Darrell Hougen

An alternative way to handle a professor who holds opposing views is to follow the example of Leonard Peikoff, who had as his teacher, and dissertation advisor, one of the most promininent socialist intellectuals in 20th century America, Sidney Hook. Peikoff managed to ingratiate himself with Hook, even though Hook was a vociferous critic of Rand, by temporarily taking-on the view of whatever philosopher he happened to be studying at the time. To "get into his mind," so to speak..

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

how do judges make up their minds [in a laissez faire jurisdiction]?

Do they consult:

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

These duties are mandatory (like all laws), but they only involve force when they need to be enforced.

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

Sort 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

BTW, I can't see the picture

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

These duties are mandatory (like all laws), but they only involve force when they need to be enforced.

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

Darrell

Sorry, guys; you're quoting Darrell, not me.

--Brant

no need to fix it; this post is enough.

Actually, they were quoting Samson.

Darrell

It's not about creating a society. My work addresses philosophy of law.

My wife is an excellent shot, tough as nails. I trust her absolutely.

Our 12-year-old daughter did well at the range with .22, first time out.

Kid also completed aviation ground school, has 5 hours Pilot Flying.

<image>

Analyze that.

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

The goal of laissez faire is to increase personal responsibility and to diminish the power of law courts.

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

You should talk to my wife.

Would you trust her with a loaded weapon?

No.

Darrell

I have argued that women should be exempt from the criminal law ...

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

The goal of laissez faire is to increase personal responsibility and to diminish the power of law courts.

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

1. "Innocent liberty" is a precise idea.

Then what is it? Spit it out, man! You just gave a bunch of examples without ever defining innocent liberty.

It exonerates and protects children younger than the age of reason, generally understood to be ages 0-9.

Why?

It extends a much wider presumption of innocence to women, compared to men.

Why?

I have argued that women should be exempt from the criminal law ...

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

Adolescents have long fascinated neuroscience researchers. Their enigmatic brains and behavior often leave lasting impressions -- and not always good impressions -- on friends, family, and society. Teenage boys in particular are prone to risky and destructive behavior that must be fully understood before attempts are made to control or harness it. We profiled a study on the subject just a few months ago.

Must scientists always treat humans like oxen?

Darrell

the one brain study that I find, conceptually, extremely interesting and to hold the most possibility for our understanding of the brain is one, and excuse me that I can't remember the exact country that is doing this but it isnt the U.S., where they are attempting to build a super computer with one cpu core to correspond with every neuron in the brain! That would be of very practical use. the cores could be connected like neurons and patterned after our currrent map of the brain and then you can turn off groups of cores and see what happens. The cores wouldn't have to be cutting edge either so you could purchase 5 year old obsolete ones by the bucketful (it would still take up a huge amount of space)

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

Meanwhile, I'll stand pat with my reply to Brant --

Courts of law and sworn law enforcement officers initiate force as a matter of necessary routine.

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):

Positivism never admits anything but duties, of all to all. For its persistently social point of view cannot tolerate the notion of rights, constantly based on individualism. We are born loaded with obligations of every kind, to our predecessors, to our successors, and to our contemporaries. Later they only grow or accumulate before we can return any service. On what human foundation then could rest the idea of right, which in reason should imply some previous efficiency. Whatever may be our efforts, the longest life well employed will never enable us to pay back but an imperceptible part of what we received. And yet it would only be after a complete return that we should be justly authorized to require reciprocity for the new services. All human rights then are as absurd as they are immoral.

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

“I hear all this, you know, ‘Well, this is class warfare, this is whatever,’” she said. “No. There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own. Nobody. “You built a factory out there? Good for you. But I want to be clear: you moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for; you hired workers the rest of us paid to educate; you were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn’t have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory, and hire someone to protect against this, because of the work the rest of us did. “Now look, you built a factory and it turned into something terrific, or a great idea? God bless. Keep a big hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along.”

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

Meanwhile, I'll stand pat with my reply to Brant --

Courts of law and sworn law enforcement officers initiate force as a matter of necessary routine.

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

Courts of law and sworn law enforcement officers initiate force as a matter of necessary routine.

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

Meanwhile, I'll stand pat with my reply to Brant --

Courts of law and sworn law enforcement officers initiate force as a matter of necessary routine.

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):

Positivism never admits anything but duties, of all to all. For its persistently social point of view cannot tolerate the notion of rights, constantly based on individualism. We are born loaded with obligations of every kind, to our predecessors, to our successors, and to our contemporaries. Later they only grow or accumulate before we can return any service. On what human foundation then could rest the idea of right, which in reason should imply some previous efficiency. Whatever may be our efforts, the longest life well employed will never enable us to pay back but an imperceptible part of what we received. And yet it would only be after a complete return that we should be justly authorized to require reciprocity for the new services. All human rights then are as absurd as they are immoral.

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

“I hear all this, you know, ‘Well, this is class warfare, this is whatever,’” she said. “No. There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own. Nobody. “You built a factory out there? Good for you. But I want to be clear: you moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for; you hired workers the rest of us paid to educate; you were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn’t have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory, and hire someone to protect against this, because of the work the rest of us did. “Now look, you built a factory and it turned into something terrific, or a great idea? God bless. Keep a big hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along.”

