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

[Selene]

Imaginative Mastery ...?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Adam,

Believe it or not, that was on my list.

But that's settled now. Independent Mastery hits all the right spots, technical, SEO, cognitive and so on. And it is easy to brand.

I'm not discouraged by lack of dazzle right now. The name Google itself was a nightmare in the beginning.

Michael

[Peter]

My god! I have been gone for a while and there must be a hundred new letters on this thread and I will read them eventually. I read up to the following.

Brant wrote:

There has been a little too much chop up in this discussion between the theoretical, or formal philosophical breaks in principles (ethics, politics), and practical. George needs to refer to his libertarian anarchist philosophy to justify his positions, not Objectivism, unless he's a closet Objectivist. If he is he should come out to us.

end quote

And George answered:

As I have said before, if Dennis concedes that a Randian government will and must initiate force to maintain its monopoly, then this debate is over. The anarchists have won, because this has always been their key claim.

end quote

Here is what I have been thinking about as I recover from an operation. The whirlwind has passed and it is the day after tomorrow. There is no federal or state government but several hundred people occupy a few square miles of unincorporated land in what was formerly described as suburbia in “America.” The majority of adults go to the town square calling out to their neighbors along the way to join them. When most of them arrive, a vote is called for.

A few refuse to vote and declare they will not bow to majority rule. However, the majority votes to remain unincorporated, with no “official” government or police. Several people dissent.

A majority votes to remain unincorporated, but agrees to hire an “unofficial” mayor who will also be an arbitrator and sheriff. Several people dissent and refuse to participate.

A majority votes to become a “territory, and agrees to hire an “official” mayor who will also be an arbitrator and sheriff. A recall of a majority can fire and replace him at any time. Several people dissent and refuse to participate.

A majority votes to remain a part of what was the United States of America, and agrees to utilize the previous federal Constitution. A recall by a majority can secede at any time. Several people dissent and refuse to participate.

There are other scenarios that “could happen.” Some claim that in this eventuality, no one can predict what would happen, but is that true? What do you think would happen with a one, ten, fifty, seventy-five, or ninety percent probability?

It is easy to predict. I have hinted at the most obvious answer with my escalation of scenarios towards “rational government.” So is this discussion of Anarchy discussing the probable? Is it a mental exercise? Is it an ideal to guide us? Does Rational, Planned Anarchy stand as a realistic option or as a possible option or as a religious conviction requiring belief in what does not exist?

What am I suggesting does not exist? Rational Anarchy and the beings capable of thriving in anarchy. I want to thank George for supplying that link to Randy E. Barnett’s essay about the Ninth Amendment. Using my anarchist belief system I can look into the souls of George H. Smith and Randy E. Barnett and I see two Constitutionalists!

Mr. Barnett wrote:

I suggest the failure to find a "general right of freedom" in the Constitution is connected to a general inability to understand the ninth amendment's declaration that: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." In this Introduction, I explain how the ninth amendment's protection of unenumerated rights "retained by the people" can be implemented in a practical fashion that is consistent with the views of its author, James Madison. Although additional work needs to be done on this proposal, enough support for it currently exists to render it attractive to those who value constitutionally limited government.

end quote

I think the anarchist’s anger over government is real, but the anarchist’s refusal to agree that it can be improved to everyone’s satisfaction is feigned. The few exceptions can be viewed like your grumpy old uncle because there will always be hermits.

That said, I will read to see if this point has been conceded by George.

Peter Taylor

[George H. Smith]

Your identification of the connection between the reductionist interpretation of NIOF and the mind-body dichotomy is superb. I agree completely. I want to do some more thinking on that topic before commenting further. Thanks for your insight on this.

Dennis, Thanks for your kind words. I can't help but notice the similarity between NIOF and dogma in general (when NIOF is believed in as an axiom). When you remove the mind, but insist on the rule, that's the definition of dogma to me. When someone believes in dogma all the way down, they say it trumps reason, they say you have to take it whole hog or nothing while saying they are not actually saying that, and they get really pissed and personal when you when challenge it at the root. I wonder what the influence of cognitive bias is on dogma...

Yeah, I'm dogmatic on the issue of mass slavery, even when you call it "conscription." I am also dogmatic on the issues of rape, child molestation, the needless torturing of animals, and boiling babies in oil. No wiggle room on these things at all, not even in emergencies, but it's good to know you are more open-minded. .

As for your attempt at psychoanalysis -- a day without psychobabble from you would be like a day without sunshine.

Ghs

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

George,

I don't know if you are dogmatic when the lights are out.

I only know that in this thread you share some of the characteristics of standard dogmatists.

I refer to observable behavior, not psychobabble.

Even now you taunt a "them" (i.e., me)...

Michael

[George H. Smith]

According to this approach, to have "property in" something (or "propriety in" something) is to have legitimate moral jurisdiction over something. It is to have a moral claim of ownership -- hence the term "self-ownership" that became popular among 19th century libertarians. Property rights are the conceptual method by which we distinguish mine from thine.

