HP11

Yes, there's a reason. But they go to war for the property, not for the reason they want the property. People that steal, don't steal for a specific reason. They want the stolen money for a reason. But they steal because they want the money. Certainly you can take it down to the root. But that is an antecedant cause, not a direct cause. Or are you claiming the "want" is the idea they are fighting for or stealing for, and not the money itself? Or in other values, it's not the food they are stealing or fighting for, it's the idea of having the food or getting the food? Take away their supposed reward after death, and the rewards to their families, how many would be?

I understand. Certainly. But though I agree with you that ideas, that is, an integrated philosophy, SHOULD be primary, it is often not. People frequently vote their pocketbooks, not who will protect their freedoms, etc. Kings have often gone to war strictly for property. Would you say such wars are based on ideas or economics?

Why? Philosophically Marxist in terms of fundamentals? Or something he said? And more importantly, is it true?

But there is a stronger reason the south chose secession. Tariffs. They were breaking the south. Wars, no matter what their separate apologists may claim, are ALWAYS fought over economics. Slavery was not initially an issue when The South first elected to secede. Lincoln grabbed at it to pull him through at the point where he'd nearly lost. And consider all the countries in South America but one, ended slavery WITHOUT war. The cost in lives was astronomical here by comparison. Then add all the other stuff mentioned above about him, plus suspension of Habeas Corpus and his income tax. I guess, for these and the others you mention, my choice goes to Lincoln. But I have to consider these guys too: G.W. Fastest national debt growth in history of U.S. If taxation=slavery and deficit spending=taxation, he's been pretty bad. I know, he didn't appropriate it. But he helped justify it, traded with congress for it and certainly didn't veto it. Reagan, second fastest. H W Bush, Reneged on "Read my lips." Nixon, Not Watergate as his worst but wage and price controls. George Washington, put down the whiskey rebellion, the same thing the colonies left England over. Jefferson (I know, I know many, many pluses here), bought Louisiana without due process. As Henry Adams wrote, in purchasing Louisiana, Jefferson bought a foreign colony without its consent and against its will...made himself monarch of the new territory, and wielded over it, against its protests, the powers of its old kings. Such a sweeping and unjustified exercise of executive privilege effectively, as Jefferson admitted, made blank paper of the Constitution. Perhaps, surprisingly, it is these two of our heroes, Jefferson and Washington who led the way to the statism we have today. Who do you hold as the best, or should I say, least bad president?

Ah. I thought you were using the word context as if it were representing analogically an actual place, because of the word "where" following it. Maybe a comma after the word "context" would have helped or another sentence structure. Thanks.

We were out walking the dogs in the desert this evening, when a fragrant smell wafted over the creosote, saguaro and cholla...from the direction of the distant white spire above the local Baptist church. "Mmmm, smells like barbecue," she said. "That's right," I replied, "you have your choice of beef, pork or human. The barbecue sauce is right over there! Dig in! For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed. He that eats my flesh, and drinks my blood, abides in me, and I in him." "That is so gross!" she said. "Jus' talkin' 'bout John, 6:55."

In your previous response you used the word context instead of example. Why?

When does an example become a context?

I suppose I'd go with Calumet K as one of them...or the one I'm writing now.

Would another example include: Say someone's property is in such and such a county...then a nearby city votes to expand and forcibly annex that part of the county into their area of incorporation? Allow me to point out there might be new restrictions on deeds and other laws, such restrictions amounting to a violation of the takings clause. And of course this example does not represent an idealized Objectivist government. But it is a present day example, isn't it? I mean as long as we're context switching from the abstract moral to the concrete?

Isn't that known as context switching? What's that got to do with it? Why look to disprove a moral principle based on whether or not you can find a present day example? I do, however, appreciate your honesty in conceding it would be "relevant".

