Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Andreas

Objectivism's View Of Anarchism

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

It does show that there are many instances in which we have it at our interests to appeal to the criminal's rational faculty.  It is a case in point. 

No, it was a borderline case, but I'm not really interested in arguing about that. Even if we stipulate that there are cases where it is not worth the trouble of going to the police when our rights are violated, that still doesn't prove that we should respond to force with anything other than force. It only proves that sometimes it's not worth responding to minor rights violations at all.

I wasn't trying to prove that we should attempt to appeal to a criminal's rational faculty regardless of circumstances.  But that there are many instances which one might be wronged (stolen from, defrauded or physically attacked) and have it in his interest to resolve the problem by appealing...like I said at first.
Well, okay, you're entitled to your view, but whether you like it or not, your position amounts to a moral sanction of force.

This is wrong.  Retalitory and defensive uses of force are the the only civil kinds as oppposed to initiatory force.

But each individual should be free to use both defensive AND retalitory force.

You keep saying this, and you keep evading that there is no way to leave individuals free to engage in retaliatory force without also leaving them free to initiate force.

I understand that you ...

But it is not my duty to provide you with the proof that I am doing so.  I should be glad to do so under most circumstances, but again, its not my duty to make sure everyone else is knows that what I am doing is right.  Its quite satisfactory that I know it.

Not in a civilized society it isn't, because this leaves the rights of others at the mercy of your judgment, which puts us right back to where we started: with you advocating whim worship as the cornerstone of your political theory. Sorry, but that sort of thing just doesn't fly with me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The contradiction is actually inherent in the view that the gov't not maintain such a monopoly, since without such a monopoly there would be no way to resolve disputes between "competing agencies". And thus, instead of anarchism upholding individual rights, it must devolve into open warfare and the destruction of civilization.

Surely then, you must favor a world government. How else would disputes be resolved among separate nation-states, each of which regards itself and its authority as sovereign and final? On the question of the monopoly in retaliatory force: nothing in your requirement that law and its enforcement be objective would preclude a person or persons from acting independently of the existing government to secure justice. The fact that a government confers on itself a legal monopoly on force does not necessarily mean it has a monopoly on reason or objectivity.

It is my understanding that Child's himself came to realize this - although he died before he was able to publish his thinking on the subject.

Then his earlier objections to “limited government” stand unrefuted.

There is in fact no contradiction in forcing people to uphold individual rights (which is really: forcing them to not violate rights) because if you don't, then you don't have individual rights. What's the alternative - that people be able to choose not to uphold individual rights? If that's not a contradiction, then I don't know what is.

This evades the central question in the debate. No one is alleging a contradiction in enforcing laws against the initiation of force. The objection Childs and others have raised is against using force against a person or persons who have *not* initiated force. If Citizen Corday sends her private agents to recover her stolen car from a person that objective evidence indicates is the likely suspect, she and her agents have acted no less morally or objectively than any group of persons calling themselves the sovereign government. Therefore, if the monopoly government jails us or fines us for acting within our rights of self-defense, it has initiated force and can no longer claim the status of a consistent defender of individual rights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You appear to take it personally that a complete stranger would not accept that you are competent to act as an enforcer of the law.

Professionally? No.

But I am competent to act as an enforcer of laws.

Yes, I do take it personally that a complete stanger would not accept that I am competent to act as an enforcer of the law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No, it was a borderline case, but I'm not really interested in arguing about that. Even if we stipulate that there are cases where it is not worth the trouble of going to the police when our rights are violated, that still doesn't prove that we should respond to force with anything other than force. It only proves that sometimes it's not worth responding to minor rights violations at all.

Well, okay, you're entitled to your view, but whether you like it or not, your position amounts to a moral sanction of force.