Objectivism rejects the entire notion of "self-ownership" as the basis of the right to life. The acceptance of this idea is one more example of the failure to appreciate the underlying philosophical basis of rights.

Q: Is there a difference between saying that someone is the owner of his own life and saying that someone has a right to his own life?

Peikoff: Ownership is a concept which implies a relationship between you and an external object. There's the owner and the external object you possess. How can you own yourself? Who is the owner that is doing the owning of the owner? This is nonsensical. There is someone over and above me who is me that's owning my body and soul. Ownership is a concept that only applies to external property. You own physical objects that you can use and dispose of. You don't own your own freedom.

Oh, really? So why did Rand write the following (in "What is Capitalism?"):

Is man a sovereign individual who owns his person, his mind, his life, his work and its products—or is he the property of the tribe (the state, the society, the collective) that may dispose of him in any way it pleases, that may dictate his convictions, prescribe the course of his life, control his work and expropriate his products?

Since according to you and Peikoff, "ownership is a concept which implies a relationship between you and an external object," Rand could not possibly have defended the absurd position that "man is a sovereign individual who owns his own person, his mind, his life," etc. Since this is not even possible, I guess Rand wanted to defend the only alternative, i.e., that man is "the property of the tribe (the state, the society, the collective) that may dispose of him in any way it pleases...."

Rand was speaking metaphorically, not theoretically.

Yeah, right. Whenever Rand said something that doesn't fit into your preconceived notion of what you think she should have said, simply chalk it up to to her speaking metaphorically. This is a very dishonest method of interpretation.

There is no evidence whatsoever that Rand was speaking metaphorically. On the contrary, her statement is entirely consistent with her definition of "ownership," which I also quoted.

The important issue is the part of Peikoff's quote which you ommitted:

This whole idea came into being many generations ago from very bad, frightened conservatives who thought that the safest way to defend individualism was to make it all a matter of property rights. Therefore, individual rights are just a form of property rights. You just own yourself. This was in the day when property rights were considered sacrosanct but life and liberty were thought of as vague abstractions. This is a completely wrong inversion because it makes property the primary instead of the derivative.

This is a crucial distinction with respect to a proper derivation of individual rights.

Peikoff's comments are exceedingly ignorant. They are downright embarrassing.

Ghs

If anyone doubts what I said here, just read this article, "Property," that was written by James Madison in 1792.

Property

This term in its particular application means “that dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in exclusion of every other individual”

In its larger and juster meaning, it embraces every thing to which a man may attach a value and have a right; and which leaves to every one else the like advantage.

He has a property of peculiar value in his religious opinions, and in the profession and practice dictated by them.

He has property very dear to him in the safety and liberty of his person.

[snip]

Government is instituted to protect property of every sort; as well that which lies in the various rights of individuals, as that which the term particularly expresses. This being the end of government, that alone is a just government, which impartially secures to every man, whatever is his own.

That is not a just government, nor is property secure under it, where the property which a man has in his personal safety and personal liberty, is violated by arbitrary seizures of one class of citizens for the service of the rest. A magistrate issuing warrants to a press gang, would be in his proper functions in Turkey or Indostan, under appellations proverbial of the most compleat despotism.

That is not a just government, nor is property secure under it, where arbitrary restrictions, exemptions, and monopolies deny to part of its citizens that free use of their faculties, and free choice of their occupations, which not only constitute their property in the general sense of the word; but are the means of acquiring property strictly so called. What must be the spirit of legislation where a manufacturer of linen cloth is forbidden to bury his own child in a linen shroud, in order to favour his neighbour who manufactures woolen cloth; where the manufacturer and wearer of woolen cloth are again forbidden the economical use of buttons of that material, in favor of the manufacturer of buttons of other materials!

[snip]

If the United States mean to obtain or deserve the full praise due to wise and just governments, they will equally respect the rights of property, and the property in rights: they will rival the government that most sacredly guards the former; and by repelling its example in violating the latter, will make themselves a pattern to that and all other governments.

From The National Gazette, March 29, 1792.

Does this sound like it was written "in the day when property rights were considered sacrosanct but life and liberty were thought of as vague abstractions." Does Madison sound like a "frightened conservative"?

Peikoff should know better. He dumb remarks probably result from sustained inbreeding. Having insulated himself for so many years from outside criticism, and having grown accustomed to what I call "guru questions" ("Dr. Peikoff, what is your opinion of X?"), he has become intellectually lazy. He figures he can get away with saying almost anything, no matter how moronic.

It doesn't surprise me that many ARIans hang on Peikoff's every word, but I am frankly surprised that Dennis would fall for this kind of crap.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

George,

I don't know if you are dogmatic when the lights are out.

I only know that in this thread you share some of the characteristics of standard dogmatists.

I refer to observable behavior, not psychobabble.

Even now you taunt a "them" (i.e., me)...

