Darrell Hougen

That's like saying there is only a speed limit if you speed.DarrellSort of applies to all laws. The point is that there is a speed limit even if you don't speed. Similarly, all mandatory "duties" involve the use of force, even if it is not actually applied. If someone points a gun at you, he is using force even if he doesn't pull the trigger. Threatening to use force constitutes using force. It's not necessary for someone to manhandle you for it to be force. Even if no one points a gun at you, the fact that he will point a gun at you if you don't comply with his demands constitutes the use of force. To get back to the original issue, taxation constitutes taking money or property by force. Darrell I still think it's a little more complicated than voluntary versus coercive because private property is just as involuntary for communists as taxation is for libertarians. Sure, they don't have to own property, but they need to abide by its rules. Moral relativism. Which is objectively coercive? Darrell What does moral relativism have to do with anything? You said, "private property is just as involuntary for communists as taxation is for libertarians." So, relative to the moral belief system of communists, private property is involuntary and relative to the moral belief system of libertarians, taxation is involuntary. That's moral relativism. It treats all conclusions about morality equally because every conclusion is given relative to a particular person or group. What's good for me may be bad for you and vice versa. What's right for me might not be right for you and vice versa. That is moral relativism. Darrell

That's like saying there is only a speed limit if you speed.DarrellSort of applies to all laws. The point is that there is a speed limit even if you don't speed. Similarly, all mandatory "duties" involve the use of force, even if it is not actually applied. If someone points a gun at you, he is using force even if he doesn't pull the trigger. Threatening to use force constitutes using force. It's not necessary for someone to manhandle you for it to be force. Even if no one points a gun at you, the fact that he will point a gun at you if you don't comply with his demands constitutes the use of force. To get back to the original issue, taxation constitutes taking money or property by force. Darrell I still think it's a little more complicated than voluntary versus coercive because private property is just as involuntary for communists as taxation is for libertarians. Sure, they don't have to own property, but they need to abide by its rules. Moral relativism. Which is objectively coercive? Darrell

One general way of dealing with professors and writers with whom you disagree is to always discuss their views in the third person, e.g., "Marx believed X," or "Hegel's statements support conclusion Y." Never give your own opinion. That way, you'll never feel guilty about the things you're writing. After all, what you're saying is true. It's a style that my kids have had to learn to survive in the modern educational system. Darrell

A. Their consciences? never, except to recuse themselves if they have any interest in the case B. Their emotions? please don't talk rubbish C. A rational theory of rights? there are no rights, except the right to petition and fundamental fairness D. Precedent? no, not as an obligatory rule of law or equity; almost every case is unique There might be some "stickiness" in appellate and Supreme Court decisions or legal doctrine, but not trial courts. You can't foreclose novel arguments, circumstances, unusual parties, or new questions of law and procedure. U.S. constitutional and statutory common law are not applicable in laissez faire. Ok. Cases are decided on the basis of "fundamental fairness." So, what is "fundamental fairness"? Darrell

That's like saying there is only a speed limit if you speed.DarrellSort of applies to all laws. The point is that there is a speed limit even if you don't speed. Similarly, all mandatory "duties" involve the use of force, even if it is not actually applied. If someone points a gun at you, he is using force even if he doesn't pull the trigger. Threatening to use force constitutes using force. It's not necessary for someone to manhandle you for it to be force. Even if no one points a gun at you, the fact that he will point a gun at you if you don't comply with his demands constitutes the use of force. To get back to the original issue, taxation constitutes taking money or property by force. Darrell

I guess I'm the only one who can see it. My kid's range target, nice tight grouping. There are no rights as such in laissez faire law, other than the legal right to petition and argue a case, to depose and subpoena witnesses, submit evidence, file an appeal. There is a synthetic right to life, so that you can petition etc, but has no effect if you're dead. What happens when you die is up to someone else. Survivors and successors have to prove that they were injured by your death, or probate a will, settle your estate, seek custody of minor children, as the case may be -- which seldom rises to the level of judicial notice unless it's contested. A grieving spouse or business partner could file a criminal complaint if you were murdered, but that assumes an investigating agency has been licensed and funded in your geographic jurisdiction and takes up the case pro bono -- or that private investigators are retained by the complainant. Disputes can arise sometimes in connection with insurance settlements, malpractice, drunk driving, or winding up a business -- but death is one of those things you should plan for and execute legal instruments accordingly, rather than dump a pile of problems on next of kin. Laissez faire courts and lawyers are not a tax-supported service or free ride. There is no right to compel adjudication. That answer just begs the question --- one I've asked before --- how do judges make up their minds? Do they consult: A. Their consciences? B. Their emotions? C. A rational theory of rights? D. Precedent. If you answered "D", then you're just pushing the problem back one iteration, but then you have to consider responses A, B, C, and D again and you can't keep answering D as that would result in an infinite regress. At some point, judges will either have to flip a coin or consider some objective notion of right and wrong. Darrell

