Anarcho-Capitalism: A Branden ‘Blast from the Past’

[Brant Gaede]

What is the moral motivation behind a government forcing out competition? If the competitor is offering the exact same service, enforcing the exact same laws, what makes one more legitimate than the other? Let's say 70% of the people consent to the government, but this new competing agency is fairly new and has 5% of the population consenting to their service.

It seems ironically utilitarian to have an institution with special privileges as a means to enforce justice.

If the government has the power to forcefully stop people from pursuing their own justice, it has the power to do whatever it wants.

You cannot posit an impossibility in support of your argument and make much sense. If I were to "pursue my own justice," I'd be a serial killer but not, in your formulation, a murderer.

--Brant

[Dglgmut]

Well obviously punishments for crimes would have to be decided in courts, but making a forceful arrest, for example, could be at the discretion of the individual who was violated (or someone helping) as to not break the law, the same way police have to follow procedures. If someone was not sure the proper conduct for arresting someone, they would be advised not to as they could be charged themselves.

I don't mean "your own justice" as in your own version of justice, but contributing your own effort to an agreed upon process of justice.

[Brant Gaede]

Well obviously punishments for crimes would have to be decided in courts, but making a forceful arrest, for example, could be at the discretion of the individual who was violated (or someone helping) as to not break the law, the same way police have to follow procedures. If someone was not sure the proper conduct for arresting someone, they would be advised not to as they could be charged themselves.

I don't mean "your own justice" as in your own version of justice, but contributing your own effort to an agreed upon process of justice.

My gut reaction is there's too much re-inventing the wheel here.

--Brant

[anthony]

rule of law, or rule of man.

This idea of "rule of law" is a fallacy, because law cannot rule man. You can say that man shouldn't be able to vote away another man's life or property. You can also say that man shouldn't be able to initiate force against another. This is wishful thinking. Why not say: Man shouldn't vote away another man's life or property? Man shouldn't initiate force against another. If people want to organize and rob and murder, who's going to stop them? Can't we agree that the ideal is a society in which people choose to be moral, rather than being coerced?

It's not an 'either - or'. One can, and should and must, say both: That man should not have the power to coerce others (in any way) - and, equally, should not want to. ["...that I do without being commanded, what others do from fear of the law.' Aristotle]

Rational morality, after all, precedes rights, and supports them.

It does bring up the crucial overlap between rights and personal ethics. Rights should not even be needed - for all reasonable people they probably wouldn't be - but they are a last line of defence.

imo, all men have the potential to be rational, but don't always achieve it or sustain it. Given the mixed bag of moralities around us, based on all sorts of philosophies, it would be naive to trust all others to make the right choices all the time, or any of the time.

That is the fundamental purpose for individual rights, I think, beyond crime and physical force.

'You' have the right to your own morality. But also, you have the 'right to be wrong'; after all, without alternatives and volition and learning from our mistakes, there'd be no need for morality in the first place.

BUT - Your errors in your choice of morality or in its implementation (your actions), should never rebound on anyone else.

(The most obvious examples would be the majority electorate voting in a theocracy, or a socialist/statist government...

That's coercion on a grand scale.)

In its simplest societal context, a person who practises his own morality - no matter how strongly one may disagree with it -

and does so privately and respecting of others' rights, is acting ethically, and deserves respect, I believe.

I know that democracy and majority rule is significant to an unsophisticated society that has never known it.

As the nation grows more sophisticated, democracy "should" be reduced in hierarchy, by rule of law, individual rights,

and a constitutionally-limited government. I think it should or would become superfluous eventually.

"Civilization is the progress toward a society of privacy...civilization is the process of setting man free from men."

[AR]

[Dglgmut]

"Civilization is the progress toward a society of privacy...civilization is the process of setting man free from men."

[AR]

I'm glad you used that quote. Rand missed something she was usually very critical of others for missing: How? Or in this case, who?

Civilization is the process of who setting man free from men? Men setting themselves free from men? Man setting himself free from men?

Neither of these make sense, because the idea of a system which actively sets its people free is paradoxical, and a man who sets himself free is not a civilization.

Men cooperating and protecting their method of cooperation? That makes more sense. Real cooperation is voluntary though.

I have to read The Law by Bastiat, because I'm starting to question the whole purpose of laws... I mean, laws seem to make people less moral. A warning of punishment from infringing on another person's rights, I don't know if that necessitates laws as formal as what we have. It should be common sense that if you do something to hurt someone, there's likely going to be consequences. Morality should be a way of dealing with reality, not dealing with a group of men who decide the rules of coexistence.

Aside from that, law enforcement doesn't seem moral. A powerful group going around protecting the rights of other people? What is that, altruism? A protection agency that gets payment directly correlative the service it provides--that's rational.

[anthony]

"Civilization is the progress toward a society of privacy...civilization is the process of setting man free from men." [AR]

I'm glad you used that quote. Rand missed something she was usually very critical of others for missing: How? Or in this case, who? Civilization is the process of who setting man free from men? Men setting themselves free from men? Man setting himself free from men? Neither of these make sense, because the idea of a system which actively sets its people free is paradoxical, and a man who sets himself free is not a civilization. Men cooperating and protecting their method of cooperation? That makes more sense. Real cooperation is voluntary though. I have to read The Law by Bastiat, because I'm starting to question the whole purpose of laws... I mean, laws seem to make people less moral. A warning of punishment from infringing on another person's rights, I don't know if that necessitates laws as formal as what we have. It should be common sense that if you do something to hurt someone, there's likely going to be consequences. Morality should be a way of dealing with reality, not dealing with a group of men who decide the rules of coexistence. Aside from that, law enforcement doesn't seem moral. A powerful group going around protecting the rights of other people? What is that, altruism? A protection agency that gets payment directly correlative the service it provides--that's rational.