Michael

I have noticed that people who are incompetent in a given field tend to shoot their mouths off a lot in that field, and then get defensive when someone calls their bluff.

I am referring to observable behavior, of course. I only know that you share some of the characteristics of these people.

You started this ugly game, and this time I am not going to back off because you are the moderator. I will return kind for kind. If you want to kick me off your forum, then be my guest, punk.

And as long as you and Dennis are doing reach-arounds, ask him if he agrees with you about conscription.

Ghs

[Peter]

George wrote:

Imagine if all humans were physically connected by some kind of umbilical cord, such that people could not move around independently, consume something without it affecting other people, etc. The notion of individual rights, as we now understand that concept, could not be justified in this scenario. Why? Simply because we would not be dealing with physically discrete entities known as "individuals" at all. Rather, the human species would constitute a type of single organism in which harmful actions by one part would adversely affect other parts.

end quote

We all occupy the same territory and we are connected in multiple ways. We breathe the same air. Our sensory apparatus is impinged upon by the same stimuli in the same area. We are free to do as we choose until others are affected by our behavior, and then conflict can occur. Yet, discrete individuals are free under a Constitution to affect others as long as they don’t infringe on another’s objectively defined rights. Society is not a single organism but it can be described as such to get a handle on the idea of freely acting citizens in a justified society. Some call this process “reification.” But it is necessary to use higher concepts as long as they can be traced back to perceptual, and sensory data.

Of course truly orthodox Objectivists now agree with Dennis Hardin about the morality of abortion ONLY up to a certain instance of fetal maturity as does The Atlas Society and ARI. Yet, in ortho discussions many have not gotten “the word” that Objectivism and Rand evolved. If using Ayn as the final authority look at the unexplained evolution of her “Abortion” definition in the Lexicon. Check out the official stance on The Atlas Society web site. George H. Smith’s view is passé.

Peter Taylor

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

... then be my guest, punk.

George,

Heh.

You a bully?

Now that's funny.

I'm reminded of a little girl walking around in her father's houseshoes.

Dayaamm!

You can't make this stuff up...

Michael

[George H. Smith]

George wrote:

Imagine if all humans were physically connected by some kind of umbilical cord, such that people could not move around independently, consume something without it affecting other people, etc. The notion of individual rights, as we now understand that concept, could not be justified in this scenario. Why? Simply because we would not be dealing with physically discrete entities known as "individuals" at all. Rather, the human species would constitute a type of single organism in which harmful actions by one part would adversely affect other parts.

end quote

We all occupy the same territory and we are connected in multiple ways. We breathe the same air. Our sensory apparatus is impinged upon by the same stimuli in the same area. We are free to do as we choose until others are affected by our behavior, and then conflict can occur. Yet, discrete individuals are free under a Constitution to affect others as long as they don’t infringe on another’s objectively defined rights. Society is not a single organism but it can be described as such to get a handle on the idea of freely acting citizens in a justified society. Some call this process “reification.” But it is necessary to use higher concepts as long as they can be traced back to perceptual, and sensory data.

Of course truly orthodox Objectivists now agree with Dennis Hardin about the morality of abortion ONLY up to a certain instance of fetal maturity as does The Atlas Society and ARI. Yet, in ortho discussions many have not gotten “the word” that Objectivism and Rand evolved. If using Ayn as the final authority look at the unexplained evolution of her “Abortion” definition in the Lexicon. Check out the official stance on The Atlas Society web site. George H. Smith’s view is passé.

Peter Taylor

I am not the least interested in any "official" position on abortion, nor do I care what the Atlas Society says. I think for myself. You should try it sometime. It can be a liberating experience.

Society is not a single organism. Herbert Spencer used this analogy extensively, especially in this later writings, and it seriously screwed-up his legitimate points -- even though he conceded that it was nothing more than an analogy. Some of Spencer's later writings are virtually unreadable because of this.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

We all occupy the same territory and we are connected in multiple ways. We breathe the same air. Our sensory apparatus is impinged upon by the same stimuli in the same area. We are free to do as we choose until others are affected by our behavior, and then conflict can occur.

Individual humans are not connected physically, and that was my point. I can walk from place to place without dragging you along with me. I can drink without getting you drunk. I can cut off a finger while leaving your fingers intact and without causing you pain.

We do not breathe the "same" air, btw, nor do we receive the "same" sensory stimuli.

If you want to discuss my argument, then pay me the courtesy of dealing with what I actually said. Dennis and Michael have already bounced around so much as to make me dizzy just reading their random musings on this and that. I don't think I can take any more of this aimless meandering.

Ghs

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

George,

I have already said I will not learn your hatred. I meant it.

You said you didn't understand that at the time. Well, look.

So far, you have called me incompetent, taunted and mocked me, ignored my questions (made in good faith), misrepresented my words, hell, put so much spin on a lot of stuff it would make Media Matters blush, threatened me, called me a punk, and even set up a scene in your mind where you literally shot me dead.

