Standing naked on my property

[Darrell Hougen]

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

--Brant

no need to fix it; this post is enough.

Actually, they were quoting Samson.

Darrell

[Darrell Hougen]

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

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

Darrell

[Darrell Hougen]

BTW, I can't see the picture

I guess I'm the only one who can see it. My kid's range target, nice tight grouping.

There are no rights as such in laissez faire law, other than the legal right to petition and argue a case, to depose and subpoena witnesses, submit evidence, file an appeal. There is a synthetic right to life, so that you can petition etc, but has no effect if you're dead. What happens when you die is up to someone else. Survivors and successors have to prove that they were injured by your death, or probate a will, settle your estate, seek custody of minor children, as the case may be -- which seldom rises to the level of judicial notice unless it's contested.

A grieving spouse or business partner could file a criminal complaint if you were murdered, but that assumes an investigating agency has been licensed and funded in your geographic jurisdiction and takes up the case pro bono -- or that private investigators are retained by the complainant. Disputes can arise sometimes in connection with insurance settlements, malpractice, drunk driving, or winding up a business -- but death is one of those things you should plan for and execute legal instruments accordingly, rather than dump a pile of problems on next of kin. Laissez faire courts and lawyers are not a tax-supported service or free ride. There is no right to compel adjudication.

That answer just begs the question --- one I've asked before --- how do judges make up their minds?

Do they consult:

A. Their consciences?

B. Their emotions?

C. A rational theory of rights?

D. Precedent.

If you answered "D", then you're just pushing the problem back one iteration, but then you have to consider responses A, B, C, and D again and you can't keep answering D as that would result in an infinite regress. At some point, judges will either have to flip a coin or consider some objective notion of right and wrong.

Darrell

[Wolf DeVoon]

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

Do they consult:

A. Their consciences? never, except to recuse themselves if they have any interest in the case

B. Their emotions? please don't talk rubbish

C. A rational theory of rights? there are no rights, except the right to petition and fundamental fairness

D. Precedent? no, not as an obligatory rule of law or equity; almost every case is unique

There might be some "stickiness" in appellate and Supreme Court decisions or legal doctrine, but not trial courts.

You can't foreclose novel arguments, circumstances, unusual parties, or new questions of law and procedure.

U.S. constitutional and statutory common law are not applicable in laissez faire.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

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

--Brant

no need to fix it; this post is enough.

Actually, they were quoting Samson.

Darrell

Dayaamm!

[Samson Corwell]

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

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

Sort of applies to all laws.

[Brant Gaede]

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

--Brant

no need to fix it; this post is enough.

Actually, they were quoting Samson.

Darrell

Dayaamm!

Actually the quote function loused up the quote then I mis-attributed consequently and now I'm caught up with all these disreputable people quoting and unquoting like the fool I'm not.

--Brant

the victim

[Samson Corwell]

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

--Brant

no need to fix it; this post is enough.

Actually, they were quoting Samson.

Darrell

Dayaamm!

Actually the quote function loused up the quote then I mis-attributed consequently and now I'm caught up with all these disreputable people quoting and unquoting like the fool I'm not.

--Brant

the victim

Sorry, man.

[Brant Gaede]

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

--Brant

no need to fix it; this post is enough.

Actually, they were quoting Samson.

Darrell

Dayaamm!

Actually the quote function loused up the quote then I mis-attributed consequently and now I'm caught up with all these disreputable people quoting and unquoting like the fool I'm not.

--Brant

the victim

Sorry, man.

Hope you're not taking me seriously.

[Wolf DeVoon]

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

--Brant

no need to fix it; this post is enough.

Actually, they were quoting Samson.

Darrell

Dayaamm!

Actually the quote function loused up the quote then I mis-attributed consequently and now I'm caught up with all these disreputable people quoting and unquoting like the fool I'm not.

--Brant

the victim

Sorry, man.

Hope you're not taking me seriously.

I want a recount.

[Darrell Hougen]

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

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

Sort of applies to all laws.

The point is that there is a speed limit even if you don't speed.

Similarly, all mandatory "duties" involve the use of force, even if it is not actually applied.