Calvin,

Seriously, do you read anything else except my last lines? Cos, that's all you respond to.

I thought it self-explanatory; man free from men, means the individual from the collective,

'self-hood' from coerced social duty,

self-authority, from the counterfeit 'authority' of unknown masses -

releasing you to pursue mutual values with other individuals of your choice.

It is all within the context of my complete post. (I thought.)

[Found the solution - write the last line first, and heck, drop

the rest...]

[Xray]

People should be able to delegate their right of self-preservation to an agency of their own choosing, so long as that agency respects objective law and is truly an agency devoted to the defense of its customers.

How is consent to these "objective laws" achieved in an anarchist society?

A distinction needs to be made between laws that prohibit actions that are malem in se and those that are malem probibitum.

In the first category are laws that prohibit murder, rape, theft, etc. Such laws, which prohibit actions that are unjust in themselves, do not require consent -- in the sense that the prior consent of a murderer is not required before he can be punished for committing murder.

Laws in the second category, in this context, refer to legal procedures that, though not unjust in themselves, are prohibited by a given legal system. For example, it might be possible to get a fair criminal trial with only 3 jurors instead of 12. Or in the case of 12 jurors it might be just to require that only 9 of 12 jurors vote "guilty" to secure a conviction, instead of requiring a unanimous verdict. Nevertheless, in these and similar examples, a given legal system might declare alternate procedures illegal (within its jurisdiction) in order to maintain consistent procedural standards. These would be examples of malem prohibitum, i.e., things that are illegal in virtue of being prohibited, not because they are wrong (unjust, in this case) in themselves.

But to answer your question more specifically: To the extent that consent is needed in pluralistic legal system, you give it by doing business with the agency of your choice. That is to say, you delegate your right of self-defense to those persons whom you believe will do the best job for the cheapest price. To do business with a rogue agency will do you little or no good, because its verdicts will not command the public respect and cooperation needed for you to secure restitution. This is the major theme of my two articles on "Justice Entrepreneurship."

In short, consent is needed to establish the legitimate jurisdiction of a justice agency, including a government.

But the 'consent' issue would not only apply to me as a customer doing business with a agency of my choice, it would also play a role between the competing agencies in terms of what is prohibited and and what is not. So there has to be common ground on which both the agencies and the private individuals would have to agree on, and to consent to.

Who is it that develops and presents those basics? What if consent by all cannot be reached?

Is vote by majority rule discounted completely? If yes, what other options do there exist ?

Who for example will decide in an anarchistic society what is a malum prohibitum and what is legally allowed?

[Brant Gaede]

I think I got it! If you don't consent, you'll be shot!

--Brant

problem solved: when you need me, turn on the signal!

[Dglgmut]

Calvin,

Seriously, do you read anything else except my last lines? Cos, that's all you respond to.

I thought it self-explanatory; man free from men, means the individual from the collective,

'self-hood' from coerced social duty,

self-authority, from the counterfeit 'authority' of unknown masses -

releasing you to pursue mutual values with other individuals of your choice.

It is all within the context of my complete post. (I thought.)

[Found the solution - write the last line first, and heck, drop

the rest...]

Oh, come on. I just pick out the part I can make my point with easiest. Obviously I was unsuccessful.

I know what man free from men means, but what is not clear from the quote or from your entire argument is: Who sets man free from those masses?

If man sets himself free, government isn't a part of it. If a group of well intentioned Ragnar Danneskjold types are going around freeing good men from bad men--while charging a fee, of course--then hell, they deserve to lead a minarchist government with a monopoly on force. They'll be responsible for protecting everyone from everyone else and make some nice profit while they're at it.

Is that how you imagine it?

I feel like you want a double-standard. You want a system that prevents people from doing what they think is moral, because you know it is immoral, while allowing other people to do what you know is right, because it is right--even if not everyone agrees.

Again, while you may be right, and may be able to prove it, you cannot prove it to everyone, and you will always have people fighting against your side... in many cases a majority. I don't see a constant battle as "civilization."

[Bosco]

Ayn Rand opposed anarchism, and despite the fact she she was almost always precise in her arguments, she didn't leave minarchists with much to go on except some passing thoughts in VOS. So I don't think she considered the position to be credible or worthy of any real serious consideration beyond regarding it as a lunatic fringe of a deluded libertarian movement. I have a feeling that had she examined it more closely, what she might have left behind would have made debates between O'ist minarchists and "anarcho-objectivists" more interesting and informative for both sides.

Do there exist any "anarcho-objectivists"? I have the impression that those who were affiliated with the Objectivist movement but finally rejected minarchism in favor of anarchism no longer call/called themselves Objectivists.