1787/09/19 Wed - Constitution is published in the Pennsylvania Packet 1787/09/28 Fri - Congress approves the Constitution and sends it to the states 1787/10/05 Fri - First Centinel Anti-Federalist letter published 1787/10/27 Sat - First Federalist Paper is published 1787/12/07 Fri - Delaware ratifies 1787/12/12 Wed - Pennsylvania ratifies 1787/12/18 Tue - New Jersey ratifies 1788/01/09 Wed - Connecticut ratifies 1788/02/02 Sat - Georgia ratifies 1788/02/06 Wed - Massachusetts ratifies 1788/03/24 Mon - Rhode Island referendum rejects Constitution 1788/04/28 Mon - Maryland ratifies 1788/05/23 Fri - South Carolina ratifies 1788/05/28 Wed - The Federalist published (Federalist Papers 1-85) 1788/06/21 Sat - New Hampshire ratifies 1788/06/21 Sat - Constitution Ratified 1788/06/25 Wed - Virginia ratifies 1788/07/02 Wed - Congress is informed the Constitution has been ratified 1788/07/26 Sat - New York ratifies 1788/09/13 Sat - Congress votes to begin a new government on the following March 4 --->HOW ABOUT RIGHT HERE?

I understand, the way you see it monopoly government is a necessary requirement of capitalism. But I wasn't asking about capitalism in general. I was asking about monopoly government. Perhaps a small distinction from your perspective, but not from an anarchist's, is it? What if YOU were there first and didn't want to be subjected to that particular government? I suppose there the government could answer, why not? We're fair. We're just. We're magically perfect. Take our word for it. What if you didn't believe them? In such a case, wouldn't their claim of jurisdiction suggest a threat of initiatory force? In case they weren't perfect and your suspicions happened to be correct?

Clarification: If the rule of law requires initiation of force against individuals in order to itself be initiated, doesn't such a contradiction make such a supporting system (the rule of law initiated / set up using that method--initiation of force) immoral by its nature as compared with the fundamental rights and needs of man?

Rand held Law to be a branch of political philosophy. Also, I prefer to reserve the word "needs" to human beings. I prefer to use the word "requires" when referring to things including philosophy. I have one question here, about Capitalism requiring the rule of law. If the rule of law requires initiation of force against individuals in order to itself be initiated, doesn't such a contradiction make such a supporting system immoral by its nature as compared with the fundamental rights and needs of man?

On second thought, Thomas, after reviewing the forum rule pasted below, perhaps my idea is not such a good one. Perhaps an admin can rule in advance, but though anarchy and anarcho-capitalism are not strictly mentioned therein, it seems that even playing devils-advocate to the best of my ability in favor of them might be construed as spreading ideas which are a part or a form of libertarianism, or at least contrary to Objectivism. Prohibited Behavior 1. Consistency with the purpose of this site This site supports discussion of, first, the principles of Objectivism, as defined by the works of Ayn Rand and supported by the Ayn Rand Institute; and, second, their application to various fields. Therefore participants must not use the website to spread ideas contrary to or unrelated to Objectivism. Examples include religion, communism, "moral tolerationism," and libertarianism. Honest questions about such subjects are permitted. This forum will not tolerate rude or insulting comments about Ayn Rand, her philosophy of Objectivism, the Ayn Rand Institute, the representatives and supporters of the Institute, or the adherents of the philosophy.

1st, Thomas, I want to call your attention to my question here which you've so far ignored: Aside from the fact that anarcho-capitalism is a contradiction in terms, because without a government one's individual rights would not be upheld So you define the "terms" as: 1) Anarchy: No government 2) Capitalism: upholding individual rights. Or do you prefer: a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned. Actually I would prefer for #2: "a political system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned. I'm calling it a political system because Rand said politics was one of the 5 major branches of philosophy, and that her choice was capitalism. I like her delineation of branches and her choice. If you agree with the definitions 1 & 2 here, my understanding is you contend "No Government" and "a political system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned" are contradictions in terms. Now if I have your statement well defined and compared, I'm willing to take a crack at refuting your assertion, that these terms contradict each other. IF you're willing to allow a level playing field. This means no insults, no arguments from authority or arguments from intimidation, or references to outside documents. A fundamental agreement that all arguments, ideas and ideals, stand or fall on their own merits, their own logic and premises. If you are not willing to grant something along these lines as a starting point, then we have nothing to discuss. As to why I'm here, if I have nothing to defend: Since I am NOT here to advocate anarcho-capitalism or anarchy, I'm here to learn. I'm here to follow conclusions right down, link by link to their roots, to their basic premises. *** Second, Thomas, If you look closely, the 1st and 3rd are assertions, conclusions without basic premise. The second is an assertion based on a straw man as a premise -- a claim to know what an anarchist doesn't claim. The word "gang" is pejorative here. Congress, also, at its worst, could be construed a gang. I suggest, when you use words like this you may be compensating for weak argument. That said, in the first instance, you may not "know of" one, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist; of course that doesn't mean it does exist either. However, I'm willing attempt to find some possibilities, if they'll be given honest consideration. In the second instance, again, this is your unsupported assertion. Again, Thomas, this is what you say. You are speaking for them. So what do you say? Are my conditions acceptable? Or not?