If someone points a gun at you, he is using force even if he doesn't pull the trigger. Threatening to use force constitutes using force. It's not necessary for someone to manhandle you for it to be force.

Even if no one points a gun at you, the fact that he will point a gun at you if you don't comply with his demands constitutes the use of force.

To get back to the original issue, taxation constitutes taking money or property by force.

Darrell

[Darrell Hougen]

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

Do they consult:

A. Their consciences? never, except to recuse themselves if they have any interest in the case

B. Their emotions? please don't talk rubbish

C. A rational theory of rights? there are no rights, except the right to petition and fundamental fairness

D. Precedent? no, not as an obligatory rule of law or equity; almost every case is unique

There might be some "stickiness" in appellate and Supreme Court decisions or legal doctrine, but not trial courts.

You can't foreclose novel arguments, circumstances, unusual parties, or new questions of law and procedure.

U.S. constitutional and statutory common law are not applicable in laissez faire.

Ok. Cases are decided on the basis of "fundamental fairness."

So, what is "fundamental fairness"?

Darrell

[Samson Corwell]

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

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

Sort of applies to all laws.

The point is that there is a speed limit even if you don't speed.

Similarly, all mandatory "duties" involve the use of force, even if it is not actually applied.

If someone points a gun at you, he is using force even if he doesn't pull the trigger. Threatening to use force constitutes using force. It's not necessary for someone to manhandle you for it to be force.

Even if no one points a gun at you, the fact that he will point a gun at you if you don't comply with his demands constitutes the use of force.

To get back to the original issue, taxation constitutes taking money or property by force.

Darrell

I still think it's a little more complicated than voluntary versus coercive because private property is just as involuntary for communists as taxation is for libertarians. Sure, they don't have to own property, but they need to abide by its rules.

[Selene]

If someone points a gun at you, he is using force even if he doesn't pull the trigger. Threatening to use force constitutes using force. It's not necessary for someone to

manhandle you for it to be force.

Menacing can refer to a few different crimes, all of which share the following characteristics: the defendant has placed the victim in fear of imminent (immediate) bodily

harm or unwanted physical contact, or has attempted or threatened to hurt the victim.

Usually, no injury or physical contact is required.

Menacing as an Assault

In some states, menacing is just another way of describing an assault: attempting to

hit or hurt someone, or placing another in fear of imminent bodily harm or offensive

contact. For example, throwing a punch at someone could result in menacing charges,

even if the person is not actually hit. Yelling threats at someone, or even looking at someone while making threatening gestures, could also be considered menacing.

For more information about assault, see Assault and Battery.

Menacing as Brandishing

Menacing may also refer to displaying a deadly weapon in a threatening matter. This

crime is sometimes called brandishing. Deadly weapons include guns, knives, and other

items designed as weapons. In some states, any object, including a part of the

defendant’s body, can be a deadly weapon if the defendant uses it to hurt someone, or

threatens or attempts to hurt someone with it.

For more information, see Assault With a Deadly Weapon.

For example, a person who waves a gun around could be convicted of menacing.

Menacing by Stalking

Some states also have laws against menacing by stalking (engaging in a pattern of

placing another

person in fear of bodily harm). For example, if a person keeps showing up at an

ex-spouse’s home,

calling or texting repeatedly, and making threats of physical harm, the person could be convicted of menacing by stalking.

A...

I hate code!!

[Darrell Hougen]

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

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

Sort of applies to all laws.

The point is that there is a speed limit even if you don't speed.

Similarly, all mandatory "duties" involve the use of force, even if it is not actually applied.

If someone points a gun at you, he is using force even if he doesn't pull the trigger. Threatening to use force constitutes using force. It's not necessary for someone to manhandle you for it to be force.

Even if no one points a gun at you, the fact that he will point a gun at you if you don't comply with his demands constitutes the use of force.

To get back to the original issue, taxation constitutes taking money or property by force.

Darrell

I still think it's a little more complicated than voluntary versus coercive because private property is just as involuntary for communists as taxation is for libertarians. Sure, they don't have to own property, but they need to abide by its rules.

Moral relativism.

Which is objectively coercive?

