Jon Southall

SL, take my silence as my choice to disagree with you and to not take it any further.

Apology accepted Snerd. I don't agree that the points raised with SL are a side issue as I think it highlights a lack of acknowledgement that a system of rights is also a system of responsibilities - for it to work it requires personal integrity. Responsibilities are not duties, they come from a different place and on different terms. No one has a duty to care for orphans, but if someone is employed by a philanthropist to care for orphans, the terms of their contract is that they are responsible for caregiving; this is what they have accepted by taking on the job. If the employee decides they like the pay but would rather neglect the children than care for them, then they are acting irresponsibly and without integrity. If the philanthropist fires them when its discovered they have been paid but haven't been looking after the children, then the fact remains the employer has still suffered a loss. Using government force to get back those losses is not wrong. The employee cannot claim as a defence that it was self-sacrificial to provide care, and that the employer can just render the contract null and void if he is unhappy about it. It would be even more absurd if the employee claimed as a defence that as there will be someone else to take their place it cancels out their irresponsible behaviour, or worse if not there will be an altruist to do it instead. This misses the whole point of the fact the rights of the employer have been breached by the employee, and indirectly the employee may have caused the employer to fail in his ultimate responsibility to the orphans. We don't need altruism in any situation, but if we are serious about a rights based system (as I am), then we need to recognise this comes with responsibilities and sometimes the use of government force to deal with individuals who have breached the rights of others. Do you agree?

Hi Adrian, Ayn Rand once described private business with government support "the worst of all economic phenomena". The privatisation of the NHS would be to replace what can be a poor organisation with something worse. The private companies will be funded by taxpayers. From historic experience, e.g. of PFI, the government tends to sign up to the worst contracts that allow the private firms to basically screw taxpayers even more than they already are being. The real alternative would be to liberalise private healthcare and private insurance and provide citizens with an opt out, so they can pay for private healthcare instead of being forced to pay for the NHS. This gives them a choice. Then whatever grows and survives would be the best there can be. What I value a lot about the NHS is its accessibility and quality of emergency care. My life and two of my close friends were saved by the NHS, so I recognise its value and personally I don't begrudge paying for it - I would pay for it voluntarily even if I wasn't forced via tax. As an organisation, life is its standard of value - it has a good premise. Although it is expensive, economists know well that money is a poor substitute for healthcare - in that people will pay everything they have to save a loved one even when they will never see the money back. In my view its worth paying for, but I would like people to have the choice. I would not like to see it become the worst of all economic phenomena.

Strictly Logical, Your response has annoyed me. I've posted here long enough for you to know I'm not an altruist or a statist, I feel like you know there are problems with your unqualified comment and are trying to wriggle out of it. Is it ok to abandon your kids on others because you would prefer to go off and travel? You are saying yes. I'm saying that is irresponsible. Someone makes the choice to have children, then they have to live with their choice. It might be a bad choice for them, they may regret it but if they made it freely then they are responsible for it. Rights automatically carry with them responsibilities. What does your property right mean if no-one has a responsibility to respect it. What does a contract mean if no-one is responsible for keeping up their end of the deal? You seem to have an attitude of someone else will take care of it, it's not my job. Who is John Galt? The position you are taking is inconsistent with a way of life that recognises inalienable rights, its inconsistent with a community that respects and protects them. What you are proposing is hedonism whether you realise it or not - if it feels better then that makes it right. Anyone who understands Objectivism will not opt for the hedonistic approach, knowing in the scheme of things it is self-defeating. I was hoping you would qualify your comment, I am disappointed you've turned it into this.

I share similar thoughts to you Don. Alex needs to set out what he reasons the basis of government jurisdiction and sovereignty to be. Presently the presumption of authority begs the question as you point out. This thread is about the emergence of a state so is looking at the basis of government. You cannot presume an authority to address this.