By "anarcho-objectivists", I'm obviously referring to those who largely agree with Ayn Rands epistemology, ethics and fundamental political principles, but reject minarchism as inconsistent with these principles. I agree that anarchists should not consider themselves Objectivists, although I have heard some try to slip past this issue by referring to themselves as "open source" Objectivists

[Brant Gaede]

Ayn Rand opposed anarchism, and despite the fact she she was almost always precise in her arguments, she didn't leave minarchists with much to go on except some passing thoughts in VOS. So I don't think she considered the position to be credible or worthy of any real serious consideration beyond regarding it as a lunatic fringe of a deluded libertarian movement. I have a feeling that had she examined it more closely, what she might have left behind would have made debates between O'ist minarchists and "anarcho-objectivists" more interesting and informative for both sides.

Do there exist any "anarcho-objectivists"? I have the impression that those who were affiliated with the Objectivist movement but finally rejected minarchism in favor of anarchism no longer call/called themselves Objectivists.

By "anarcho-objectivists", I'm obviously referring to those who largely agree with Ayn Rands epistemology, ethics and fundamental political principles, but reject minarchism as inconsistent with these principles. I agree that anarchists should not consider themselves Objectivists, although I have heard some try to slip past this issue by referring to themselves as "open source" Objectivists

Wrongo! They agree with her basic political principles and leave the rest as implicit assumptions or no assumptions whatsoever. Rand is primarily about ethics, in ethics. Libertarians are primarily about politics qua politics. Rand gave lip service to eistemology and metaphysics to dress out her philosophy and more than that (politics) to make it all work. Instead of commonality in individual rights they've ended up with this insane anarchist/minarchist debate centered on government, not men (people).

--Brant

[Dennis Hardin]

You have merely illustrated something that we already knew, namely, that Rand sometimes did not apply her own principles consistently. Here are some statements in 'The Nature of Government," in case you have forgotten them. The boldface is mine.

Like many classical liberals before her, Rand believed that fraud and breach of contract constitute indirect uses of physical force. (Rothbard developed this approach in greater detail than Rand did). She also incorporated the threat of force into her scheme of rights-violating activities.

Nevertheless, Rand's statement that "the freedom of ideas does not permit you to lie about a person" is clearly inconsistent with with her basic premises. This is not true of her defense of intellectual property, however. Although I disagree with Rand about intellectual property, if you believe in this right then to violate it means essentially the same thing as to violate any other property right. To have a property right in X means that one has the exclusive moral right to say how X shall be used and disposed of. Thus if someone uses X without your permission, they are forcibly preventing you from exercising your exclusive right of use and disposal. Rand would not agree that protecting intellectual property rights involves the initiation of force. Rather, it is a species of retaliatory force.

Again, what you have done is to throw out poorly-digested examples, apparently at random, in an effort to show that Rand would have approved of the initiation of force by a government -- and this in the face of her many explicit statements to the contrary. You do a grave injustice to Rand by gerrymandering her ideas in this manner. Yes, she was sometimes inconsistent. She sometimes failed to apply her own principles properly, but she never wavered on the basic principle that no one, including a government, has the right to initiate force. (A possible exception might be emergency situations, but that is not what we are discussing here.)

Ghs

Thank you very much for replicating all those quotes from Ayn Rand about the initiation of physical force as the only way in which individual rights can be violated. How very enlightening. She certainly did repeat that phrase over and over and over again, making it quite understandable that some of her readers would get the idea that initiating physical force was the only way to violate rights. She was attempting to simplify the issue as much as possible, not realizing that some people—for want of a better term, let us call them "libertarians"—would take her literally. She might have saved the world a lot of unnecessary grief if she had been less inclined to oversimplification, because that’s what the NIOF principle is—an oversimplification.

In other contexts, she stated that the basic way to violate individual rights was through the initiation of physical force. She cited many, many exceptions to that principle. Libel and slander laws and reckless endangerment are just two examples. When a person invests years in earning the value of a reputation, it is clearly a violation of their rights for someone to destroy that reputation with lies and false accusations. If a worker loses his arm on an assembly line because equipment was in a state of serious disrepair, are you seriously going to contend his rights were not violated? She was not being inconsistent in either of those examples. The other examples I cited—fraud and other forms of indirect force, including threats of force—are other common exceptions. The entire field of contract law is another. Breach of contract may constitute a form of physical force, but just as often it may not. Disagreements are extremely common. A judge issues a ruling, and if the parties disagree, the police must, in effect, initiate physical force when they exact compensation from the party deemed to be at fault.

The whole idea of "indirect force"--i.e., force that is not physical--completely subverts any argument for the non-initiation of physical force principle as anything resembling an objective guide to determining what is or is not a right.

When Rand used the phrase about the non-initiation of force, she was speaking in short-hand. Understandably, she did not think it necessary to always repeat the following:

The function of the government should be only to protect individual rights…A right is a moral concept that defines and sanctions a man’s freedom of action in a social context. The basic issue is: Does one man have the right to dispose of the life of another? Once you have established that a man is the owner of his own life—that his life is his to dispose of and does not belong to anyone else—you then have the base from which all other rights are derived. If a man has the right to his own life, then he has the right to take all those actions that are necessary, by his nature as a rational being, to sustain and protect it. In order to prove that a certain action is in fact a right, you have to prove that it is required by man’s nature.

Objectively Speaking, p. 47

Unfortunately, Ayn Rand often made wrong assumptions about her readers. She assumed that her admirers would be able to grasp when she was using shorthand, and that they would not drop the context of the rest of her philosophy. She assumed her readers would seriously study her essays and make an effort to see the connections between her ideas, not take one phrase and elevate it to the status of a Platonic ideal.