Sounds a lot like the the altruist code of ethics propounded by Comte.

Darrell

Gentlemen:

Jainism precedes Hinduism.

I would prefer to stick to Jainism and Objectivism ... obviously, to the best of my knowledge, all philosophy 10,000 years ago had mystical roots.

A...

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

Re-wriiten for expansion and clarification on 9/4/2014. I just listened to the video lecture (link above, in post # 5), "Objectivism in India", by Jerry Johnson, from the 2014 Atlas Summer conference. Mr. Johnson is a very polished and articulate speaker, conveying such self-confidence in his delivery that listeners naturally assume that he knows what he is talking about.(which he may, but not enough detail is given to properly evaluate some of his assertions)..

Early in his talk, Mr. Johnson points to an article in the British The Economist (date not given) that did a Google check on from what country are people searching on specifically "Randian" terms, and India and America are in first and second place.. Interesting, but I'd want to read the article to see if its methodolgy and results were valid. While such a survey is interesting, it was not clear (from Mr. Johnson's brief reference) what that implies regarding the depth of interest in Rand's philosophy. He also points to another article claiming that Ayn Rand's books outsell Marx's, in India by a wide margin. Great, but Marxism is out of fashion and is not likely the major current of leftwing or socialist thought in India. Again, I'd like more details, so I'll have to look up the article.

The bulk of his talk are on what he sees as parallels between Objectivism and the values held by several of the gods in Hindu mythology. Johnson makes some rather fascinating claims that in essence, they are saying the same or similar things and hold similar values. Anyway, that is his claim and he presents a number of charts or tables to illustrate what he sees as the parallels. Unfortunately, not enough detail is given to adequately document these claims (not possible in a 60 minute talk).

But there are some serious problems with Johnson's presentation. The first, is that few American listeners are likely to be sufficiently up on their Hindu mythologies to be able to judge whether Johnson's descriptions are accurate. I certainly am not. It would be interesting to see what the reaction to this presentation would be if given in an Indian University where Hinduism is studied. Secondly, if there is as close a parallel between Rand's Roark and Galt on one hand, and the gods Ram, Shiva, and Vishnu on the other, then wouldn't this have been noticed and pointed out in Indian journals, media, etc? Make no mistake, Johnson, near the end of his presentation, claims that the Indian mythologies and Objectivist philosophy are not just simlar, but damn near identical in all the most important aspects (watch the video and look closely at his tables where he attempts to demonstrate this).

Thirdly, haven't we heard similar claims before, in another context? You know, that, really, "Objectivism and Christian theology and ethics are really advocating the same thing".. If that were true, you would have seen an entirely different reaction to Rand from Christian spokesmen than the animosity that did occur. The claim that Hinduism is promoting the same values as Objectivism requires a lot more evidence than was provided in this talk. The video did not record the follow-up Q&A session, so I have no idea as to how the talk was received.

Watch the video. What do you think?

.

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

I was there in NYC during the height of NBI "reason" in Objectivism days where you were served the philosophy up on a plate. "It's your job to tell people that Objectivism is. It's our job to tell them what it is." "Reason" is the window dressing of Objectivism. Of course there is a lot of it inside, but it's not yours. If it was you'd have walked out the door.

--Brant

now, shall I repeat my critique of the philosophy as such, for the 100th time? (Rand's quote is all wrong)

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

Laissez faire law is discovered and demonstrated in the process of litigation and trial. It cannot be legislated, codified, or imposed by a lawgiver.

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

I'm still going to read your L.F.L. so I can get my head around your ideas in this area. I still can't quite get what they come out of so their context is missing. First you have human being ("man") then his best if not necessary philosophy then political philosophy. Without the philosophy I'm having trouble with the political. Ayn Rand came with the philosophy but it's so ignorant of human being, though hardly all ignorance, it's still flapping around on the floor like a bird with a broken wing. Locke and the Founding Fathers were all about people and their needs and problems of getting along socially. Rand came with an ethics and lip service to "reason." Rand could not begin to stand up to this kind of Internet environment of give and take nor did she even indulge in more limited venues. So far you complain about "law givers," but all I see is a structure giver as a replacement but you still are a giver, if only would be, or a top-downer to hoi polloi and, in fact, to everyone. Givers need takers. That's the trade.

--Brant

Some days I think you understand Rand implicitly and other days you sound clueless. "Lib service to 'reason'"? What is that?

Look here (emphasis added):

My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute.

I can scarcely count the number of times Rand stressed the importance of rationality and/or reason.

Perhaps you just have a bad habit of conceding too much in the interest of being polite.

Darrell

My last post mentioned the lectures on American History that I repeatedly delivered at Cato Summer Seminars during the 1980s. The 3 lectures (which run around 4-1/2 hours total) from 1983 have since been posted on YouTube by L.org. Here are the first two. I discuss the Constitution and the ratification debates in the second lecture. The first deals mainly with the principles of the American Revolution.

These lectures were given during my Skinny Years.

Ghs

I started watching them last night. Very interesting and enlightening.

Darrell