may aggress against the person or property of anyone else. This may be called the “nonaggression axiom,.” “Aggression”is defined as the initiation of the use or threat of physical violence against the person or property of anyone else.

from For A New Liberty, Murray Rothbard, p 27 (second edition-1978)

Chapter entitled “The Nonaggression Axiom”

No one has the right to initiate aggression against the person or property of anyone else. This is what libertarians call the nonaggression axiom, and it is a central principle of libertarianism.

from Libertarianism: A Primer, David Boaz, p. 74

From the wikipedia article on the Libertarian Party:

Since the Libertarian Party's inception, individuals have been able to join the party as voting members by signing their agreement with the organization's membership pledge, which states, based on the nonaggression principle, that the signer does not advocate the initiation of force to achieve political or social goals.

From a libertarian blog (technoeudaimonia):

:

The Problem with Axiomatic Libertarianism

Many libertarians, following in the tradition of Murray Rothbard, propose that liberty is an axiom; that is, liberty is a self-evident fact. They include such thinkers as Hans-Hermann Hoppe with his libertarian version of argumentation ethics, Stephan Kinsella with his conception of estoppel, and Stefan Molyneux with his "universably preferable behavior". Non-aggression is thus singled out and separated from the rest of ethics, which leads to a separation of what is "right" and what is "good"; this is evident, for example, in many of the writings of Walter Block.

From a wikipedia entry on Hans-Hermann Hoppe:

In what some have described as Hoppe's most important contribution, argumentation ethics is an apriori, value-neutral justification for libertarian ethics. Argumentation ethics builds on the concept of Discourse ethics developed by Jurgen Habermas (Hoppe's PhD advisor) and Karl-Otto Apel, further on misesian praxeology and the deontological ethics of economist Murray Rothbard. Argumentation ethics argues the non-aggression principle is a presupposition of argumentation and so cannot be rationally denied in discourse. Many modern libertarian scholars have accepted Hoppe's argument, among them Murray Rothbard, Walter Block, David Gordon and Stephen Kinsella.

from LewRockwell.com

In Defense of Libertarian Purity, Anthony Gregory

I consider myself a principled libertarian. Or a radical libertarian. I suppose there are many ways of saying it. Murray Rothbard called it "plumb-line libertarianism," and Walter Block has seen fit to embrace that terminology. I see it simply as the belief that initiating force is wrong.

Evicting Libertarian Party Principles: The Portland Purge, by L.K. Samuels

[Objecting to the “LP Reform Caucus” in 2006:]

So what are some of the principles that they believe must go? First and foremost is the non-aggression principle, which is considered the main threat to an election-oriented populism. If Libertarians would simply throw away this ideal, explaining LP policies on taxation, the drug war, foreign policy and military intervention would no longer be a campaign embarrassment.

[George H. Smith]

Classical liberal thinkers needed the concept of self-ownership to defend the idea of individual rights.

Nope. Self-ownership was simply another way of expressing the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. This usage was based on an earlier meaning of "property" that meant "proper to."

People who do not understand Objectivism, such as George H. Smith, like to claim that Rand’s theory of individual rights is not fundamentally different from the classical view.

This depends on the particular philosopher.

Sadly, George thinks he understands Objectivism. He does not. Like his devotion to the frivolous cause of anarcho-capitalism, George is heavily invested in the notion that his bombastic expertise in classical liberalism enables him to speak condescendingly to all those who would suggest that Ayn Rand’s philosophy is radically different from all those historical thinkers he loves to quote. He wants us all to be impressed with his superior historical perspective, and does not appreciate it when anyone questions his authoritative brilliance.

And what would you know about these "those historical thinkers," given that you have never read them? I don't mind at all if someone questions my historical perspective. In fact, I would welcome this. But I do require that the challenger know something about the history of individualist thought, and you don't qualify. I have no patience with people who make up history as they go along.

So George thinks it’s perfectly okay to attribute to Ayn Rand any theory she did not explicitly deny. And if we can find one phrase which we can interpret as meaning “self-ownership,” then we can assume she believed in the theory of self-ownership. Now he says that her reference to “owning one’s life” is the equivalent of “self-ownership.” Of course, George. What possible difference could there be between owning one’s “self” and owning one’s life?