You think that my example proved that sometimes minor rights violations shouldn't be responded to at all? May I remind you that, in my example, I did respond and that there was no mention of wether or not the outcome of my response was good or bad? How then would that example show that no response is sometimes good? No response IS of course sometimes good, but thats beside the point. Are you really unwilling to admit that in cases such as these, persuasive argument and reasoning is useful and better than retalitory force most of the time? That there are not many instances similiar to mine which such agrument and reasoning would be beneficial while retalitory would certainly be less beneficial or even harmful?

My position amounts to a moral sanction of force? What are you smoking?

You keep saying this, and you keep evading that there is no way to leave individuals free to engage in retaliatory force without also leaving them free to initiate force.

hunh? No, I pronounce them free to engage in the first, but not in the second.

Perhaps you are using free in a way I'm unfamilar with??

Not in a civilized society it isn't, because this leaves the rights of others at the mercy of your judgment, which puts us right back to where we started: with you advocating whim worship as the cornerstone of your political theory. Sorry, but that sort of thing just doesn't fly with me.

Yes, they are at the mercy of my judgement. I am capable of doing them harm and I am capable of being wrong. So what? You can say the same of every man.

My position amounts to a moral sanction of force? I'm advocating whim worship as the cornerstone of my poltical theory? What are you smoking?

I'm sure you'll object to my obvious ridicule of your claims. But you have to recognize that they are ridiculous.

Please correct me if I am wrong. Here is my summation of your positon

1. You recognize that I propose to leave men free to use force morally for purposes of immediate self-defense and retalitory (i.e. non-immediate self-defense)

2. You know that man is falliable. That men may be irrational or may err.

3. You conclude that I support their irrationally.

4. You propose to have an institution with a monopoly on the use of force. The government. The government won't be irrational or make mistakes. Sure, we probably have to leave immediate self-defense to regular-folk, but not anything more than immediate, because we don't to be left to the mercy of their judgment, our lives at their descretion and their whim-worshiping. The government will do this for the people.

If that is your view, as I am fairly confident it is, I have to say that...

5. You are going to have to learn to trust people whether or not they deserve it. They are the only game in town and you are not going to be able to construct a transcendental institution impenetrable to their bad thinking. The best option you have is education and an open market. Government as a profit-making bussiness and not a protected caste which makes any potential dissenter an outlaw de jure as opposed to by reasoned arguement and judgements of each individual

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, I do take it personally that a complete stanger would not accept that I am competent to act as an enforcer of the law.

Why? Do you expect strangers to take on faith the good intentions and competent ability of anyone they come across? Would you take that leap of faith?

It seems ironic to the you appear to lack faith in the ability of those "with a uniform and a badge" despite the significant implication that some training and knowledge comes with that, but yet you would expect someone to assume you are competent in that regard when they have ABSOLUTELY no indication up front as to your abilities.

VES

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5.  You are going to have to learn to trust people whether or not they deserve it.

Perhaps you can expound further on this. On it's face it seems to be an incredibly broad and naive idea. It suggests to me that you are young and inexperienced.

VES

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Are you really unwilling to admit that in cases such as these, persuasive argument and reasoning is useful and better than retalitory force most of the time?  That there are not many instances similiar to mine which such agrument and reasoning would be beneficial while retalitory would certainly be less beneficial or even harmful?

Morality does not deal with situations, but principles. First we establish the correct principles of human action, then we apply them. The relevant principle here is: you answer force with force - you do not grant the terms of reason to men who attempt to live like animals. Now, until you accept that principle, or offer one of your own, there's no use in us trying to evaluate particular situations.

My position amounts to a moral sanction of force?  What are you smoking?
This will either be the last time you talk to me like that, or the last time we talk. It's up to you.

hunh? No, I pronounce them free to engage in the first, but not in the second.

Perhaps you are using free in a way I'm unfamilar with??

Yes, they are at the mercy of my judgement.  I am capable of doing them harm and I am capable of being wrong.  So what?  You can say the same of every man.