All because I refuse to adhere to your version of NIOF. In fact, I think there is a serious flaw in it and I have laid out some reasons which you have not addressed.

All that hatred will not make me stop seeing what I see, even if the hatred gets worse. I need rational persuasion to change my mind.

I will not respond with an equal measure of hatred, or with any hatred at all. Like I said, I refuse to learn it.

And I like you. (It's weird saying that in a post like this, but it's true.)

Michael

[Peter]

George wrote:

. . . a Randian government will and must initiate force to maintain its monopoly . . . .

end quote

According to the Rational Anarchist’s argument, if consent is not *constantly given* then enforcing the Constitution is not the retaliatory use of force but its initiation. I disagree. Even at the most basic level of human interaction, socialization requires “sandbox rules.” Let us compromise like our founders did, only to greater affect . . .

James Madison argued that the Bill of Rights and in particular the Ninth Amendment should not be construed as diminishing the number of other “natural rights” retained b <img height="1" v:shapes="_x0000_i1025" width="1" />y the people. Representative Roger Sherman, who served with James Madison on the House Select Committee that drafted the Bill of Rights wrote:

The people have certain natural rights which are retained by them when they enter into Society, Such are the rights of Conscience in matters of religion; of acquiring property, and of pursuing happiness & Safety; of Speaking, writing and publishing their Sentiments with decency and freedom; of peaceably assembling to consult their common good, and of applying to Government by petition or remonstrance for redress of grievances. Of these rights therefore they Shall not be deprived by the Government of the united States.

Randy E. Barnett responded:

This list, which was not intended to be exhaustive, includes some rights that were eventually enumerated in the Bill of Rights. Others, such as the rights to acquire property and pursue happiness and safety, were left unenumerated. The ninth amendment establishes that because some powers had been delegated to government and some rights had been singled out, no one should conclude that the other unenumerated retained rights were, in Madison's words, "assigned into the hands of the General Government, and were consequently insecure."

end quote

George H. Smith, other Objectivists, and myself would heartily agree. That deliberately nebulous phrase, “The Pursuit of Happiness,” encapsulates OUR rational judgment that United States Citizen’s retain all of their natural rights.

To enlarge the powers delegated to government by the Constitution simply because some natural rights are not enumerated is wrong and unconstitutional. I agree. Government will do its duty and nothing more. Furthermore, the powers delegated to Government ARE ENUMERATED in The Constitution so the enlargement of those powers is unconstitutional. I agree. Does Rational Anarchism also agree? Probably.

Of course, now the argument is back to the consent issue. I see a continuation of consent from the day the Constitution was voted “YEA” to by the Representatives of a majority of Americans. At that instant the former colonists could opt out by going back to England, or by going west, or anywhere but here. Children’s rights were exercised by their parents until they reached a majority age at which point they could stay and live under government or they could leave, and so on and so on throughout the ages. Immigrants give their consent to live under government, and that consent is passed onto their children throughout the ages too.

Everyone still has the natural right to disagree. Some live in a compound to remain separate. Some leave the country. Some hide in the country. Some who called themselves, “Sovereign Citizens” move freely on our tax payer financed highways until they are stopped for an infraction and it is discovered they have no license, no social security number, they pay no taxes, there kids are not in school, and they claim they never gave their consent to the Constitution. I do not want an overzealous government to seek out “harmless individual dissenters” but any rational dissenter knows that the day may come when they will interact with the Constitution.

The concept of “Constant Consent” is less reasonable than those “sandbox rules” for toddlers that I mentioned. George just wrote:

I will continue to post updates for my Cato essays, and I might chirp in on light topics, such as movies, from time to time. But I've reached my limit, at least temporarily, in dealing with people who think that a minute is a long time to spend thinking about a philosophical problem, and that any random thought that pops into their heads is an intellectual gem that deserves serious consideration.

end quote

Gulp! Say it ain’t so George. I would miss you especially since you have not conceded the “consent” angle or the fact that a refashioned limited Government is more feasible than Rational Anarchy. Is too.

Five bucks for reasonable concessions. Nay, five bucks apiece.

Peter Taylor

[Brant Gaede]

Sigh.

--Brant

[Peter]

Brant wrote:

Sigh.

end quote

I agree. Sigh. George H. Smith illuminated this quote, though in his prescient past, by pre-responding:

Again -- and read my words very carefully so I don't have to go through this again -- the Founding Fathers rejected the notion that one generation can bind future generations.

end quote

I like simple solutions for a Constitutional Fix like the Repeal Amendment. Jamie Radtke (a Senatorial Tea Party and hopeful, Republican candidate, though someone else will win) from Virginia said:

The Repeal Amendment is a proposed amendment to the US Constitution designed to restore the balance of power between the federal and state governments that our Founders originally envisioned. The amendment states that any law, rule, regulation, or tax passed by Congress can be repealed upon a vote of two-thirds of state legislatures. This does not give absolute power to the states—but with repeal power, the states could check the current absolute power of the federal government and force Congress to take a second look at unwise legislation.

end quote

George scoffs at the notion of a strictly limited Constitutional Convention: too much danger there. I worry too but we shall overcome our fears and think this through. I would also create a Strict Interpretation Amendment and a beefed up Ninth Amendment. In fact let us make the Strict Interpretation Amendment a national referendum scheduled for every one, two, five, ten or twenty years. That way, future generations are rationally and legally bound by the Constitution. The founding fathers would applaud.

