Sign in to follow this  
Samson Corwell

Regarding the ban on force and fraud

Recommended Posts

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this