Darrell

[Wolf DeVoon]

what is "fundamental fairness"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Due_Process_Clause#Civil_procedural_due_process

http://law.justia.com/constitution/us/amendment-14/52-procedural-due-process-criminal.html

http://resources.lawinfo.com/civil-rights/constitutional/

http://www.infoplease.com/us/supreme-court/cases/ar23.html

More than a set of ancient rules, the common law also became a set of procedures guaranteeing fairness in the resolution of disputes. Although procedural regularity is most important in criminal law, where the individual faces the might of the state, it is important in civil litigation as well. The ability of the common law over the centuries to command the respect of the public was largely dependent on the widespread perception of its fundamental fairness. The popularity of the common law at the time of American Independence derived from its historic association with due process, the legal code word for fair play. Rules may often be settled one way or another; the common law and the civil law, for example, reach opposing results in numerous cases. In the abstract it is usually difficult to develop enthusiasm for one rule over another, but a reputation for impartial decision making after an opportunity to be heard is what grounds a legal system in popular esteem. The common law in the Anglo-American world is synonymous for most people with the rule of law.

Beyond specific rules and procedures, the common law also embodies a certain way of handling legal problems. Born in the courts, the common law was always primarily focused on resolving individual disputes. Judge-centered in the sense that it was historically expressed in the decisions of the judges, the common law is in another sense centered on the litigants. The parties generally control the presentation of their own cases, and the judge plays a relatively passive role, limited by and large to deciding which side has the better argument. In consequence, the common law developed a deep-seated attachment to the adversarial process, which in turn fostered a frame of mind that assumes two sides to every case.

http://www.worldclassrd.org/sites/default/files/common-law.html

[Samson Corwell]

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

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

Sort of applies to all laws.

The point is that there is a speed limit even if you don't speed.

Similarly, all mandatory "duties" involve the use of force, even if it is not actually applied.

If someone points a gun at you, he is using force even if he doesn't pull the trigger. Threatening to use force constitutes using force. It's not necessary for someone to manhandle you for it to be force.

Even if no one points a gun at you, the fact that he will point a gun at you if you don't comply with his demands constitutes the use of force.

To get back to the original issue, taxation constitutes taking money or property by force.

Darrell

I still think it's a little more complicated than voluntary versus coercive because private property is just as involuntary for communists as taxation is for libertarians. Sure, they don't have to own property, but they need to abide by its rules.

Moral relativism.

Which is objectively coercive?

Darrell

What does moral relativism have to do with anything?

[Darrell Hougen]

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

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

Sort of applies to all laws.

The point is that there is a speed limit even if you don't speed.

Similarly, all mandatory "duties" involve the use of force, even if it is not actually applied.

If someone points a gun at you, he is using force even if he doesn't pull the trigger. Threatening to use force constitutes using force. It's not necessary for someone to manhandle you for it to be force.

Even if no one points a gun at you, the fact that he will point a gun at you if you don't comply with his demands constitutes the use of force.

To get back to the original issue, taxation constitutes taking money or property by force.

Darrell

I still think it's a little more complicated than voluntary versus coercive because private property is just as involuntary for communists as taxation is for libertarians. Sure, they don't have to own property, but they need to abide by its rules.

Moral relativism.

Which is objectively coercive?

Darrell

What does moral relativism have to do with anything?

You said, "private property is just as involuntary for communists as taxation is for libertarians." So, relative to the moral belief system of communists, private property is involuntary and relative to the moral belief system of libertarians, taxation is involuntary. That's moral relativism. It treats all conclusions about morality equally because every conclusion is given relative to a particular person or group. What's good for me may be bad for you and vice versa. What's right for me might not be right for you and vice versa. That is moral relativism.

Darrell

[Samson Corwell]

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

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

Sort of applies to all laws.

The point is that there is a speed limit even if you don't speed.

Similarly, all mandatory "duties" involve the use of force, even if it is not actually applied.

If someone points a gun at you, he is using force even if he doesn't pull the trigger. Threatening to use force constitutes using force. It's not necessary for someone to manhandle you for it to be force.

Even if no one points a gun at you, the fact that he will point a gun at you if you don't comply with his demands constitutes the use of force.

To get back to the original issue, taxation constitutes taking money or property by force.