Peter Taylor

[Xray]

Ford Hall Forum 1972

Q&A, 32:32 through 37:29

<...> But in a general society, God help you! If you had a society which all shared one philosophy, that would be dreadful.

And your, euhh, so-called libertarian anarchism is nothing but whim worship if you refuse to see this point, because what you refuse to recognize is the need of objectivity among men, particularly, men of different views—and it is proper and good that mankind at large, or as a large a section as a nation—should have different views. It's good to have different views, provided you respect each other's rights. And there is no one to guard rights except a government under strictly objective rules.

On the 'Rewrite Squad' thread, Robert Cambell compares these sections to the Ayn Rand Answers version:

Ayn Rand Answers (pp. 75-76)

Robert Mayhew said:

<...>

But if you had a society in which all shared in the same philosophy, but without a government, that would be dreadful.

<...>

Libertarian anarchism is pure whim worship, because what they refuse to recognize is the need of objectivity among men—particularly men of different views. And it's good that people within a nation should have different views, provided we respect each other's rights."

No one can guard rights, except a government under objective law. <...>

A classic example of insensitivity to what Rand was actually saying.

Mayhew drains some of the vehemence from this answer. More to the point, he gets rid of Rand's rejection of a "great society" in which everyone subscribes to the same philosophy. Leonard Peikoff and his followers "know" that Rand could not have expressed individualistic sentiments in 1972; she must have wanted a society in which everyone professes Objectivism.

[Xray]

Ford Hall Forum 1972

Q&A, 32:32 through 37:29

A: Because Galt's Gulch is not a society; it's private estate. It is owned by one man who selects those who are admitted so carefully, and even then they have a judge as an arbiter if anything ever came up—only nothing came up among them because they were all men sharing the same philosophy. But in a general society, God help you! If you had a society which all shared one philosophy, that would be dreadful.

I was quite surprised to read that Rand called "dreadful" a society where all shared one philosophy.

Does this mean that she would also regard as "dreadful" an Objectivist society where all members shared one philosophy?

[anthony]

Ford Hall Forum 1972

Q&A, 32:32 through 37:29

A: Because Galt's Gulch is not a society; it's private estate. It is owned by one man who selects those who are admitted so carefully, and even then they have a judge as an arbiter if anything ever came up—only nothing came up among them because they were all men sharing the same philosophy. But in a general society, God help you! If you had a society which all shared one philosophy, that would be dreadful.

I was quite surprised to read that Rand called "dreadful" a society where all shared one philosophy.

Does this mean that she would also regard as "dreadful" an Objectivist society where all members shared one philosophy?

Xray,

Nice catch - have never seen this before.

And yes, I have to agree with her!

(Minarchy and individual rights, but not that.)

[i've just noticed what thread this is: Pity,

it was excellent - I knew I shouldn't have mentioned

battleships and guns..]

[Peter]

Xray wrote:

I was quite surprised to read that Rand called "dreadful" a society where all shared one philosophy. Does this mean that she would also regard as "dreadful" an Objectivist society where all members shared one philosophy?

end quote

I have lived in a small town where conservatism was the norm and that can be stifling at times, because every kid must have some artistic element and rebellion in them. When I lived in military housing, on and off until I was 17, the kids were much more rational and goal driven though not exactly Vulcans. I miss being around smart, honorable people all the time.

The problem with Objectivism is that it DOES seem to harbor a cultish inner clan, as Peter Reidy mentioned, from around 1958 (not 1968 as is usually mentioned) until today. I remember Nathaniel describes how just “being” or “belonging” to a group with a charismatic leader can work on your individualism. With a towering, innovative or at a minimum, selectively rational intellect like Rand’s it was hard not to fall under her spell. That this continues to this day is sad because the Philosophy requires you to think for yourself. Some are unworthy.

However, a truly objective society would be a blessing. I know the myth of the Grecian agora, Manhattan intellectual society or the Parisian salon is sugar coated but I wish most of America was such a society. Objectivism is moving us closer to that ideal as is Objectivist Living.

Peter Taylor

[Dennis Hardin]

Of course truly orthodox Objectivists now agree with Dennis Hardin about the morality of abortion ONLY up to a certain instance of fetal maturity as does The Atlas Society and ARI. Yet, in ortho discussions many have not gotten “the word” that Objectivism and Rand evolved. If using Ayn as the final authority look at the unexplained evolution of her “Abortion” definition in the Lexicon. Check out the official stance on The Atlas Society web site. George H. Smith’s view is passé.

