Regarding the ban on force and fraud

[Samson Corwell]

Okay. I'll start off by saying that Rand's NIOF(AF) is very similar to the NAP. Now, when I first read the NAP, the first thing that came to my mind was "Hmm. Force, fraud, and nothing else?". Suffice to say, I didn't think it captured the complexities of law (the perspective that I approach politics from). One example that comes to my mind is privacy law. I'm wondering if anyone else can explain to me why the NIOF(AF) is so simple. Does anyone else agree that it doesn't capture the complexities of law?

[jts]

It starts with rights. I mean $rights, as in Objectivism. Then the one and only proper function of government is to protect $rights. The question is: are force and fraud the only ways to violate $rights? I don't know.

[rhartford]

I judge both the NIOF and NAP to be inadequate guides to determining what actions ought to be considered "a political freedom" and what actions ought to be considered a violation of "a political freedom." If you have access to JSTOR, the below article details my view of a proper political standard for identifying political freedoms.

For “A Political Standard for Absolute Political Freedom”

www.jstor.org/stable/41560402

[Samson Corwell]

It starts with rights. I mean $rights, as in Objectivism. Then the one and only proper function of government is to protect $rights. The question is: are force and fraud the only ways to violate $rights? I don't know.

Well, yes. In a sense it does begin with rights, or $rights, as you may wish to put it, but it's always seemed a bit more complicated than that. Now, this doesn't mean as complicated as the mess we have today, and I'm not speaking entirely of the realm of commerce, either.

[Samson Corwell]

I judge both the NIOF and NAP to be inadequate guides to determining what actions ought to be considered "a political freedom" and what actions ought to be considered a violation of "a political freedom." If you have access to JSTOR, the below article details my view of a proper political standard for identifying political freedoms.

For “A Political Standard for Absolute Political Freedom”

www.jstor.org/stable/41560402

I have yet to fully access it, but from looking at the first page of it, you seem to be touching upon the idea that politics is inevitable, an idea which I stumbled upon at the blog of Gene Callahan (former anarchist/ancap). Here is the link to his post on the matter. WARNING: His post is meant to be kind of witty, so that's just a heads up.