Strictly Logical - see the "Emerging States" thread I started for the proper functions of government. A child's biological parents are primarily responsible for the child's support, and should compensate a third party when they provide it instead. With freedom comes responsibilty- people are free to have children through hedonistic behaviour if they choose, but with this freedom comes responsibilty for the consequences of their actions. In this situation it means having dependent children who require caregiving. No one else is responsible for providing caregiving to their children. The government would intervene when the rights of the child are not being respected and protected, as it ought to do in the case of any individual. I think it would include making the parent pay the party who is looking after their kids some form of "child support".

I would be in favour of a O Nation. Seriously. In time how much better our lives would be. I think it would be a possible way of striking/shrugging without committing suicide - if it were possible to achieve what DA suggests. If we want to build a better world around us, let's go and do it. We have the sovereignty to do so in our lives and property. But this takes courage and we have to shrug off the false believe that what is can be all that there is.

I completely agree with your last paragraph. I want to clarify whether you were advocating freedom to shirk parental responsibilities; when a parent gives up their child, who do they think will take care of him or her? Someone will have to and this will not be costless, so the parent should pay until the child is adopted. A judge would not be unjust in making such a ruling in my view - wouldn't you agree?

Snerd, My point was that if objectivists wanted to establish their own state, perhaps operating borderlessly, then force would be initiated against them. You seem to think America is a free nation, yet I think it likely that Americans would not respect the emergent sovereignty of a new community, it would initiate or threaten lethal force to make them comply, for example if they refused to pay American taxes or comply with American regulations. The government would view it as sedition. My point is that if the basis of sovereignty is individual rights, individuals ought to be free to decide which community they want to be a part of, and within that community govern themselves, provided they do not initiate force. Furthermore this community does not need to be located in one territory, although practically this would be better. A case in point. Israel. Jewish people purchased land and established a new state after ww2. Is the jurisdiction of Israel legitimate or not?

Strictly Logical, A query regarding your notion that a parent should put up their son for adoption if they don't love them and would rather do something else. Presumably that would be at the parent's expense? Surely a parent has a responsibility to care for a child, a dependent, that they were the cause of - someone else might want to take this responsibility on, but if not, if to pursue what they want would mean sacrificing their child's life (which would be the outcome unless someone else steps in) they would be answerable for that. Would you agree?

Snerd, Nicky The problem I have with your thinking is that it is contradictory. On the one hand you claim that the basis of national claim to jurisdiction is individual rights. That is a premise that I think the three of us are all in agreement with. Nicky then contradicts this by asserting for practical purposes, a governing authority must be territorial. This means pragmatics are trumping rights. It's collectivistic thinking, because it means the rights of individuals can be sacrificed when respecting and protecting them would be impractical (from the perspective of the group of individuals who are claiming jurisdiction) - even when it is not concerning the life or property of any of their own members. If Nicky you are making the point that it would be easier and more effective to govern when members of a community live together territorially then we would agree, but the fact this is true does not necessitate it. Snerd, this leads me on to your post. The contradiction is similar to Nicky's, you think the emergent community requires the permission of the other community. I see no legitimate reason why, so long as it does not breach the rights of those individuals. In practice if a group of Objectivists wanted to form its own independent community, and self-govern by establishing a borderless government whose jurisdiction is grounded in the lives and property of its members, I want to know why this can't happen. Apart from the fact governments would intervene by force. If it is the fear or force only, then I would conclude none of our governments are truly interested in protecting and respecting individual rights. How could such a conclusion be taken seriously? To be a dog is to be a dog, regardless of the fact some masters hold a longer lead than others.

I agree with Devil's Advocate's explanation above, because his line of thinking makes more sense to me. A government is created by individuals from within a specific community. Individuals who work in the government come from the community, and their "customers" are individuals from within the community that has established it. The soverienty lies in the lives and property of all the individuals whom the government serves, its jurisdiction must surely relate to the community - the individual members, their lives and property. Hypothetically, if we wanted to create an Objectivist state, why couldn't we just do this within existing territories; the new community of Objectivists - the individuals would have mutually recognised sovereignty over their own lives and property and would self-govern. Why would its jurisdiction not take precedence over the existing state or authority, other than for reasons that the existing authority would use force to prevent them from establishing a new community-based (rather than territory-based) state?

