A.B.

You are mixing up two different things here. If someone murders me, he did not respect my right to life. If the government does not convict him, i did not have the right to life. In that case why was it wrong for him to murder you ? If my right to life isnt being upheld, that means i do not have that right. I should have it, but i don't. No, you have the right, it should be respected, but it wasn't. Rights arent some intrinsic things that eveyone just automatically "haves". They have them, if they are upheld. And Objectivism advocates that they should be. No, it advocates that rights should be respected. Upholding the rights (as opposed to respecting them) implies someone's action. Your rights do not depend on other people's action. That's true regardless of the system. If you have a huge army to protect you, you will probably not be punished for anything. First of all, stop yelling "Strawman" in cases where it clearly doesnt belong. You have clearly shown that you do not understand that the free market is conceptually reliant on people's individual rights being respected and upheld I do understand and I agree with that. But it is also reliant on food being provided. , and instead propose a system where "individual rights" is whatever a seller and buyer decide it to be in the "free market" No, I do not. . This interpretation makes a mockery of both the concept of individual rights, and the free market. And it is not mine. Therefore you're pulling a strawman. The free market is not conceptually reliant on people having food to eat. A free market cannot work when there are only corpses. Most people want to eat, thus they buy it or produce it, but food is not a necessity for a free market to be a free market, in the same sense as rights are. You're confusing rights and right enforcement. Right enforcement is necessary the same way food is. Rights are inherent to rational beings. In the case of a free market without objective rights that are upheld, the situation is very different. A free market is not free, when the contracts the individuals make are not upheld. If someone someday steals an apple, is the market free ? If all transactions are taxed, is the market free ? It's theft in both cases, but what makes the second market unfree is that right violation is institutionalized. The rights are always here, and the free market may provide for the enforcement of said rights. yes it requires a bootstrap, but that's hardly a problem. Rights are what should be respected. They're not irrelevant, they tell us how to act morally. Your right to own your wallet isn't irrelevant, because, even without any form of enforcement, I choose to be moral and not steal your wallet. Dude, I'm being 100% ARI kosher here, this is the Objectivist stance. You cant say that rights are not part of the free market, but that enforcement is, as whatever the enforcement will be, that will be the de facto rights. Ok for de facto rights. If i set up an "enforcement" agency and sell my services to Ahmed and stone his wife for filing for a divorce, that means that his wife does not actually have a right to life Yes she does and you just violated it. She does, it was not respected, and you weren't punished for your violation. Rights are natural and intrinsic to rational beings... Right as in right or wrong. It's wrong to violate someone's right, even if there's no objective cop around to objectively punish you. And they're forced to pay the government court although they don't necessarily want to use that service. Too bad. Still it does not justify forbidding private protection agencies, it does not justify FORCING HONEST protection providers to not offer their services. Your argument is the age old argument that people mustn't be free because they'll abuse their freedom. Your sacrificing innocent potential security providers because you fear some might commit crimes. That's a fact of life. I didn't say wathever law he chooses. If an arbitrator isn't respecting natural rights, he's committing a crime. Are you kidding ! You're the one failing to make the distinction between right violation and lack of enforcement of rights. This is arguing semantics. Boring. Yes it does, as whatever anyone thinks are rights, will be enforced by whomever willing to provide the service. It puts actual individual rights on the same level with whatever mystic pseudo-rights one can think of, as the violator does not get punished by an objective court of law, and instead gets or doesnt get punished by whomever who happens to take up the task. But magically the objective government will enforce not what they think are objective rights but objective rights. Oh of course you may say it will by definition. In this case your government is a floating abstraction irrelevant to a moral debate. Once again. Rights enforcement precedes the market, as rights are meaningless without right enforcement. And food collection also precedes the market, but then it becomes part of it. The fact that individual rights arent enforced by objective governments. So if the objective government fails to catch a single apple thief, it's not an objective government? Interesting. But overall you missed my point: What makes current states different from anarchocapitalistic institutions. If we consider that Finland Inc. owns the land in Finland No it doesn't, it occupies it in violation of millions of property owner's right. The Finish government never acquired the land through homesteading. Well, I'm not welcome here, that'll be my last post. I hope some of you will read calmly my argument and understand that it is immoral to deny people the right to provide defense services. Cheers.

An I assume as a moron it's to complicated for you to understand a logical reduction. I never said health care was a right. From now on, read with your brain on.