1st, I want to call your attention to my question here which you ignored: Aside from the fact that anarcho-capitalism is a contradiction in terms, because without a government one's individual rights would not be upheld So you define the terms as: 1) Anarchy: No government 2) Capitalism: upholding individual rights. Or do you prefer: a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned. Is this correct?

I gave my REAL motives in my previous post. The word "real" here is offensive. Think about it, David. I'm absolutely not advocating anarcho-capitalism. I find it an interesting possibility which I've not yet seen satisfactorily refuted. At this point I have nothing to defend. Nope. Got here today. But I'll take a look. Any suggestions where to start?

So you define the terms as: 1) Anarchy: No government 2) Capitalism: upholding individual rights. Or do you prefer: a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned. Is this correct?

No, I suspect by limited he meant when has the state ever been limited to not securing more power to itself? As an absolute. Not as a comparison to some slave state. SN's is a better answer to what we've been discussing, David. Actually his is quite an eloquent answer. Why? Because in other words, the principles pioneered in The Constitution have become a part of Customary Law. The Constitution has taught and promoted this new Customary Law far and wide. But can an established system in be changed to become more objective? I doubt it, but we shall see. So far it's been going the wrong way. The question is, if something isn't working, do you keep on doing it?

Thank you, GC. I was about to give up. It's not that I was drawing a "distinction", David. I wanted to distill down your objections. I asked a simple question. Is this a correct reorganization of your three objections? It requires a yes or no answer -- the no of course with a qualifying explanation. 1) Privity of contract. Whether you have a contractual relationship with some other party is a private affair, but whether you are subject to the laws of a given location is a public fact. 2) The problem of third parties. Contracts presume governmental law for enforcement and objective evaluation of the fact / contract matching. 3) A statute obligatorily binds all people in the geographical area, a contract only binds those who specifically and voluntarily enter into the contract. Is this a correct reorganization of your three objections? If they are, just give me a yes. If not, then let's simply correct what I've got wrong. If you haven't yet figured out where I'm going with this, I'll tell you. I want to find out exactly which one or more of these cannot be answered by anarcho-capitalism acceptably. This is something I've never seen answered anywhere. The other approach to this question includes the requirements for objective law we earlier today agreed on: Now Objective Law, Required: (boiled down from your post, David) (1) objective statement (2) objective interpretation, principles connecting the law itself to concrete instances (3) objective justification, reason such purpose is prohibited as derived from the nature of man. (4) objective enforcement. Assuming the list is complete, I want to find to find out SPECIFICALLY WHY anarcho-capitalism cannot fulfill these requirements. I've never seen that answered anywhere either. A detailed answer as to why anarcho-capitalism cannot produce objective law. Let's get off this objective = statutory claim and get down to specifics.

WHERE? CLEARLY NOT. Not if you mean legitimate as "legal". Yes, I would still do it. Yes, I would put my own life over someone else's property in a life or death situation. But then I'd expect to take my chances on the mercy of my victim's retaliation as represented in this country by the court.

Come On! Are you serious? I'm having a tough time accepting NO ONE on this board has called Onar on this. Clearly somebody doesn't understand Objectivist principles. "In this situation it would be legitimate for him to threaten you with a gun to call 911 for him if you refused to do so voluntarily." This is absolutely, unequivocally wrong, i.e. immoral. You're actually saying, "Help me or I'll kill you." Or at least, "Help me or I'll seriously injure you."? "It's you or me bucko."? "Sure, I replied, the phone's just around the corner. I'll be RIGHT back." This is like the end of Seinfield where they were all arrested for failing to HELP. Initiation of force is initiation of force. You raise your gun in my face and you take your chances. Charity is OPTIONAL.

Is this a correct reorganization of your three objections?