That's like saying there is only a speed limit if you speed. Darrell

Actually, they were quoting Samson. Darrell

Ok. That's fine. But the concept of "rights" does deal with creating a society. So, your conception of Laissez Faire law is not a substitute for that. You've just conceded as much. Your concept may be interesting, but it's not an alternative for the Objectivist theory of rights or John Locke's theory of rights or any other theory of what is right and wrong in a social setting. BTW, I can't see the picture, perhaps because I'm at work, or perhaps because I need a password to see it. Darrell

Ok. That was the answer I was looking for. That is the goal of your system. That is the answer to the question, "Why?" Darrell Actually, it's not a very good answer, but at least it an answer. For one thing, it is given relative to the existing system. What I would like is an absolute answer such as, "I would like to create a society in which people are responsible for themselves." Then, we could analyze both the worthiness of that goal and the likelihood of Laissez Faire accomplishing that goal. Darrell

Would you trust her with a loaded weapon? No. Darrell

Ok. What is the reason? My question is, what would make your society better to live in than the one I'm already living in? Why should anyone bother to listen to you? There's some homework involved if you want to pursue it. Mars Shall Thunder, The Good Walk Alone Sunni Maravillosa says: DeVoon competently combines the pull of a space story with suspenseful twists and turns of a thriller. He reaches out to the thinking reader, providing a savory touch of art. An example: "History is predictable while the pressure builds, then it explodes in a crescendo that no one expected or understands except in awe of its might, just as rocks melt beneath an atomic bomb." In Book Two, the story takes on a much more intimate tone; and although DeVoon's touch is sometimes heavy, his obvious familiarity with the concepts he explores makes that easy to overlook. He also appears to be another of the select group of men with the uncanny ability to portray exclusively female experiences accurately. Almost up to the book's very end, the reader's pulled along and kept guessing as to what's going to happen. Mars Shall Thunder is a satisfying tapestry of space thriller, love story, and thought-provoking observations on the human condition and its systems. Samuel Jones says: Mars is magnificently realised, both in the description of the setting and in the politics and intrigue that go on there. The dialogue and interaction of the characters is gripping, the action scenes marvellously portrayed. Wolf is one of the best independent authors I've ever encountered, and a man whose work deserves far more exposure. Mike Marotta says: The Good Walk Alone is a novella, set in a post-apocalyptic Costa Rica. The cops are women. Wolf DeVoon's personal experiences working in prisons and working for prisoners showed him reasons to assert that women should not be subject to criminal law and that law enforcement should be entrusted to them exclusively. It is a radical theory. But I found it empirically supported. As I was earning a baccalaureate (Summa cum Laude) in criminology administration in 2008, I was shown statistics proving that women write more citations than men, and with fewer complaints from the public. Tangentially, college-educated police (2-year or 4-year degrees) also conduct more stops and write more citations with fewer complaints from citizens than do police officers with only a high school education. If you want the best police force, get college educated women. The story has all the usual elements: love, jealousy, some suspense, and gunfire, with a conclusion that is not quite resolved. http://necessaryfacts.blogspot.com/2014/06/wolf-devoon.html Women should be exempted from the criminal law and responsible for law enforcement. This will end male "input" on abortion and domestic violence. I trust that women will do justice. [Laissez Faire Law, p.113] The arguments in favor of a female judiciary seem to gain weight and additional merit, no matter which way I turn. [COGIGG, p.84] I witnessed Maggie Thatcher in action at a NATO Summit, away from the cameras and microphones. I know precisely what I'm talking about. She made Bush and Kohl squirm like scared little boys, and she couldn't have done it without Rand. The bottom line on history is that Ayn Rand and Simone de Beauvoir were political shipbuilders who launched a thousand warrior queens... Our revolutionary sisters will triumph (eventually) because they have more at risk and because Women Are Men Plus. It only takes one of them to defeat ten of us, if she decides to wage war. Ayn Rand took out male opponents by the hundred and won the hearts of six or seven million, because she was brave enough to say that she had a right to live her own life. Her novels toppled the Berlin Wall (via Thatcher)... Personally, I'm in favor of two party platform planks that I hope the Democrats (who else?) will consider as speedily as possible: (1) We should exempt women from the criminal law. The vast majority of criminals are men, and when women kill, they usually have a good reason for taking life. This includes abortion. Anything less means slavery: tied to an unwanted child for the rest of her life, or living with the terrible shame of having lost a child by adoption to someone wealthier and "better" than its natural mother. (2) Amend the U.S. Constitution to bring it into line with reality, and give women one of the two houses of Congress. It doesn't matter which one. Men can keep the Senate, if they think it's a sacrosanct club with special magic powers. Women will feel right at home in the House of Representatives, anyway, since a lot of them can only serve a couple years between bouts of infant care. They will also feel at home with the purse-strings, since all spending bills have to originate in the House, and women are known to be de facto financial managers of most American households. Recent research indicates that female Wall Street traders and money managers earn a slightly higher return on portfolio, mainly because they take fewer risks with the client's money and don't panic in an emergency. https://web.archive.org/web/20020601114021/http://www.zolatimes.com/V3.29/badcop_nodonut.html You should talk to my wife. She thinks women are generally terrible leaders with the possible exception of someone like Thatcher. And she is not the only woman I've met in my life that is generally very skeptical of the leadership qualities of other women. Darrell