Darrell

I still think it's a little more complicated than voluntary versus coercive because private property is just as involuntary for communists as taxation is for libertarians. Sure, they don't have to own property, but they need to abide by its rules.

Moral relativism.

Which is objectively coercive?

Darrell

What does moral relativism have to do with anything?

You said, "private property is just as involuntary for communists as taxation is for libertarians." So, relative to the moral belief system of communists, private property is involuntary and relative to the moral belief system of libertarians, taxation is involuntary. That's moral relativism. It treats all conclusions about morality equally because every conclusion is given relative to a particular person or group. What's good for me may be bad for you and vice versa. What's right for me might not be right for you and vice versa. That is moral relativism.

Darrell

WTF? How do you make that jump? I'm saying that communists are forced to comply with the rules of private property since they seek to reject the institution. This has nothing to do with moral relativism. "Involuntary" is not a normative adjective. Your objection is extremely muddled.

[Darrell Hougen]

what is "fundamental fairness"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Due_Process_Clause#Civil_procedural_due_process

http://law.justia.com/constitution/us/amendment-14/52-procedural-due-process-criminal.html

http://resources.lawinfo.com/civil-rights/constitutional/

http://www.infoplease.com/us/supreme-court/cases/ar23.html

More than a set of ancient rules, the common law also became a set of procedures guaranteeing fairness in the resolution of disputes. Although procedural regularity is most important in criminal law, where the individual faces the might of the state, it is important in civil litigation as well. The ability of the common law over the centuries to command the respect of the public was largely dependent on the widespread perception of its fundamental fairness. The popularity of the common law at the time of American Independence derived from its historic association with due process, the legal code word for fair play. Rules may often be settled one way or another; the common law and the civil law, for example, reach opposing results in numerous cases. In the abstract it is usually difficult to develop enthusiasm for one rule over another, but a reputation for impartial decision making after an opportunity to be heard is what grounds a legal system in popular esteem. The common law in the Anglo-American world is synonymous for most people with the rule of law.

Beyond specific rules and procedures, the common law also embodies a certain way of handling legal problems. Born in the courts, the common law was always primarily focused on resolving individual disputes. Judge-centered in the sense that it was historically expressed in the decisions of the judges, the common law is in another sense centered on the litigants. The parties generally control the presentation of their own cases, and the judge plays a relatively passive role, limited by and large to deciding which side has the better argument. In consequence, the common law developed a deep-seated attachment to the adversarial process, which in turn fostered a frame of mind that assumes two sides to every case.

http://www.worldclassrd.org/sites/default/files/common-law.html

Again, I am left with the task of attempting to extract the normative content from your statements.

So, let's dissect this statement: "The ability of the common law over the centuries to command the respect of the public was largely dependent on the widespread perception of its fundamental fairness."

It appears that the "fundamental fairness" is a matter of public perception. So, to return to our earlier question about how judges are supposed make decisions, it would appear that they are supposed to try to please the public.

Later, you state, " ... the judge plays a relatively passive role, limited by and large to deciding which side has the better argument." (emphasis added).

That just begs the question, what constitutes better?

You cannot construct a system that is value free. Somewhere, the judges have to insert their own notions or biases about what is right and wrong into their decisions, whether those notions are cultural or a holdover from upbringing, or whatever. The system cannot decide. Only individuals can decide.

Darrell

[Darrell Hougen]

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

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

Sort of applies to all laws.

The point is that there is a speed limit even if you don't speed.

Similarly, all mandatory "duties" involve the use of force, even if it is not actually applied.

If someone points a gun at you, he is using force even if he doesn't pull the trigger. Threatening to use force constitutes using force. It's not necessary for someone to manhandle you for it to be force.

Even if no one points a gun at you, the fact that he will point a gun at you if you don't comply with his demands constitutes the use of force.

To get back to the original issue, taxation constitutes taking money or property by force.

Darrell

I still think it's a little more complicated than voluntary versus coercive because private property is just as involuntary for communists as taxation is for libertarians. Sure, they don't have to own property, but they need to abide by its rules.

Moral relativism.

Which is objectively coercive?

Darrell

What does moral relativism have to do with anything?