Peter Taylor

Peter,

I don't believe you are correct with respect to the position of "orthodox" Objectivists on abortion. I'm sure George will be delighted to discover that his position is shared by ARI and Leonard Peikoff. I regard their positon as equally insane. It's exactly the sort of dogmatic nonsense that helps to marginalize Objectivism as a lunatic fringe. Here is a link to a podcast by Peikoff on this issue dated 10-20-08.

Q: At what moment does the mass of cells, the fetus, go from having no rights to human rights?

Peikoff: When it’s developmentally self-sufficient. When does this point come? It comes when it is born, and born means it’s out of the womb, the umbilical cord has been cut, it is now a separate entity. Until that point, it has no rights.

The fact that Peikoff and ARI completely ignore Ayn Rand's reservations about abortion in the latter stages of pregnancy is more evidence that their alleged faithfulness to the "official" viewpoints and writings of Ayn Rand is a sham. (The last time I checked, the commentaries on ARI related to abortion concurred with Peikoff.)

Thanks for bringing the position of The Atlas Society to my attention. I was not aware that they had adopted a viewpoint similar to mine. I have many disagreements with The Atlas Society on other topics, but the position taken by William R. Thomas here is a welcome breath of fresh air.

The proper legal status of healthy, second and third trimester fetuses is less clear. In the third trimester a fetus is likely to be viable outside the womb. Concerning the second trimester, one can note that the cognitive processes of a human being are under way, although the fetus still lacks the clear-cut existence as an independent organism that is the key to the rights of infants. Although this is a gray area, this author is of the mind that a woman's right to control the use of her own body can be secured by her choice during the first trimester, and that in such a context, abortion in the second and third trimesters is inappropriate in the case of a healthy pregnancy. In this view the right to abortion not only falls, but may be fairly said to stand, on the issue of a woman's right to abort in the first trimester.

As I said in my response to George, I think abortion should be legal until the point of fetal viability (i.e., the third trimester). But Thomas' position is drastically more reasonable than that of ARI or Peikoff.

[Dennis Hardin]

According to this approach, to have "property in" something (or "propriety in" something) is to have legitimate moral jurisdiction over something. It is to have a moral claim of ownership -- hence the term "self-ownership" that became popular among 19th century libertarians. Property rights are the conceptual method by which we distinguish mine from thine.

Objectivism rejects the entire notion of "self-ownership" as the basis of the right to life. The acceptance of this idea is one more example of the failure to appreciate the underlying philosophical basis of rights.

Q: Is there a difference between saying that someone is the owner of his own life and saying that someone has a right to his own life?

Peikoff: Ownership is a concept which implies a relationship between you and an external object. There's the owner and the external object you possess. How can you own yourself? Who is the owner that is doing the owning of the owner? This is nonsensical. There is someone over and above me who is me that's owning my body and soul. Ownership is a concept that only applies to external property. You own physical objects that you can use and dispose of. You don't own your own freedom.

Oh, really? So why did Rand write the following (in "What is Capitalism?"):

Is man a sovereign individual who owns his person, his mind, his life, his work and its products—or is he the property of the tribe (the state, the society, the collective) that may dispose of him in any way it pleases, that may dictate his convictions, prescribe the course of his life, control his work and expropriate his products?

Since according to you and Peikoff, "ownership is a concept which implies a relationship between you and an external object," Rand could not possibly have defended the absurd position that "man is a sovereign individual who owns his own person, his mind, his life," etc. Since this is not even possible, I guess Rand wanted to defend the only alternative, i.e., that man is "the property of the tribe (the state, the society, the collective) that may dispose of him in any way it pleases...."

Rand was speaking metaphorically, not theoretically.

Yeah, right. Whenever Rand said something that doesn't fit into your preconceived notion of what you think she should have said, simply chalk it up to to her speaking metaphorically. This is a very dishonest method of interpretation.

There is no evidence whatsoever that Rand was speaking metaphorically. On the contrary, her statement is entirely consistent with her definition of "ownership," which I also quoted.

Ghs

And when she says things that don't fit your "preconceived notion of what you think she should have said," just chalk it up to "something we already knew, namely, that Rand sometimes did not apply her own principles consistently." (Ghs)

So I'm being "dishonest" to point out that people frequently use metaphors in communication? I doubt Peikoff in his worst moments of mindless, vitriolic dogmatism would accuse someone of beng dishonest because he observed that people often use metaphors, and that this says nothing about any implied endorsement of a given theory.

Despite your expressed contempt for his "embarrassing" viewpoints, you remind me and more of Peikoff all the time.

[Dennis Hardin]

Once again, you seem to want to deny that you are using NIOF as a primary, while you continue to use NIOF as a primary.

I never claimed that NIOF is a moral primary. I have said this repeatedly. How many more times must I say this before you get the point?

You can repeat it a billion times, but until your expressed viewpoints are consistent with the premise that NIOF is not a primary, you are still using it as a primary.