Ok. That was the answer I was looking for. That is the goal of your system. That is the answer to the question, "Why?" Darrell

Then what is it? Spit it out, man! You just gave a bunch of examples without ever defining innocent liberty. Why? Why? Ok. What is the reason? Do you think it will result in a better society? Do you think it will result in better protection of individual rights? <-- I suspect not since you've already rejected that concept. Do you think it will result in better protection of "innocent liberty"? My question is, what would make your society better to live in than the one I'm already living in? Why would it's governmental system be better? Why should anyone bother to listen to you? Why should anyone bother to implement your suggestions? How does it benefit them? Darrell

Must scientists always treat humans like oxen? Darrell

This is the closest thing I could find: http://www.artificialbrains.com/darpa-synapse-program Darrell

That flash camera (024) looks a little like my dad's old camera with the flash bulb. I also seem to remember my mom using one of those hair dryers (094). Brings back memories. Darrell

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

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

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

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): Sounds a lot like someone that's been in the news in the last couple of years: Sounds a lot like the the altruist code of ethics propounded by Comte. Darrell

Sorry, to hijack the thread, but I don't see why we can't have an overall discussion of the similarities of Indian philosophies to Objectivism. Most of us don't know enough to distinguish between Jainism and Hinduism anyway. According to the chart MSK posted above, Jainism might have preceded Hinduism chronologically, but both Jainism and Hinduism are offshoots of a Vedic root. At any rate, I think we could learn something by comparing any Vedic religion with Objectivism. Darrell

Thanks, Jerry, for watching the video I posted. I agree that the speaker goes too far in his comparisons of Indian mysticism and Objectivism, especially with his table near the end. I don't know enough about Hinduism, for example, to really judge, but the simple fact that it is a form of mysticism is red flag number one. On the other hand, if his point was to show why Objectivism might be appealing to Indians, then I think his thesis might have some merit. Indians might have a lot fewer issues transitioning from their ingrained beliefs to Objectivism than Christians have, for example. On the other other hand, however, I don't really know enough about India or Hinduism to judge whether that is a reasonable conclusion or not. I will say that I've seen a number of Objectivist Indians on facebook. They are second only to Americans in requesting to be my facebook friend and other countries such as China, to pick on one, aren't even close. In fact, I don't think I've had a single person outside of North America, Europe, and India request to be my facebook friend after finding out that I am an Objectivist or that I am pro-freedom. However, I have had a fair number of Indians request a connection. Darrell

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

Discovered by what means using what facts with reference to what principles? The judge's opinion? Based on nothing? If the judge has no concepts of right and wrong, what is he to do? Just twist in the wind? If you think your system will work, you must have some reason for believing that judges will tend to converge on the right conclusions or decisions most of the time or over time. Should they consult their own moral codes? Or their own feelings? Or should they based their concept of right on reason? Or is the outcome irrelevant so long as the right procedure has been followed? Darrell