The history of libertarianism, in large part, proves how wrong she was about that.

[Dennis Hardin]

Nevertheless, Rand's statement that "the freedom of ideas does not permit you to lie about a person" is clearly inconsistent with with her basic premises. This is not true of her defense of intellectual property, however. Although I disagree with Rand about intellectual property, if you believe in this right then to violate it means essentially the same thing as to violate any other property right. To have a property right in X means that one has the exclusive moral right to say how X shall be used and disposed of. Thus if someone uses X without your permission, they are forcibly preventing you from exercising your exclusive right of use and disposal. Rand would not agree that protecting intellectual property rights involves the initiation of force. Rather, it is a species of retaliatory force.

Ghs

You are dancing back and forth between Rand’s position and your position in an apparent effort to muddy the water. I am fully aware of what Rand would argue. Of course, she would say that stealing intellectual property is the same as stealing any other kind of property. But since you disagree with Rand, the issue from your perspective is: who has initiated physical force?

If I acquire the deed to a physical property, that physical property is mine to dispose of as I see fit. For someone else to dispose of it is the physical act of stealing, and no one questions whether stealing physical property is the initiation of physical force. If I steal your book, I have initiated physical force. If I start selling a book you wrote without your permission, and you stop me, you have initiated physical force.

You cannot have it both ways. You cannot argue that intellectual property rights are invalid, and then argue that stealing intellectual property—i.e., stealing something that is not physical—is an initiation of force. If you oppose intellectual property rights, then from your perspective, Rand is sanctioning the initiation of force. It is only from the perspective of someone who agrees with the notion of intellectual property that protecting such rights constitutes retaliatory force.

From your perspective—from the perspective of someone who does not recognize that property rights can be acquired through nonphysical (i.e., intellectual) means, Rand is sanctioning the initiation of force. From either perspective, she is clearly sanctioning the initiation of physical force. That was my point in bringing up that issue.

How does someone acquire the right to intellectual property, since it involves an act of intellectual creation rather than physical acquisition through production, discovery or free exchange? If rights are strictly an issue of being free from physical force, there is no way.

You can only validate the right to intellectual property if you grant that there is something more fundamental to rights than the non-initiation of force principle. The same is true about all the other exceptions to the NIOF principle cited above. She believed there was something much more fundamental than NIOF. Sadly, you continue to refuse to acknowledge that.

[Dennis Hardin]

You called the examples I presented “sophistry.” LOL. I expected that. They are nothing of the kind. None of the examples I presented – gun control, stalking, bomb threats, gang intimidation – are marginal issues. They are all fairly common examples of indirect force. Fraud is another example of indirect force which I deliberately did not discuss, since I assumed you might well take issue with such laws. I deliberately chose situations which might well arise in any normal social context. I deliberately avoided the issues of fraud and intellectual property because I suspected you would take issue with them as valid examples of the province of government. Needless to say, that is not Rand’s viewpoint.

You don't seem to understand what Rand meant by "indirect force." To respond with force to indirect force doesn't qualify as initiating force. It is a species of retaliatory force.

"Indirect force" simply means that the force employed is not inflicted directly on the agent, as is the case when one person punches another. Suppose I purchase a diamond ring from a jeweler for $1000. I hand the jeweler the money but (as I later discover) the diamond is fake. So what is involved in this instance of fraud?

When I gave the jeweler the money, I acquired title -- i.e., a legal claim of ownership -- to a diamond ring. I now own that diamond ring, but the jeweler never gave it to me. Thus if he refuses to give it to me, he is holding my property (my diamond ring) without my consent, i.e., he is forcibly withholding my property from me, and thereby violating my property right to use and dispose of my diamond ring as I like.

This type of analysis is called the "title-transfer theory of contract," and libertarians (e.g., Bill Evers, Murray Rothbard, and Randy Barnett) have written about it a great deal.

This fraud involving a diamond ring is essentially no different that if a thief were to break into your home while you are away and steal your television. The thief has not used force against you directly, since he did not assault your person, but he used force indirectly by forcibly depriving you of control over your own property. And this state of force continues to exist until and unless the the thief returns your television or provides restitution.

As it turns out, the world is not quite as simple as the one example you present. Breach of contract issues are often in dispute—and reasonably so.

When the jeweler withholds your physical property, he is, in effect, stealing something that belongs to you. So you could say that forcibly taking the ring from him is retaliatory force. But how does that apply when someone claims that he did fulfill the terms of a contract, and the other party disagrees? For instance, a contractor builds a structure to contractual specifications, but completes the project one day after the contractual deadline. A judge or arbitrator enters the picture, and has to decide upon an equitable settlement. If one party disagrees with that settlement, force must be initiated to enact that settlement.

And, to repeat, the whole notion of "indirect force" totally subverts the non-initiation of physical force principle as anything remotely resembling an objective guide to the definition of rights.

Your anarcho-capitalist defense agencies, incidentally, are another example of indirect force, because they threaten the very foundation of liberty.

Sorry, Dennis, but you cannot aribitrarily dub anything you don't like as a threat. You will need a theory of some kind to justify this allegation, a theory that explains what consitutes a threat, and why, and what does not. Your whims will not suffice here.