AlexL, "Again: the sovereignty of a government over a territory has nothing to do with who owns the various parcels of the land." What does it have to do with? I don't think there is anything wrong with referring to a community. A group of individuals who identify as sharing a particular way of life can self identify as belonging to the same community. So for example, we are part of a community that is interested in Objectivism. I agree with you that a community doesn't have rights, only individuals do. Which takes me back to the question, what gives a state jurisdiction? You suggest that a state has jurisdiction by virtue of the fact it respects and protects the rights of individuals living in the area. However this begs the question of why people living in a particular area fall under the jurisdiction of one particular state or authority rather than another. Spain and the UK to varying degrees respects and protects the rights of their citizens, so why ought Spain have jurisdiction when it comes to property that is owned by a UK citizen? Why can't the UK claim jurisdiction over it? The Spanish state operates through individuals of course. Let me put it a different way. Why do the individuals who are operating the Spanish state have jurisdiction over matters concerning UK citizens? Also under your idea, if say a large group of Americans decided to live in a foreign country where the state fails to respect and protect the rights of individuals, would you agree than an implication would be they could claim that the state there has no jurisdiction, giving them the right to put in place a new state covering the territory in which they live. I don't necessarily disagree with this thinking - I want to explore it further if you would oblige me.

Read The Fountainhead, and then let me know if you are still unsure.

Thanks all, this is a very interesting discussion. What is the basis of a 'national claim' to sovereignty or jurisdiction over a territory? From one perspective, the basis is not property rights. If it were so, then a UK owner of property in Spain for instance, would be able to refer to UK courts to settle matters arising in Spain. But a UK property owner would have to have legal matters settled by the Spanish legal system (which claims jurisdiction) even when Spain does not own the property in question. Is it because the UK property owner in Spain resides in territory claimed by the Spanish community? Yet what gives the Spanish community any rights over the parcel of territory once it has been sold? In purchasing the property in Spain, has the purchaser enterred into some kind of contract with the Spanish community to be bound by Spanish jurisdiction? Is this a kind of contractual moral relativism (when in Spain, do as the Spanish do)? I can't fully work out how a hypothetical Objectivist state would accept a moral relativism of this kind, unless the differences were so trivial in extent as to render them unimportant. Why ought an individual recognise a community claim to jurisdiction? What is the basis of the claim to it when it is not private property? Is it just force-based?

Nuclear weapons are the most likely of any weapon to kill significant numbers of people who have not initiated force; they are highly indiscriminate weapons. I would say their use is only justified when literally everything is at risk - for example being attacked with nuclear weapons by another nation. Otherwise not only would it be self-defeating as others have pointed out above, it would be immoral to use them. They do have a place in "consequence assertion", but as per the above, this is only fitting when faced with a significant threat. Using the threat of mass indiscriminate killing, to subdue your political foe, is not what you would expect to come from a civilised people.

Thanks DA. I think that might be an example of question begging. You are defining migration as the movement of member citizens beyond the reach of American territory, which assumes what is being questioned - that American territory is and ought to be geographically defined. If you were to dispense of that assumption, how would you then define what is within reach and what is not? I am not interested literally in how the world is currenty organised, I am interested in the political philosophy. I would say that any contract enterred into by a citizen ought to be subject to meeting the standards of his nation - so for thought experiment purposes, this would mean an Objectivist wouldn't get away with signing a contract with a dictator which in the dictator's lands allows the Objectivist to kill civil rights activists, because such a contract would be in breach of the standards of the Objectivist's home nation. He would be guilty of force initiation and sent to prison once apprehended. It would also mean if it is alright for property to be seized by the state in another nation, that the state's unwritten contract to that effect would be invalid under the Objectivist nation's application of justice. A nation that stole Objectivist property acting 'legally' would nevertheless be violating the Objectivist's property rights. Therefore the Objectivist's home nation would regard this as force initiation and take action. My view is that an Objectivist nation would intervene in any matters concerning its citizens, wherever they are and on the basis of its own standards of justice rather than the standards of other nations. I would welcome the views of other contributors.