You said, "private property is just as involuntary for communists as taxation is for libertarians." So, relative to the moral belief system of communists, private property is involuntary and relative to the moral belief system of libertarians, taxation is involuntary. That's moral relativism. It treats all conclusions about morality equally because every conclusion is given relative to a particular person or group. What's good for me may be bad for you and vice versa. What's right for me might not be right for you and vice versa. That is moral relativism.

Darrell

WTF? How do you make that jump? I'm saying that communists are forced to comply with the rules of private property since they seek to reject the institution. This has nothing to do with moral relativism. "Involuntary" is not a normative adjective. Your objection is extremely muddled.

It is precisely moral relativism. Force or the threat of force is always defined relative to a value system.

If one person believes in property and another person doesn't, then, if the second person takes his things, the first person will believe that force has been used against him and the second person won't.

That is why an objective value system is so important. If there is no objective morality, then every dispute boils down to a matter of opinion. One person thinks that the other did something wrong and the other person doesn't agree. So, how are we to decide which opinion to listen to?

Darrell

[Samson Corwell]

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

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

Sort of applies to all laws.

The point is that there is a speed limit even if you don't speed.

Similarly, all mandatory "duties" involve the use of force, even if it is not actually applied.

If someone points a gun at you, he is using force even if he doesn't pull the trigger. Threatening to use force constitutes using force. It's not necessary for someone to manhandle you for it to be force.

Even if no one points a gun at you, the fact that he will point a gun at you if you don't comply with his demands constitutes the use of force.

To get back to the original issue, taxation constitutes taking money or property by force.

Darrell

I still think it's a little more complicated than voluntary versus coercive because private property is just as involuntary for communists as taxation is for libertarians. Sure, they don't have to own property, but they need to abide by its rules.

Moral relativism.

Which is objectively coercive?

Darrell

What does moral relativism have to do with anything?

You said, "private property is just as involuntary for communists as taxation is for libertarians." So, relative to the moral belief system of communists, private property is involuntary and relative to the moral belief system of libertarians, taxation is involuntary. That's moral relativism. It treats all conclusions about morality equally because every conclusion is given relative to a particular person or group. What's good for me may be bad for you and vice versa. What's right for me might not be right for you and vice versa. That is moral relativism.

Darrell

WTF? How do you make that jump? I'm saying that communists are forced to comply with the rules of private property since they seek to reject the institution. This has nothing to do with moral relativism. "Involuntary" is not a normative adjective. Your objection is extremely muddled.

It is precisely moral relativism. Force or the threat of force is always defined relative to a value system.

If one person believes in property and another person doesn't, then, if the second person takes his things, the first person will believe that force has been used against him and the second person won't.

That is why an objective value system is so important. If there is no objective morality, then every dispute boils down to a matter of opinion. One person thinks that the other did something wrong and the other person doesn't agree. So, how are we to decide which opinion to listen to?

Darrell

Darrell, I have no clue as to what you are babbling about. Whether force is being used or not is not changed by an action's moral status. Communists are forced to comply with property because they wouldn't respect it otherwise. Libertarians (and tax dodgers) are forced to comply with taxes because they wouldn't pay them otherwise. There are some people who only respect property "at gunpoint" and there are some people who respect it without it. Same goes for taxes. There's nothig intrinsically wrong with force. Dominionists, conservatives, anarchists, animal rights activists, Islamic fundies, Objectivists, and liberals all want to force their ideas on other people. They have to if they want their policies to actually be policy. Whether their favored policies should be implemented is entirely different matter.

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

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

Sort of applies to all laws.

The point is that there is a speed limit even if you don't speed.

Similarly, all mandatory "duties" involve the use of force, even if it is not actually applied.

If someone points a gun at you, he is using force even if he doesn't pull the trigger. Threatening to use force constitutes using force. It's not necessary for someone to manhandle you for it to be force.

Even if no one points a gun at you, the fact that he will point a gun at you if you don't comply with his demands constitutes the use of force.

To get back to the original issue, taxation constitutes taking money or property by force.

Darrell

I still think it's a little more complicated than voluntary versus coercive because private property is just as involuntary for communists as taxation is for libertarians. Sure, they don't have to own property, but they need to abide by its rules.