Rand explicitly affirmed the notion of self-ownership on at least two occasions. In one case, she said that "man [is] a sovereign individual who owns his person, his mind, his life, his work and its products."

This is exactly what Auberon Herbert and others meant by "self-ownership" or "self-sovereignty."

If my person, my mind, and my life do not constitute my "self," then what does?

You seem to have forgotten your original objection to the notion of self-ownership. You quoted Peikoff the effect that the concepts ownership and property can pertain only to external things. Since when is my person, my mind, my life, and my work external to my self? Rand had no problem with this way of speaking because, as she indicated in a letter I quoted earlier, she understood that "ownership" means "the right of use and disposal." I can use and dispose of my person, mind, life, and work, just as I can use and dispose of external things.

No problem here, none at all.

Btw, the notion of self-ownership was especially important to abolitionists, such as William Lloyd Garrison. Slavery was the supposed ownership of one person by another. Abolitionists replied that no one can possibly own another person, because all persons are self-owners, and the rights of self-ownership are inalienable. Thus was slavery commonly condemned as "man-stealing."

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

If some minarchist on OL would care to give me a definition of "objective law" -- a definition that does not beg the question by including "government" as part of the definition -- please do so.

I'll bite up to a point. At least to supply some fundamental syllogisms that I often find lacking in the all-or-nothing arguments that permeate this debate. Premise: In order to apply reason correctly, you must include context or axioms. Premise: Objective means being based on reason. Conclusion: Anything considered objective must include context or axioms. Or to state another syllogism: Premise: In order to apply reason correctly, you must include context or axioms. Premise: The principle of NIOF is based on reason. Conclusion: The application of NIOF must include context or axioms. If NIOF is taken as an axiom and not a principle, as David Kelley and Chris Sciabarra mentioned that several libertarians do, then context doesn't matter and the claim that reason is involved stands. But the basic condition of an axiom--that you must use it in the attempt to refute it--does not hold up for NIOF. In other words, for the axiom of existence, you must exist to refute existence, for consciousness, you must be conscious to refute consciousness, etc. That's how axioms are logically validated and context is not applicable to them. In other words, this is a correct way of using reason. This manner of thinking doesn't work with NIOF.....

I'm not aware of any libertarians that view NIOF as axiomatic. Even the usual exception, Walter Block, doesn't hold that the NIOF principle is self-evident.

I therefore don't know of whom you are speaking. Are these real libertarians? If not, then what is the point of discussing a position that no one defends?

Ghs

The libertarian creed rests upon one central axiom: that no man or group of men may aggress against the person or property of anyone else. This may be called the “nonaggression axiom,.” “Aggression”is defined as the initiation of the use or threat of physical violence against the person or property of anyone else.

from For A New Liberty, Murray Rothbard, p 27 (second edition-1978)

Chapter entitled “The Nonaggression Axiom”

No one has the right to initiate aggression against the person or property of anyone else. This is what libertarians call the nonaggression axiom, and it is a central principle of libertarianism.

from Libertarianism: A Primer, David Boaz, p. 74

I already explained this use of "axiom." Stop dropping context. See: http://www.objectivi...ndpost&p=161173

From the wikipedia article on the Libertarian Party:

Since the Libertarian Party's inception, individuals have been able to join the party as voting members by signing their agreement with the organization's membership pledge, which states, based on the nonaggression principle, that the signer does not advocate the initiation of force to achieve political or social goals.

This simply expresses the fundamental principle of a political party. Do you expect the Libertarian Party to include "A is A" in its platform?

From a libertarian blog (technoeudaimonia):

:

The Problem with Axiomatic Libertarianism

Many libertarians, following in the tradition of Murray Rothbard, propose that liberty is an axiom; that is, liberty is a self-evident fact.

This is pure bullshit in regard to Murray.

They include such thinkers as Hans-Hermann Hoppe with his libertarian version of argumentation ethics, Stephan Kinsella with his conception of estoppel, and Stefan Molyneux with his "universably preferable behavior". Non-aggression is thus singled out and separated from the rest of ethics, which leads to a separation of what is "right" and what is "good"; this is evident, for example, in many of the writings of Walter Block.

