Iron Man

[Alfonso Jones]

(snip)

But let's start at the beginning with just one point. You wrote: "force(Rand) = the sense of the word as used by Rand."

Are you able to put Rand's broad usage into a classic Objectivist definition with genus and differentia? I have tried and I keep failing. The closest I got was including the concept of consent, but that fizzles out too easily (like with the case of law, which I mentioned).

The more I try to understand Rand's meaning of force and peg it to a clear definition, the fuzzier it gets. What is the fundamental differentiating characteristic of force if it is not physical? And if it is, what is the difference between a normal physical act and force? If there is none, what is the problem with initiating force to get things done and produce stuff? If you don't initiate physical acts, how do you do anything? Initiating physical acts against human beings? We get back to consent.

(snip)

Agreed that it is tough. If I had a fast answer I would have already posted it. I think that anything good on this will have "consent" at the core. The dichotomy consent/force is crucial.

I'll post when I have some progress. I urge others to do the same. We have a lot of good thinkers here on OL.

Bill P (Alfonso)

[bmacwilliam]

I believe this is something where the fundamental principle in Objectivism is true, but the scope is too broad. There was an unfortunate misfire (loading too many referents into the concept for the distinguishing characteristics to bear) that has resulted in reams of literature trying to twist the concept of force into all kinds of shape. This literature gets really Kantian in method and most of it concludes and proves nothing. So rather than throw away the principle and bash Rand, like Bob seems to want to do, I want to look at it in depth and limit it to its proper scope. (And I hope Bob will join in with this spirit. He has a very good mind.)

This is important.

One unfortunate result of the word-twisting is that statists point to the lack of common sense in this kind of libertarian reasoning and use this to justify ignoring the NIOF principle altogether while they increase the government's power. Statists like the fuzziness.

Michael

I don't think it's all that tough to figure out. Basically Rand, like other almost-zero-government-ists, want to prove or at least justify the limited - only to protect/retaliate against force - role of Government. Then when something like contract violations come up, they can either

1) Expand the legitimate role of government

OR

2) Pretend that contract violations are force

Since (1) would be politically distasteful, and (2) is illogical (but necessary to avoid (1)) , you get a big heap of nonsense surrounding these ideas. To me, it's pretty simple why this confusion exists.

Bob

Edited June 9, 2008 by Bob_Mac

[rush242]

I have never been comfortable with the logical twisting involved in calling fraud force. This is an excellent line of inquiry and you are spot on in asking for clear definitions.

As a rule, I generally say "blah blah blah, as long as you do not initiate force or use fraud against others."

To be honest, I've never been called out on how fraud is a part of force, but I've never quite figured it out myself.

Edited June 9, 2008 by Rush

[BaalChatzaf]

I have never been comfortable with the logical twisting involved in calling fraud force. This is an excellent line of inquiry and you are spot on in asking for clear definitions.

As a rule, I generally say "blah blah blah, as long as you do not initiate force or use fraud against others."

To be honest, I've never been called out on how fraud is a part of force, but I've never quite figured it out myself.

Fraud is a way of wrongfully depriving someone of their property. The fact there was no strong-arm used does not diminish the wrongfulness. Our society is built on production and trade. Without a degree of mutual trust, we would soon be reduced to primitive barter and cash&carry. It would be impossible to deal with anyone except fact to face with immediate exchange on the spot. Those who violate the necessary trust must be compelled to compensate their victim and suffer a penalty/punishment for breaking the trust.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Brant Gaede]

I don't see how fraud is initiated force qua Objectivism. Initiated force, violation of rights, is a matter of criminal law. Fraud, violation of contract, oral or written, is a matter of tort or civil law.

If one party has a contract with another the contract specifies who owns what under what circumstances at what time and who is to be the disinterested interpreting, judging party. If A is found to be in violation of a contract, then A's interest is transferred to B as specified in the contract. If A subsequently tries to prevent B from getting what is his by use of physical force then that is a rights' violation, an initiation of force.

In this scenario fraud sans contract is an open question so far (in this posting).

I know this is too simple, but I'm trying to be as basic as I can. (I also don't have time for more now.)

--Brant