Moral relativism.

Which is objectively coercive?

Darrell

What does moral relativism have to do with anything?

You said, "private property is just as involuntary for communists as taxation is for libertarians." So, relative to the moral belief system of communists, private property is involuntary and relative to the moral belief system of libertarians, taxation is involuntary. That's moral relativism. It treats all conclusions about morality equally because every conclusion is given relative to a particular person or group. What's good for me may be bad for you and vice versa. What's right for me might not be right for you and vice versa. That is moral relativism.

Darrell

WTF? How do you make that jump? I'm saying that communists are forced to comply with the rules of private property since they seek to reject the institution. This has nothing to do with moral relativism. "Involuntary" is not a normative adjective. Your objection is extremely muddled.

It is precisely moral relativism. Force or the threat of force is always defined relative to a value system.

If one person believes in property and another person doesn't, then, if the second person takes his things, the first person will believe that force has been used against him and the second person won't.

That is why an objective value system is so important. If there is no objective morality, then every dispute boils down to a matter of opinion. One person thinks that the other did something wrong and the other person doesn't agree. So, how are we to decide which opinion to listen to?

Darrell

Darrell, I have no clue as to what you are babbling about. Whether force is being used or not is not changed by an action's moral status. Communists are forced to comply with property because they wouldn't respect it otherwise. Libertarians (and tax dodgers) are forced to comply with taxes because they wouldn't pay them otherwise. There are some people who only respect property "at gunpoint" and there are some people who respect it without it. Same goes for taxes. There's nothig intrinsically wrong with force. Dominionists, conservatives, anarchists, animal rights activists, Islamic fundies, Objectivists, and liberals all want to force their ideas on other people. They have to if they want their policies to actually be policy. Whether their favored policies should be implemented is entirely different matter, but trying to sneak in one's own conclusions with things like "initiation of force" is just a cheap debate trick (even if one doesn't realize it).

[Darrell Hougen]

Darrell, I have no clue as to what you are babbling about. Whether force is being used or not is not changed by an action's moral status. Communists are forced to comply with property because they wouldn't respect it otherwise. Libertarians (and tax dodgers) are forced to comply with taxes because they wouldn't pay them otherwise. There are some people who only respect property "at gunpoint" and there are some people who respect it without it. Same goes for taxes. There's nothig intrinsically wrong with force. Dominionists, conservatives, anarchists, animal rights activists, Islamic fundies, Objectivists, and liberals all want to force their ideas on other people. They have to if they want their policies to actually be policy. Whether their favored policies should be implemented is entirely different matter, but trying to sneak in one's own conclusions with things like "initiation of force" is just a cheap debate trick (even if one doesn't realize it).

You can call it a cheap debate trick if you like, but I like to think of it as being explanatory.

Most people understand and agree with the concept of self defense, so that can be a good place to start a conversation about rights. Most people understand that the person that starts a fight initiates the use of force.

Most people also understand theft. They understand that if a person takes something that belongs to someone else, the taker is the initiator of the conflict.

Of course, the non-initiation of force principle is not an ethical primary. It must be justified. However, most people don't want to get bogged down by a big discussion about morality. So, it's usually easier to start with a couple things that most people understand, theft and self-defense.

You are wrong about the use of force.

Objectivists don't want to force anyone to do anything. They want to live in peace. Fortunately, there is a set of ethical guidelines that is consistent with human nature that would allow everyone to live in harmony if everyone would follow them. In fact, most people outside of government follow them most of the time.

Criminals, in an objective sense, are those people that initiate the use of force against others. Restraining criminals does not amount to initiating the use of force.

Whether "policies should be implemented" is a question of ethics. The word "should" implies an ethical value judgment.

That's what I'm babbling about.

Now it's your turn to babble.

Darrell

[Brant Gaede]

Force qua government is a primary--that is, without it no government. You bifurcate that force into initiated and non-initiated. The former you cannot be rid of. It's just an Objectivist dream. The latter is its primary function. I suppose there's a scientist somewhere who also dreams: of obtaining absolute zero.

--Brant

[Francisco Ferrer]

0