As I said this is fine. I just happen to think this is not the stance of most objectivist. I have no qualm against government. I trust competing justice agency more than a government to preserve my individual right, that is what I would opt for. As long as I can't opt. Those who can't afford right enforcement are shit out of luck. Right enforcement isn't a right. You do not have a right to be protected because that right would be held against someone else. Put it another way, no one has a duty to protect you. I subscribe to the vast, vast majority of Objectivist principles and I also consider myself an Anarcho-Capitalist. Ayn Rand wasn't an anarchist because she was too pig-headed to hear the argument. I find it distressing that many Objectivist commit the same mistake and refuse to see the glaringly evident contradiction in front of their nose. And no, she wasn't advocating the kind of voluntary government you describe. She would have found it perfectly moral if the US government suddenly started becoming the kind of minimal government she had in mind, although morality would require that secession rights of every land owner be respected.

There's little point in defining a "right to property". The existence of property rights imply a generic right to property. It's redundant. But that's a semantic debate. If you cannot sell your rights has you say, this is true regardless of the system. Even if a society had courts where somehow the right to property were sold, then you should simply consider that sale to be null and any enforcement of it to be criminal. Since rights are objective, they are immune to institutions. Institution do not determine right, but they shape how rights are enforced, violated, kept etc. By their very nature, the institutions favored by Ayn Rand violate individual rights (the right to arbitrate a conflict objectively and charge for it), therefore they must be rejected. Anarcho-capitalists institutions *may* lead to unjust laws being enforced (which would be criminal), but so does minarchist institution. But at least, anarcho-capitalism isn't intrinsically, institutionally evil. Must ? Obligations only come from agreeing to something (signing a contract for example) or doing something bad (and repaying the victim). I do not consent to be forced to patronize the judicial system of a central government. Whose right am I violating exactly ? Well that's fine with me. But everyone in the territory controlled by the government would need to surrender part of their property rights. And I mean everyone. No government whatsoever is or has been formed on the consent on all property owners of the claimed territory. If a group of property owners wish to form an objectivist government, let them do it. Hey, if they want to form a communist dictatorship, it's actually find it. Let them be. I doubt this is what Ayn Rand had in mind though. Any quote supporting this view ? Rights and enforcement of rights are two different things. It's critical that rights be enforced, but lack of enforcement doesn't mean lack of right. The right of life of a murder victim isn't backed by anything when he dies, nevertheless, it was still his right. Pretty much everyone can choose to respect or dicrespect rights. That doens't make it moral. Strawman. You're the one inverting rights and positive enforcement of rights. The free market means nothing without an objective system of food production that allows you to eat while you trade. Would you conclude foods need to be nationalized ? I never said it was. Right enforcement though can be part of the free market. Ayn Rand. She claims arbitration should be monopolistic and use of force is legitimate against competitors. It can't, it must take away their right to act as a private arbitor. Rights cannot be fully guaranteed, you may be murdered by a lunatic tomorrow. No amount of institutions is going to prevent that. However, it is guaranteed that an objectivist government as envisionned by Ayn Rand will take away your right to become a private arbitrator or a vigilante. It doens't "put" anything. The market also provide services. Right enforcement is a service. What make the current world differ from a one world objectivist government, with you in charge, overwhelmed with widespread crime all over the world by politicians ? The answer : institutions. A petty thief isn't an institution, the state is. As long as crime is a part of social institutions, we do not live in anarcho-capitalism.

Well your reply doesn't say anything about the original argument. That's quite a drawback. Oh sure it can, but for the record that's not what Ayn Rand suggested. Says who ? Why ? Government is a geographical monopoly on justice. Forcing people to fund something or forcing them not to provide a competing service is pretty much the same thing. Except the second is probably a worse violation of natural rights. Most ancaps are unaware that the traditional objectivist government rests on enforcing a monopoly, not enforcing taxes. It's just as bad but it makes confusing arguments. Who is they? Name a few examples or show how this belief proceeds from being an anarcho-capitalist. Of course they are. When I sell you a bunch of banana I exchange my right over the bananas (my property) for your money. Anyway, the alternative isn't between a market of competing jurisdiction and an objectivist law descending from heaven, but between competing jurisdiction and a jurisdiction enforcing a monopoly on law. The former may not result in the protection of individual rights, but the later cannot by definition, it intrinsically violates them by preventing private arbitrage. Standard technique, say something everyone agrees with to put people on your side. Spoken like a true collectivist. Seriously, did you copy paste that from a defense of socialized healthcare ? Anarchy is a system. Systems don't threaten people, people threaten people. Minarchy says "Your rights are up to the government review". How is that better ? So according to your reasoning, an apple a car and a cow are the same thing because they are all sold on a market ? I suggest the classical letter by Roy A. Childs which proves quite simply that any consistent objectivist must be an anarchist. http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig4/childs1.html