Shall I repeat my theory once again, so you can ignore it again? What would be the point of that?

You spoke of "induction," but your examples have nothing to do with induction. Rather, you posit possible exceptions to the non-initiation of force principle, but you leave unanswered the crucial question: By what general rule do we identify legitimate exceptions?

It's interesting to note that you claim that you do not take the non-initiation of force principle as a starting point or axiom. Yet when you argue against my position, you never acknowledge the basic premise of my presentation. You continue to debate the question of whether or not minarchy violates the non-initiation of force principle, and completely ignore the hierarchical foundation of rights: that society must institutionalize the conditions that enable man to live a moral existence.

I am simply following Rand when she wrote (as I quoted in my last post):

The basic political principle of the Objectivist ethics is: no man may initiate the use of physical force against others. No man——or group or society or government—has the right to assume the role of a criminal and initiate the use of physical compulsion against any man. Men have the right to use physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use. The ethical principle involved is simple and clear-cut: it is the difference between murder and self-defense.

As with Rand, this is my "basic political principle." This is not a moral axiom, since the NIOF principles requires justification, but it is the foundation of my political theory.

Unlike you, I am unwilling to give priority to some incidental comments by Rand that she may have made on the spot, while providing no substantial justification. I prefer to take her at her word in the many explicit statements she made in her carefully considered essays.

So let me get this straight: Your "basic political principle" is one that is demonstrably inapplicable in case after case where there is a clear violation of rights. Good luck with that.

You take Rand's shorthand statement of the essence of individual rights and elevate it to the status of a Platonic ideal, floating around somewhere up there in the clouds. And then you expect people to take your rationalistic scheme seriously.

Some of us prefer to live in the real world.

It won't do to concoct a bunch of problematic scenarios that you are unable to resolve and then dub them exceptions to the NIOF principle. You repeatedly invoke "context," but the only relevant context here is your failure to analyze your own problems in a systematic manner.

Ghs

You didn't bother to read my post very carefully--or make any half-way serious effort to understand it--or you would know that I did resolve each of them--and in an extremely systematic manner.

There wasn't a whole lot to read, Dennis, and there was even less in the way of argument. You repeated the same pattern of reasoning over and over, which amounted to this: X (e.g., some kinds of gun ownership) should obviously be prohibited by government. But X cannot be prohibited unless the government initiates force. Therefore, the government is justified in initiating force in such cases.

This manner of argument does not meet my standard of an "extremely systematic" presentation. You may as well argue that people on drugs sometimes harm other people, so a government, in the name of making a moral existence possible for its citizens, may properly prohibit drug use, even though this involves the initiation of force. By jettisoning Rand's NIOF principle, you have thrown overboard any objective standard by which the legitimacy of government actions can be assessed, especially since you leave it to the government to decide when exceptions to the NIOF principle are justified.

I would prefer to follow Rand here, if you don't mind.

You mean you prefer to treat your own rationalist, out-of-context misinterpretation of a Randian aphorism as if it were an entire political philosophy.

There is no objective way to outlaw drug use or any other form of irresponsible personal conduct. There is a way to objectively define what weapons a person may reasonably own without threatening the ability of others to lead normal lives. Apparently you believe people should learn to live with the fear of having one's head blown off when walking down the street. That shouldn't be too surprising to anyone who seriously considers what "anarcho-capitalism" would mean in actual practice.

But thanks. Now we can add that little tidbit to your "systematic presentation" of what freedom means in your "ideal" world.

Government action to protect the individual’s freedom to conduct his or her life can be undertaken in all of the situations described above, and many of these involve (in a technical sense) the initiation of physical force to stop others from interfering with that person’s life. (Or, in the case of abortion, no action will be taken even thought the woman is technically “initiating force”.) Using force against private individuals who want to pre-empt the government’s monopoly on the use of force is simply one more example—similar to those cited above--because their actions destroy the structure of society required for a proper human existence.

Abortion is a good example of how fuzzy your thinking is. A fetus is part of a woman's body, and a woman, as a self-owner, has a right to do with her body whatever she likes. An abortion is not "technically" initiating force. You can initiate force only against another independent moral agent. If you hit youself in the head, you are not initiating force against yourself, technically or in any other way.

This is one instance of why I said that your examples go all over the map and are poorly thought out.

Ghs

So, tell me, George. At what point does the fetus become an "independent moral agent"? Is it okay for the woman to bash the baby's head in moments before bringing it to full term? It's her body. She can do what she wants while it's still part of her body, right? She can use a coat hanger to pulverize the little parasite to her heart's content. Right? That's not "initiating force." As long as the baby is inside her--or even partly inside her--it doesn't have any rights.

Since your thinking is obviously so vastly superior to mine, please use your "basic political principle" to clarify when the fetus can no longer be slaughtered by the mother. You've dispensed with all of my nonobjective, muddled thinking about the conditions of a moral existence. NIOF is all you need. Right?

[anthony]

Calvin, Seriously, do you read anything else except my last lines? Cos, that's all you respond to. I thought it self-explanatory; man free from men, means the individual from the collective, 'self-hood' from coerced social duty, self-authority, from the counterfeit 'authority' of unknown masses - releasing you to pursue mutual values with other individuals of your choice. It is all within the context of my complete post. (I thought.) [Found the solution - write the last line first, and heck, drop the rest...]