This is somewhat true of Block, though he doesn't regard NIOF as self-evident.. I don't know about Hoppe, but I have never liked his stuff. Kinsella is a clown, but he is a Rothardian, so it is highly unlikely he believes this. No Rothbardian does. The problem here is that the writer, like you, doesn't understand what Murray meant by "axiom."

From a wikipedia entry on Hans-Hermann Hoppe:

In what some have described as Hoppe's most important contribution, argumentation ethics is an apriori, value-neutral justification for libertarian ethics. Argumentation ethics builds on the concept of Discourse ethics developed by Jurgen Habermas (Hoppe's PhD advisor) and Karl-Otto Apel, further on misesian praxeology and the deontological ethics of economist Murray Rothbard. Argumentation ethics argues the non-aggression principle is a presupposition of argumentation and so cannot be rationally denied in discourse. Many modern libertarian scholars have accepted Hoppe's argument, among them Murray Rothbard, Walter Block, David Gordon and Stephen Kinsella.

More bullshit in regard to Murray. He was a teleologist in ethics -- an Aristotelian, to be specific -- and he hated the hermeneutics of Habermas and others. I don't know for sure about David Gordon, but I have my doubts, based on the many conversations we had in the late 1970s and 80s, when we were good friends. I will ask him if you are all that curious.

from LewRockwell.com

In Defense of Libertarian Purity, Anthony Gregory

I consider myself a principled libertarian. Or a radical libertarian. I suppose there are many ways of saying it. Murray Rothbard called it "plumb-line libertarianism," and Walter Block has seen fit to embrace that terminology. I see it simply as the belief that initiating force is wrong.

This pertains to Murray's notion of "plumb-line libertarianism" and has nothing to do with the topic under consideration here. This is a tag that Murray used for "hard core."

Evicting Libertarian Party Principles: The Portland Purge, by L.K. Samuels

[Objecting to the “LP Reform Caucus” in 2006:]

So what are some of the principles that they believe must go? First and foremost is the non-aggression principle, which is considered the main threat to an election-oriented populism. If Libertarians would simply throw away this ideal, explaining LP policies on taxation, the drug war, foreign policy and military intervention would no longer be a campaign embarrassment.

What the hell does this have to do with anything?

If you have a few hundred other random quotations you would like me to comment on, don't hesitate to ask.

Would you like me to post a bunch of inaccurate statements about Objectivism, so you can enjoy the incomparable pleasure of correcting each and every one?

I certainly don't believe your crap about the axiomatic status of the NIOF principle, so, when get tired of googling, you might consider dealing with my ideas.

Ghs

[Brant Gaede]

If some minarchist on OL would care to give me a definition of "objective law" -- a definition that does not beg the question by including "government" as part of the definition -- please do so.

I'll bite up to a point. At least to supply some fundamental syllogisms that I often find lacking in the all-or-nothing arguments that permeate this debate. Premise: In order to apply reason correctly, you must include context or axioms. Premise: Objective means being based on reason. Conclusion: Anything considered objective must include context or axioms. Or to state another syllogism: Premise: In order to apply reason correctly, you must include context or axioms. Premise: The principle of NIOF is based on reason. Conclusion: The application of NIOF must include context or axioms. If NIOF is taken as an axiom and not a principle, as David Kelley and Chris Sciabarra mentioned that several libertarians do, then context doesn't matter and the claim that reason is involved stands. But the basic condition of an axiom--that you must use it in the attempt to refute it--does not hold up for NIOF. In other words, for the axiom of existence, you must exist to refute existence, for consciousness, you must be conscious to refute consciousness, etc. That's how axioms are logically validated and context is not applicable to them. In other words, this is a correct way of using reason. This manner of thinking doesn't work with NIOF.....

I'm not aware of any libertarians that view NIOF as axiomatic. Even the usual exception, Walter Block, doesn't hold that the NIOF principle is self-evident.

I therefore don't know of whom you are speaking. Are these real libertarians? If not, then what is the point of discussing a position that no one defends?