Thanks for your contributions. It seems to me there must be a seismic change in the views of the citizenry before we will ever see an "Objectivist state" elected democratically within the current political systems found in the world. I think it is desparately needed now. Granted the US constitution was revolutionary, but I think it has gone backwards from this noble starting point towards a form of government that is worse. I know many Americans are patriots and I don't mean to offend, it is my assessment based on my sources of information. Sometimes I wonder if it is time to think differently about the reach of a state. The current view is that states are geographically defined, as in a particular state has a claim to territory which you could mark out on a map. However the state, in carrying out its legitimate responsibilities, needs the reach to cover the movement of its member citizens, their property and their contractual agreements, in order to provide justice and engage in retaliatory force where it is justified. If you were to attempt to map the movements of Americans in travel, work etc, where American owned property is located and activities occurring under American contracts for thought experiment purposes, what you would see would not be a map of the United States. Instead there would be large spots, dots and tracer lines globally, reaching beneath the oceans and into space. A government would need the reach to provide its legitimate functions effectively. Doesn't this make it too simplistic to define reach as territorial?

Welcome to the forum Adrian. I am a fellow brit, also living in London. I similarly would classify myself as an Open Objectivist. Having received care from the NHS myself, and knowing good friends who have had their lives saved, it without doubt provides some amazing services. You shouldn't be ashamed of the work you do. I suspect you are not responsible for the poor management and damage done by political meddling over the years. Look forward to seeing more of your contributions to the forum. Jon

The proper purpose of government is considered by some to be exercising a monopoly on the use of retaliatory force. The Government's use of force would be kept in check by a judicial system, which protects individual inalienable rights objectively. The judicial system exists to ensure the use of force by the government is always retaliatory in nature, and directed only at individuals who initiate force. The judicial system would also help to resolve contractural disputes. The government would otherwise remain separate from religion and the economy. Firstly, to what extent is the form of government so described consistent with Objectivism, philosophically speaking? Secondly, observing that there are no governments in the world that meet the above standard, do you think it is possible to introduce such a form of government? Would use of force to bring about regime change from within be legitimate, in order to have it? At the end of Atlas Shrugged, the Objectivists take back the collapsing US from the collectivists, killing them if necessary in order to do so. When would it be morally justified to do this in reality? Finally, how far would the claims of the government extend? Is the extent of the government within reach of everywhere its citizens are, and their property, or would it only apply within the territorial limits its military power can protect; a safe zone? Thanks for your thoughts.

"In answer to your point 3 with a somewhat tongue-in-cheek replay: Who cares? If someone is being an ass I can simply walk away and do business with someone else. I do it every day." That might work for you personally but I disagree with the principle that you live by. You could just as easily say, "so what if neighbourhood x is full of robbers that take your money. Why not just go to another neighbourhood instead. I avoid bad neighbourhoods every day". Whilst in practical terms this may be true, it ignores the fact that robbery is a crime and a failure to protect property and inalienable rights results in an uncivilized world where such values go unchallenged.

Dan, I'm claiming property rights are legitimate when they concern the product of man's effort. Land (and other type 2 existents) are not the product of man's effort. So I see private ownership of land as the result of a confusion of what constitutes private property and what doesn't. An undesirable consequence of this confusion is the collection of economic rent, which in natural justice does not belong to the landowner exclusively.