Oh, come on. I just pick out the part I can make my point with easiest. Obviously I was unsuccessful. I know what man free from men means, but what is not clear from the quote or from your entire argument is: Who sets man free from those masses? If man sets himself free, government isn't a part of it. If a group of well intentioned Ragnar Danneskjold types are going around freeing good men from bad men--while charging a fee, of course--then hell, they deserve to lead a minarchist government with a monopoly on force. They'll be responsible for protecting everyone from everyone else and make some nice profit while they're at it. Is that how you imagine it? I feel like you want a double-standard. You want a system that prevents people from doing what they think is moral, because you know it is immoral, while allowing other people to do what you know is right, because it is right--even if not everyone agrees. Again, while you may be right, and may be able to prove it, you cannot prove it to everyone, and you will always have people fighting against your side... in many cases a majority. I don't see a constant battle as "civilization."

No, you misunderstand. Only one standard, the individual's life. 'Majority' is irrelevant.

I don't try, nor want, to engineer a perfect Society - morality is not for one's fellow man to interfere with, and especially not the business of government.

I kind of think of it as the reality principle: that no man (or agency of men) has the moral imperative or right to intercede in your relationship with reality. Or - nobody may deny a person the consequences of his convictions and actions: if they do not physically interfere with anyone else's.

For instance, if I choose to be the last Communist in a capitalist society, the same principle applies equally to all of us: - "Laissez-moi (et -vous) faire!"

Essentially, without mind-independence, and freedom to act - a man or woman is nowhere; without the potential for consequential 'justice', or the possibilty of pride. I think this is the foundation for individual rights and NIOF.

I think it's a symptom of how deeply the modern Statist mindset has delved into our consciousness, that just as even the ideological capitalist/libertarian/Objectivist struggles to envisage how to unbundle Big Business from Big Government after decades of inter-action; at another level, we also can't quite imagine the individual

set free from Society. From which we may learn to deal honorably and benevolently

with one another.

[Dglgmut]

I kind of think of it as the reality principle: that no man (or agency of men) has the moral imperative or right to intercede in your relationship with reality.

Never heard that reality principle, but I agree, except that there is a complication in that man and other men are all part of reality. So men should not interfere with anyone else's relationship with themselves?

nobody may deny a person the consequences of his convictions and actions: if they do not physically interfere with anyone else's.

Keeping in mind that man is part of reality, let's look at this proposition. They shouldn't do this because? For the sake of the other?

The whole NIOF principle seems to contradict the idea of rational selfishness. Unless you can prove that it is for the individual's own good not to mess with another person's life or property, how else could you convince them not to do it? And are you going to convince them not to mess with anybody's life or property, or specifically yours?

Or will you let reality teach them why it's not a good idea? The law allows people to be punished for crimes, and so there are real consequences for their actions, however, since retribution comes from a basically uninterested party, there is a disconnect between actions and consequences. If you attack someone and they shoot you in the leg, you've learned not to attack a stranger. If you attack someone and they call the cops and you get arrested, you've learned not to get caught.

The other consequences of violating other people's rights are less immediate, but just as direct. If government policies hurt productive businesses, the economy is going to be hurt. But the fact that most people don't know or care anything about those policies, and at the same time are funding the government through taxation, illustrates a huge interference in one's relationship with reality.

However, voluntary funding would actually solve everything, if it were plausible. If you could show how a monopoly on force was voluntarily funded, without having the means to compel funding, then I think you'd be right.

[Xray]

I think I got it! If you don't consent, you'll be shot!

What if the one threatened to be shot is armed as well, and the better shooter?

--Brant

problem solved: when you need me, turn on the signal!

How would gun control be handled in 'Anarchia' btw? I suppose the members of the private law enforcement agencies (or whatever other term would fit - any suggestions?) would carry arms, but wih private cicitzens owning guns too, on could easily end up in a scenario similar to the one you have described in a prior post.

<...>Now we have law, police, courts (and prisons) basically under one roof. When your agency comes knocking on my door investigating a crime wanting to search my abode and meets my agency where is its warrant? Who issued it? No warrant, then no law, then my agency opens fire when your agency tries to force its way in. Since I have the right to defend myself I might also be one of the shooters. <...>

[George H. Smith]

You have merely illustrated something that we already knew, namely, that Rand sometimes did not apply her own principles consistently. Here are some statements in 'The Nature of Government," in case you have forgotten them. The boldface is mine. Like many classical liberals before her, Rand believed that fraud and breach of contract constitute indirect uses of physical force. (Rothbard developed this approach in greater detail than Rand did). She also incorporated the threat of force into her scheme of rights-violating activities. Nevertheless, Rand's statement that "the freedom of ideas does not permit you to lie about a person" is clearly inconsistent with with her basic premises. This is not true of her defense of intellectual property, however. Although I disagree with Rand about intellectual property, if you believe in this right then to violate it means essentially the same thing as to violate any other property right. To have a property right in X means that one has the exclusive moral right to say how X shall be used and disposed of. Thus if someone uses X without your permission, they are forcibly preventing you from exercising your exclusive right of use and disposal. Rand would not agree that protecting intellectual property rights involves the initiation of force. Rather, it is a species of retaliatory force. Again, what you have done is to throw out poorly-digested examples, apparently at random, in an effort to show that Rand would have approved of the initiation of force by a government -- and this in the face of her many explicit statements to the contrary. You do a grave injustice to Rand by gerrymandering her ideas in this manner. Yes, she was sometimes inconsistent. She sometimes failed to apply her own principles properly, but she never wavered on the basic principle that no one, including a government, has the right to initiate force. (A possible exception might be emergency situations, but that is not what we are discussing here.) Ghs