The first overt act of physical force may, in some cases, be initiated by the victim. There is simply no way to just look at the situation existentially and say whether or not the force was justified or who actually initiated the force. The issue of rights must be defined first.

Of course rights must be defined first, because this is how we distinguish between the initiatory and retaliatory uses of force. After we define the relevant rights and make our determination, we then prohibit those activities that qualify as the initiation of force.

I made this point as early as 1978, in the Appendix to "Justice Entrepreneurship in a Free Market." See: http://mises.org/jou...s/3_4/3_4_4.pdf. My discussion of the initiation of force begins on p. 424.

My views have changed a bit since I wrote this discussion, but I still agree with the basic perspective.

Ghs

The various rights you discuss in this article all revolve around the issue of force (e.g., self-defense, fair trial, restitution). Other than property rights, I did not see any reference to what Rand calls "the conditions of existence required by man's nature for his proper survival"--e.g., the right to take all those actions that are necessary, by his nature as a rational being, to sustain and protect man's life. The most basic right is the right to life, which mandates the freedom to take all those actions required by a rational being for the fulfillment and enjoyment of his life. A concomitant of that right is that the use of force is brought under objective control, and the only practical way to do that is through a government with procedural safeguards that strictly regulate the use of force.

As I have been arguing consistently throughout this thread, we can therefore legitimately characterize any threat to such objective control of force as the initiation of force, and any action taken by the government to stop that threat as retaliatory force. Private defense agencies represent such a threat.

You say: "After we define the relevant rights and make our determination, we then prohibit those activities that qualify as the initiation of force."

Precisely. A clear definition and clarification of the right to life logically justifies the prohibition of private defense agencies because their activities qualify as the initiation of force.

Glad we got that cleared up.

[George H. Smith]

So I'm being "dishonest" to point out that people frequently use metaphors in communication? I doubt Peikoff in his worst moments of mindless, vitriolic dogmatism would accuse someone of beng dishonest because he observed that people often use metaphors, and that this says nothing about any implied endorsement of a given theory.

Despite your expressed contempt for his "embarrassing" viewpoints, you remind me and more of Peikoff all the time.

Yes, you are being dishonest, because there is absolutely no basis in Rand's writings to support your claim that she rejected the notion of self-ownership. On the contrary, she expressly used the idea in a passage I quoted from "What is Capitalism?" And in an embarrassing display of self-refutation, you quoted another statement by her of the same sort, viz.:

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.

http://www.objectivi...ndpost&p=161055

All this is perfectly consistent with Rand's own definition of "ownership" -- "the right of use and disposal" -- that I quoted earlier. And in the passage that you unwittingly quoted, Rand places great stress on self-ownership, calling it the "base from which all other rights are derived."

There should be no problem here whatsoever; everything is clear and consistent. But you got a bug up your butt and declared:

Objectivism rejects the entire notion of "self-ownership" as the basis of the right to life. The acceptance of this idea is one more example of the failure to appreciate the underlying philosophical basis of rights.

So what evidence did you provide for this claim? Some brief verbal statement by Peikoff, made decades after Rand's death, that contradicted what Rand herself said about "ownership." You then trumped up the "metaphor" excuse, even though you yourself quoted a passage from Rand that supported my position.

We are now supposed to believe that when Rand said (in your quoted excerpt) that "man is the owner of his own life," that she was again speaking metaphorically, though she goes on to explain what she meant, i.e., that "his life is his to dispose of and does not belong to anyone else" -- a usage that fits perfectly with her own definition of ownership as the "right of use and disposal."

Rand goes on to stress the importance of self-ownership by noting that it is "the base from which all other rights are derived." Thus according to you, Rand formulated a metaphorical right in explaining the most fundamental of all rights.

In sum, you manufactured an explanation for something that required no explanation, since there was no doubt about what Rand meant. And then you dragged in that lame statement by Peikoff that flatly contradicts what Rand said.

So what's going on here? Why did you fabricate this artificial and pointless controversy? Why did you waste my time with it? I cannot say for certain, but I have a good idea. In the modern libertarian movement, the term "self-ownership" is associated with Rothbard and Rothbardian anarchists. And in your blind hatred of this group, which you know virtually nothing about, you decided to go after the notion of "self-ownership." But you stuck your foot in your mouth, because you didn't realize that Rand herself employed the concept. So, after I posted the relevant passage, instead of admitting that you may have been wrong, you concocted the "metaphor" excuse out of thin air. And you continue to stick with that dimwitted explanation.

Yes, Dennis, this is dishonest. It is one of the most dishonest intellectual games I have ever had the misfortune to witness. If there had been a problem with Rand's usage, then you might have had a point. But her usage of "ownership" was not the same as Peikoff's, and her statements were absolutely intelligible and consistent.

In short, there was no problem to begin with, no puzzle that required a solution. You pulled this entire controversy out of your ass. As I said before, "self-ownership"is simply a different way of saying "right to life." They mean the same thing.