Ghs

The libertarian creed rests upon one central axiom: that no man or group of men may aggress against the person or property of anyone else. This may be called the “nonaggression axiom,.” “Aggression”is defined as the initiation of the use or threat of physical violence against the person or property of anyone else.

from For A New Liberty, Murray Rothbard, p 27 (second edition-1978)

Chapter entitled “The Nonaggression Axiom”

No one has the right to initiate aggression against the person or property of anyone else. This is what libertarians call the nonaggression axiom, and it is a central principle of libertarianism.

from Libertarianism: A Primer, David Boaz, p. 74

From the wikipedia article on the Libertarian Party:

Since the Libertarian Party's inception, individuals have been able to join the party as voting members by signing their agreement with the organization's membership pledge, which states, based on the nonaggression principle, that the signer does not advocate the initiation of force to achieve political or social goals.

From a libertarian blog (technoeudaimonia):

:

The Problem with Axiomatic Libertarianism

Many libertarians, following in the tradition of Murray Rothbard, propose that liberty is an axiom; that is, liberty is a self-evident fact. They include such thinkers as Hans-Hermann Hoppe with his libertarian version of argumentation ethics, Stephan Kinsella with his conception of estoppel, and Stefan Molyneux with his "universably preferable behavior". Non-aggression is thus singled out and separated from the rest of ethics, which leads to a separation of what is "right" and what is "good"; this is evident, for example, in many of the writings of Walter Block.

From a wikipedia entry on Hans-Hermann Hoppe:

In what some have described as Hoppe's most important contribution, argumentation ethics is an apriori, value-neutral justification for libertarian ethics. Argumentation ethics builds on the concept of Discourse ethics developed by Jurgen Habermas (Hoppe's PhD advisor) and Karl-Otto Apel, further on misesian praxeology and the deontological ethics of economist Murray Rothbard. Argumentation ethics argues the non-aggression principle is a presupposition of argumentation and so cannot be rationally denied in discourse. Many modern libertarian scholars have accepted Hoppe's argument, among them Murray Rothbard, Walter Block, David Gordon and Stephen Kinsella.

from LewRockwell.com

In Defense of Libertarian Purity, Anthony Gregory

I consider myself a principled libertarian. Or a radical libertarian. I suppose there are many ways of saying it. Murray Rothbard called it "plumb-line libertarianism," and Walter Block has seen fit to embrace that terminology. I see it simply as the belief that initiating force is wrong.

Evicting Libertarian Party Principles: The Portland Purge, by L.K. Samuels

[Objecting to the “LP Reform Caucus” in 2006:]

So what are some of the principles that they believe must go? First and foremost is the non-aggression principle, which is considered the main threat to an election-oriented populism. If Libertarians would simply throw away this ideal, explaining LP policies on taxation, the drug war, foreign policy and military intervention would no longer be a campaign embarrassment.

I cannot go along with this libertarian "axiom" stuff. If politics were all that was about philosophy then there'd have to be an axiom in there somewhere. But philosophy is much more than politics and politics must be part of philosophy so there's no axiom there. This is the central and basic fallacy of libertarianism and explains why it, commonly understood, has been on an intellectual down-slope since Rothbard and Hospers peaked it in the early 1970s. Objectivism has too, but for different reasons.

--Brant

[George H. Smith]

I cannot go along with this libertarian "axiom" stuff. If politics were all that was about philosophy then there'd have to be an axiom in there somewhere. But philosophy is much more than politics and politics must be part of philosophy so there's no axiom there. This is the central and basic fallacy of libertarianism and explains why it, commonly understood, has been on an intellectual down-slope since Rothbard and Hospers peaked it in the early 1970s. Objectivism has too, but for different reasons.

Try to keep up, Brant. I've explained all this. Dennis doesn't know what he is talking about. If he sees the the word "axiom," he salivates like a Palovian dog, with no more awareness of what is going on.

Here is a parallel: Ayn Rand defended "selfishness." Selfish people don't care about other people. Therefore, Rand did not care about other people.

See: http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=11922&view=findpost&p=161173

Ghs