Thank you very much for replicating all those quotes from Ayn Rand about the initiation of physical force as the only way in which individual rights can be violated. How very enlightening. She certainly did repeat that phrase over and over and over again, making it quite understandable that some of her readers would get the idea that initiating physical force was the only way to violate rights. She was attempting to simplify the issue as much as possible, not realizing that some people—for want of a better term, let us call them "libertarians"—would take her literally. She might have saved the world a lot of unnecessary grief if she had been less inclined to oversimplification, because that’s what the NIOF principle is—an oversimplification. In other contexts,

I have a higher opinion of Rand than you apparently do, insofar as I regard her as a precise writer who knew how to say what she meant.

Rand did not merely say that rights can be violated only via the initiation of force. In a passage I quoted earlier, she also wrote: "A civilized society is one in which physical force is banned from human relationships -- in which the government, acting as a policeman, may use force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use."

Here and elsewhere, Rand says that a proper government can legitimately use force only in retaliation against those who initiate its use, and she typically italicized "only" in these passages.

Those of us who do not possess your Ayn Rand Decoder Ring did not realize that she did not wish to be taken literally, that she was oversimplifying this issue. We did not realize that Rand was speaking loosely or perhaps metaphorically. We did not realize that when Rand said, as she did over and over again, that "force may be used only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use," what she really meant to say was: "force may be use only in retaliation (with many exceptions) and only against those who initiate its use (with many exceptions)."

Thanks for clearing this up and for resolving the anarchist/minarchist debate, at long last. Until your explanation, the simple-minded on both sides of the controversy thought that Rand meant what she said, so the controversy revolved around the issue of whether or not a limited government must initiate force.

Every minarchist I have debated over the years -- such as NB, BB, John Hospers, Tibor Machan, and William Thomas (even Phil Coates) -- insisted that a proper government is not permitted to initiate force, so they have attempted to rebut the anarchist claim that a limited government must initiate force. We now understand, thanks to your decoder ring, that their concerns were unwarranted. You are the first minarchist (that I know of) to point out that Rand was simplifying matters a great deal, and that when she said that legitimate force may be used only against those who initiate its use, she really meant "sometimes," not "only."

Thus have you cut through the Gordian Knot by saying, in effect: A proper limited government must and will initiate force in a number of areas, so what's the big deal?

[Rand]stated that the basic way to violate individual rights was through the initiation of physical force. She cited many, many exceptions to that principle. Libel and slander laws and reckless endangerment are just two examples.

Rand also stated (many times) that "Man's rights can be violated only by the use of physical force." "Only" does not mean "basic." It means "exclusively" or "solely." Rand used the word "basic" in the following context: "The basic political principle of the Objectivist ethics is: no man may initiate the use of physical force against others."

"Basic," in this context, means "fundamental" or "foundational." The fundamental political principle of the O'ist ethics, she said, is: "no man may initate the use of physical force against others."

The only exceptions to the NIOF principle that Rand ever acknowledged were emergency situations. She did not regard the "exceptions" you mention as exceptions at all. She never so much as hinted at any such thing.

Ghs

[Brant Gaede]

She was against fraud, George. What you are saying is that physical force is the same as force in Rand's cosmology. That must include indirect use of (physical) force. Anyway, if you have a government you will have government violating rights regardless of the necessity for the purity of a political-philosophical position which I regard as a mold we try to fit government imperfectly into.

--Brant

[Xray]

Rand also stated (many times) that "Man's rights can be violated only by the use of physical force."

If this is what Rand said, she was clearly in error. Fraud, embezzlement, etc. are all violations of others' rights but do not imply the use of physical force.

[George H. Smith]

When the jeweler withholds your physical property, he is, in effect, stealing something that belongs to you. So you could say that forcibly taking the ring from him is retaliatory force. But how does that apply when someone claims that he did fulfill the terms of a contract, and the other party disagrees? For instance, a contractor builds a structure to contractual specifications, but completes the project one day after the contractual deadline. A judge or arbitrator enters the picture, and has to decide upon an equitable settlement. If one party disagrees with that settlement, force must be initiated to enact that settlement.

And, to repeat, the whole notion of "indirect force" totally subverts the non-initiation of physical force principle as anything remotely resembling an objective guide to the definition of rights.

Your problem is with Rand, not with me. As Rand wrote in "The Nature of Government":

A unilateral breach of contract involves an indirect use of physical force: it consists, in essence, of one man receiving the material values, goods or services of another, then refusing to pay for them and thus keeping them by force (by mere physical possession), not by right—i.e., keeping them without the consent of their owner. Fraud involves a similarly indirect use of force: it consists of obtaining material values without their owner's consent, under false pretenses or false promises. Extortion is another variant of an indirect use of force: it consists of obtaining material values, not in exchange for values, but by the threat of force, violence or injury.

It is perfectly fine if you disagree with Rand's analysis. If you think that her analysis of the "indirect use of force" totally subverts her NIOF principle, then we can discuss this problem. But you have no business posing as a defender of Rand while directly contradicting what she said.