"In regard to political economy, this last requires special emphasis: man has to work and produce in order to support his life. He has to support his life by his own effort and by the guidance of his own mind. If he cannot dispose of the product of his effort, he cannot dispose of his effort; if he cannot dispose of his effort, he cannot dispose of his life. Without property rights, no other rights can be practiced" Citing this is a good example to show how closely we agree, but that we do not have a common understanding yet. We are referring here quite clearly to the disposal of the product of man's effort. The product of his efforts is what he was the cause of. That is what he had to work for and produce in order to support his life. That is what property rights apply to. I don't disagree with what is quoted above. The issue I have with the homesteading act is that it rests on a conceptual confusion. I am trying to tease this out here. The conversion of uncultivated land into civilisation occurs only as a result of man's productive efforts, and so civilisation belongs to man. That is not in dispute. There are three situations which are problematic as far as the homesteading principle is concerned: 1) The Homesteading Act assumes the legitimacy of a government's custody of uncultivated lands. This assumption is a poor one, history confirms. A government says it has custody of a territory, which, in this context, will not be owned by anyone and will be uncultivated. There is no reasonable, objective means by which to settle the consequential territorial disputes between that government and any other groups or individuals who assert claims to it. 2) Land is a factor of production, not a consequence of it. Working the land, e.g. for five years, does not reverse this fact of reality. The homesteading principle is at odds with reality by granting private property rights to that which was not the result of man's productive efforts. 3) Following on from 2). Land is a factor of production. Being granted control of it exclusively gives you the right to prevent others from using that land to produce, unless they meet the terms of your permission. You therefore establish a kingdom of your own, whether on a small or large scale, where if you decide to admit subjects, you can force them to pay you a tax in the form of economic rent, or exile them. Therefore it is just a mechanism for re-establishing on a small scale the injustices of what kings had established on a large scale. Like a kingdom, this claim lasts for as long as you want to be king - in perpetuity if you pass it down to your next in lines. Admittedly I state this somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but I believe fundamentally this is what the Homesteading principle establishes. Returning to the quote at the top of this comment, I hope it can be seen more clearly now how private land monopolies, even those established via the homesteading principle, are an attack on private property, rather than part of what constitutes it.

We need to explore this a bit more as we both suspect each other of making a conceptual error. Let's see if we can reach a shared understanding. Let me focus on your lump of iron example. A lump of iron has to be taken into someone's possession - it has to be gathered up in order to be traded. It's not unlike picking an apple off of a tree in the wilderness. The apple (or the lump of iron) is the natural wage for the effort of gathering it. To illustrate why this matters, consider a strange scenario where Mr Smith and Mr Jones meet and start to discuss trading a lump of iron. However neither of them has collected the lump of iron (assume its just sitting on the floor and there is no ownership history). Who in this exchange would be the rightful buyer and who would be the rightful seller? It hasn't been established, there is some missing action before it can be. A causal action which causes one to be the seller and the other the buyer. The act of gathering it establishes who the seller is, as by gathering it, the ore becomes their natural wages. Land is fundamentally not something that can be gathered up. Of course you can try to dig it up, but what you will get is the dirt, so-to-speak. The dirt would be your natural wage and therefore your private property, but this does not extend to cover the remaining land. Do you understand this point? It's as I said before about how one justly comes to call something his own. I think the question I put to you before needs more attention accordingly. I feel we are otherwise very close in our views.

A nicely articulated piece Dan, thank you for enriching this discussion. I obviously disagree with your conclusions in Part 3. Let's explore your thinking a bit. To start with, in an earlier part you quote: "Land, like any property, is simply man’s work given value in physical form for the benefit of his life" Can you explain how land is man's work? I can understand how a gun might be man's work, or a house or farmland. How is a pre-existing location man's work? How is uncultivated land man's work? I believe your part 3 piece, which critiques my separation of private property and common property is based on a faulty conceptual understanding, as demonstrated by your statement I've quoted above. My criteria is the Law of Causality. What man is the cause of qualifies as private property, what he isn't is un-owned. You are stating land is man's work. If it is, meaning man was the cause of it, then under my definition we would agree that the land is his private property. The extent of his claim is limited to what he is the cause of. So for example, your example, if someone farms the land and creates farmland, the farmland which he created is therefore his private property. The extent of his claim is limited to what constitutes "farmland". However you are implying that his claim extends beyond what he has created, to the location value, which through economic rent he can collect and keep. This takes us back to my questions: Can you explain how land is man's work? I can understand how a gun might be man's work, or a house or farmland. How is a pre-existing location man's work? How is uncultivated land man's work? I believe this is a fundamental issue. I would like to discuss some of your imagined consequences of the implementation of a land value tax.