[i later deleted the last paragraph of this post. It was a bit over the top, even for me.]

Ghs

[Dennis Hardin]

Q: Is there a difference between saying that someone is the owner of his own life and saying that someone has a right to his own life?

Peikoff: Ownership is a concept which implies a relationship between you and an external object. There's the owner and the external object you possess. How can you own yourself? Who is the owner that is doing the owning of the owner? This is nonsensical. There is someone over and above me who is me that's owning my body and soul. Ownership is a concept that only applies to external property. You own physical objects that you can use and dispose of. You don't own your own freedom.

The important issue is the part of Peikoff's quote which you ommitted:

This whole idea came into being many generations ago from very bad, frightened conservatives who thought that the safest way to defend individualism was to make it all a matter of property rights. Therefore, individual rights are just a form of property rights. You just own yourself. This was in the day when property rights were considered sacrosanct but life and liberty were thought of as vague abstractions. This is a completely wrong inversion because it makes property the primary instead of the derivative.

This is a crucial distinction with respect to a proper derivation of individual rights.

Peikoff's comments are exceedingly ignorant. They are downright embarrassing.

Ghs

If anyone doubts what I said here, just read this article, "Property," that was written by James Madison in 1792.

Property

This term in its particular application means “that dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in exclusion of every other individual”

In its larger and juster meaning, it embraces every thing to which a man may attach a value and have a right; and which leaves to every one else the like advantage.

He has a property of peculiar value in his religious opinions, and in the profession and practice dictated by them.

He has property very dear to him in the safety and liberty of his person.

[snip]

Government is instituted to protect property of every sort; as well that which lies in the various rights of individuals, as that which the term particularly expresses. This being the end of government, that alone is a just government, which impartially secures to every man, whatever is his own.

That is not a just government, nor is property secure under it, where the property which a man has in his personal safety and personal liberty, is violated by arbitrary seizures of one class of citizens for the service of the rest. A magistrate issuing warrants to a press gang, would be in his proper functions in Turkey or Indostan, under appellations proverbial of the most compleat despotism.

That is not a just government, nor is property secure under it, where arbitrary restrictions, exemptions, and monopolies deny to part of its citizens that free use of their faculties, and free choice of their occupations, which not only constitute their property in the general sense of the word; but are the means of acquiring property strictly so called. What must be the spirit of legislation where a manufacturer of linen cloth is forbidden to bury his own child in a linen shroud, in order to favour his neighbour who manufactures woolen cloth; where the manufacturer and wearer of woolen cloth are again forbidden the economical use of buttons of that material, in favor of the manufacturer of buttons of other materials!

[snip]

If the United States mean to obtain or deserve the full praise due to wise and just governments, they will equally respect the rights of property, and the property in rights: they will rival the government that most sacredly guards the former; and by repelling its example in violating the latter, will make themselves a pattern to that and all other governments.

From The National Gazette, March 29, 1792.

Does this sound like it was written "in the day when property rights were considered sacrosanct but life and liberty were thought of as vague abstractions." Does Madison sound like a "frightened conservative"?

Peikoff should know better. He dumb remarks probably result from sustained inbreeding. Having insulated himself for so many years from outside criticism, and having grown accustomed to what I call "guru questions" ("Dr. Peikoff, what is your opinion of X?"), he has become intellectually lazy. He figures he can get away with saying almost anything, no matter how moronic.

It doesn't surprise me that many ARIans hang on Peikoff's every word, but I am frankly surprised that Dennis would fall for this kind of crap.

Ghs

Peikoff can certainly be strongly criticized for his bizarre use of pejoratives, but his main point is that (IMO very admirable) thinkers such as Madison did not know how to derive the right to life from the facts of human nature, and that they mistakenly treated property rights as a primary. That was the point I thought was important. This quotation seems to verify that.

Peikoff is dropping the historical context. I sincerely doubt that Ayn Rand would ever have spoken of post-Enlightenment thinkers in this way. She recognized that her development of the Objectivist ethics and politics required the retrospective context of the industrial revolution.

There is a sense in which Peikoff's reference to "bad, frightened conservatives" might apply to those who continue to resort to property rights to defend individual rights today, but there has already been a surfeit of negativity on this thread, and I have no wish to add to it.

[George H. Smith]

Peikoff can certainly be strongly criticized for his bizarre use of pejoratives, but his main point is that (IMO very admirable) thinkers such as Madison did not know how to derive the right to life from the facts of human nature, and that they mistakenly treated property rights as a primary. That was the point I thought was important. This quotation seems to verify that.

Madison didn't mean this at all. Nor did he and his Radical Whig contemporaries regard "property rights" (in Peikoff's sense) as "primary." On the contrary, most did not even view our rights to external property as inviolable. The most important rights to them, and the only rights that they regarded as inalienable, were the rights that Rand included under "the right to life."

Care to guess again? You might get lucky next time.

Ghs