Here again we see how our choice of words can betray views we wish to hide. "I pronounce them free to engage in the first, but not in the second." Well, that's great my friend, but a civilized society must do more than pronounce the initiation of force to be wrong - it must ban the use of force. In fact, unless a society, represented by a government, retaliates against those who initiate force, it implicitly endorses the initiation of force.

My position amounts to a moral sanction of force?  I'm advocating whim worship as the cornerstone of my poltical theory?  What are you smoking?

I'm sure you'll object to my obvious ridicule of your claims.  But you have to recognize that they are ridiculous.

I don't care if you ridicule my claims. I have made my case, so your objections are quite beside the point. What I do mind, and what I will not sanction, are your gratuitous insults. Grow up.

Please correct me if I am wrong.  Here is my summation of your positon

1. You recognize that I propose to leave men free to use force morally for purposes of immediate self-defense and retalitory (i.e. non-immediate self-defense)

But that's not what you propose in fact. The only way to limit the use of force to retaliation is to institute a government that does the restraining.

2. You know that man is falliable.  That men may be irrational or may err.

3. You conclude that I support their irrationally.

I didn't say you support it. I said that your non-system leaves them free to impose their irrationality on the rest of us, under the guise of retaliation. In your non-system, every man gets to decide for himself who deserves retaliation and what form that retaliation will take, and one's only defense is to make sure that one's own gang is bigger than the other guy's. You keep evading that point. And for good reason.

Take a moment and concretize what you are proposing. You are proposing a system where the people on Jerry Springer each day are just as free as you to decide what they consider to be the just use of force, and your only recourse is to hope that you're faster on the trigger than they are.

I've made these points over and over again, so perhaps I should make it easier for you to respond in a way that makes some sense. In your view, what specifically will stop a person from imposing his whims on me by force?

4. You propose to have an institution with a monopoly on the use of force.  The government.  The government won't be irrational or make mistakes.  Sure, we probably have to leave immediate self-defense to regular-folk, but not anything more than immediate, because we don't to be left to the mercy of their judgment, our lives at their descretion and their whim-worshiping.  The government will do this for the people.

If you want to make things up, go on ahead, but don't pretend to be stating my views. I have not argued the government won't make mistakes. The government is made up of men, and man is not all knowing or infallible. That's one of the reasons why establishing a proper government is so difficult. Your solution, however, is to say dueces wild: which means, anyone is free to do anything so long as his gang is larger than everyone else's. Am I supposed to take that seriously?

If that is your view, as I am fairly confident it is, I have to say that...

5.  You are going to have to learn to trust people whether or not they deserve it.  They are the only game in town and you are not going to be able to construct a transcendental institution impenetrable to their bad thinking.  The best option you have is education and an open market.  Government as a profit-making bussiness and not a protected caste which makes any potential dissenter an outlaw de jure as opposed to by reasoned arguement and judgements of each individual

I have no idea what this is supposed to mean.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there is something funny and profoundly psychotic in the libertarian notion of anarchy creating "spontanous order" (via the free market's "competing protection agencies"). Have these guys ever taken a look at Somalia or the West Bank?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think there is something funny and profoundly psychotic in the libertarian notion of anarchy creating "spontanous order" (via the free market's "competing protection agencies"). Have these guys ever taken a look at Somalia or the West Bank?

Why do you believe this libertarian idea is a result of psychosis?

Would you please define the term and offer evidence that libertarians are psychotic?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why do you believe this libertarian idea is a result of psychosis?

Would you please define the term and offer evidence that libertarians are psychotic?

Well, the definition of psychosis is a general loss of contact with reality. The idea of "spontaeous order" arising in an anarchy through competing security agenecies, as witness Somalia, the West Bank etc. is just devoid of any referents in reality. The idea is "sick" to the core, even though you technically may, or even perhaps should, term it "arbitrary". Some ideas are just arbitrary and should be written off as such. I never said that "libertarians are psychotic" by the way, they surely are not, but the specific idea under discussion, which only a few libertarians seem to hold, is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...