Ghs

[Jonathan]

Rand also stated (many times) that "Man's rights can be violated only by the use of physical force."

If this is what Rand said, she was clearly in error. Fraud, embezzlement, etc. are all violations of others' rights but do not imply the use of physical force.

Yeah, and stealing a car isn't using force if it's unlocked and the keys are in it and you just walk up to it and take it without having to punch the owner in the face? The term "physical force" equals "punch someone in the face"? And therefore the only right that we have is to not be punched in the face?

J

[George H. Smith]

Abortion is a good example of how fuzzy your thinking is. A fetus is part of a woman's body, and a woman, as a self-owner, has a right to do with her body whatever she likes. An abortion is not "technically" initiating force. You can initiate force only against another independent moral agent. If you hit youself in the head, you are not initiating force against yourself, technically or in any other way.

This is one instance of why I said that your examples go all over the map and are poorly thought out.

Ghs

So, tell me, George. At what point does the fetus become an "independent moral agent"? Is it okay for the woman to bash the baby's head in moments before bringing it to full term? It's her body. She can do what she wants while it's still part of her body, right? She can use a coat hanger to pulverize the little parasite to her heart's content. Right? That's not "initiating force." As long as the baby is inside her--or even partly inside her--it doesn't have any rights.

Since your thinking is obviously so vastly superior to mine, please use your "basic political principle" to clarify when the fetus can no longer be slaughtered by the mother. You've dispensed with all of my nonobjective, muddled thinking about the conditions of a moral existence. NIOF is all you need. Right?

I would be happy to clarify your muddled thinking on this matter.

The fetus acquires independent rights at the moment when it becomes an independent being, i.e., at the moment of birth. Until that moment, it is part of the woman's body and falls within the jurisdiction of her self-ownership. A woman cannot lose her right to self-ownership merely in virtue of becoming pregant. Pregnancy is not an aggressive act.

You ask: "Is it okay for the woman to bash the baby's head in moments before bringing it to full term?" No, this is not "okay" in a moral sense. On the contrary, I would condemn this as a morally reprehensible act (in most situations). But the woman's action, though highly immoral, would not be unjust.

There are many, many things in a free society that would be highly immoral but not unjust, and which should not therefore fall within the province of coercive laws. If, while driving along a country road, you happen across a little girl, hit by a car, who has been badly injured, you should not be legally obligated to help her. In fact, if you are sadistic enough, you could even stand over her and taunt her as she dies, take pictures with your cell phone and then post the pictures on the Internet, and then leave her in the middle of the road as you found her, perhaps to be run over again by another car.

I can concoct other scenarios that are even more morally reprehensible, if you wish, but which should not fall within the province of law. Living in a free society can be a real bitch.

Ghs

[Brant Gaede]

Rand also stated (many times) that "Man's rights can be violated only by the use of physical force."

If this is what Rand said, she was clearly in error. Fraud, embezzlement, etc. are all violations of others' rights but do not imply the use of physical force.

Yeah, and stealing a car isn't using force if it's unlocked and the keys are in it and you just walk up to it and take it without having to punch the owner in the face? The term "physical force" equals "punch someone in the face"? And therefore the only right that we have is to not be punched in the face?

J

So, if the actor does something he does something with physical force, a redundancy. And it's an initiation if he's first. So I type a slander and put it on the Internet--that's violation of a right? I speak to someone and get him to give me money for a good or service I do not deliver--that's a violation of a right? Now if I murder someone that's a violation of a right, but how do we apply what was only in my head to determine if it's murder in the first or second degree?

--Brant

help me, I'm drowning!

[George H. Smith]

You cannot have it both ways. You cannot argue that intellectual property rights are invalid, and then argue that stealing intellectual property—i.e., stealing something that is not physical—is an initiation of force. If you oppose intellectual property rights, then from your perspective, Rand is sanctioning the initiation of force. It is only from the perspective of someone who agrees with the notion of intellectual property that protecting such rights constitutes retaliatory force.

I did not attempt to have it both ways. I said that I do not agree with Rand's defense of IP. But I went on to say that, given Rand's position on IP, the defense of IP would not differ from the defense of any other right. Surely this is not a difficult thing to understand.

Do I think that Rand, in defending IP, was actually "sanctioning" the initiation of force? I'm afraid my answer to this may be a bit too subtle for you to appreciate, but I will give it a try.

The problem of intellectual property is complex and difficult. Although I disagree with the defenders of IP, I can easily understand why they hold the position they do. In this respect the problem of IP is similar to the problem of abortion. Although I disagree radically with anti-abortionists, their position is not an unreasonable one in many respects.

In these and other difficult areas, I am inclined to cut my adversaries more slack than I would, say, in clear-cut issues like anti-drug laws. I therefore would not say that Rand's defense of IP qualifies as a "sanction" of initiated force, any more than I would say that libertarian anti-abortion types (and there are quite a few of these) wish to sanction the initiation of force against pregnant women.

Rather, I would say that in making a good-faith effort to delineate the particulars of her NIOF principle, Rand made a mistake in regard to IP. The result of this error, if enforced, would result in the initiation of force, in my judgment, but this is an unintended consequence of Rand's position. In no way did she sanction (i.e., approve of, support, or encourage) the initiation of force per se.

Ghs