ZSorenson

Yeah, TED is full of non-intellectual know-it-alls: http://www.ted.com/talks/jonathan_haidt_on...moral_mind.html That's right, because morality = how we're worried about what others think of what we think of them. Thanks Bay Area yet again for more overrated crap. Here's the real truth on innovation: new products = expanding productivity not yet regulated by Byzantine, slow Congress = efficient application of capital towards value production -> eventual regulation and crash -> next round of things Congress has yet to figure out exist that can be productive. TED is great because it give Congress the 'heads up'!!! "Responsible Innovation" Come on!

This may have been the inspiration for Bioshock. Rand's heroic industrialist individuals and the art deco, glamorous '20s might just have been an aesthetically interesting inspiration. The contrast was interesting: glamour and heights, but all at the bottom of the dark and dreary sea. The message contained herein is naturally disgusting, as it mocks greatness. Still, that aesthetic is probably what inspired them. I don' think they really were of a mind to attack Objectivism. Elitist college thinks-they're-somebodies just like thinking it was a stupendous attack on the philosophy. But they're just coming from the other side of the monkey..... But, who's excited for Iron Man 2? Tony Stark on his suit, "It's mine, you can't have it." An admirable sentiment before a disgusting subset of humanity (congresspeople). But unfortunately, heavy weapons are essentially the one thing the government might choose to regulate. Alas....

Aye. I wanted to think that my invention was important enough to merit its own discussion. I'm not sure how to append, but for what it's worth happily consent to doing so. It's supposed to be a phrase that requires explaining though. An inside joke that will catch on, if you will...

I like the phi because it has 'O' and 'I'. "O-ism" Has someone made that point. Anyway, I think an appropriate symbol would be the torch or Prometheus because it stands as much for knowable knowledge, as it does for industry, science, technology, progress and the like. Prometheus is also the mythological equivalent of Lucifer - which Judeo-christianity labels as Satan. So the anti-man, self-sacrificial philosophy of that worldview, and mysticism in general is opposing Prometheus - whom the Gods imprisoned. He's therefore like a John Galt. Plus, the spirituality associated with Prometheus is all about matter/spirit mind/body unity. That enlightenment is attained in the real universe, not by transcending it. Am I wrong so far? Anyway, the torch is the tradition Promethean symbol. I don't know if other mythological traditions have symbols for their version of Lucifer/Prometheus. But how about a PHI with the bar being a torch?

In another thread I asked what a good replacement for the world 'selfish' when that word is used in the context of someone who is a brute pragmatist. An example: a senior citizen against taxes and big government health care, but is also mad that their medicare benefits are being cut. These are people who want and take only because something is immediately and practically available for having. What these people lack is integrity and perspective. Think of the lawyer who wins the house thief who cuts himself on knives left out on his victims' table a huge settlement. Well, after much thought, the best I can do is this phrase: 'the other side of the monkey'. As in: "That guy's from the other side of the monkey." or "She's really thinking from the other side of the monkey." The idea is that there's the phrase: "Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil" It's from the proverbial Three Wise Monkeys. Although wikipedia says I'm thinking of the Western version. Anyway, the "Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil" vacillating man of no integrity is therefore someone not concerned at all with the side of the monkey with the ears, eyes, and mouth. He must then be more concerned with the other side. You know: the opposite of 'top/front'. Without subtlety: a monkey's ass. Yes, instead of 'selfish' some have proposed 'asshole'; I propose: "Monkey's Ass" because that include the proverbial meaning. But I prefer the sophisticated, subtle, 'other side of the monkey'. What do you think?

Throughout history, cultures have used the name of their enemies as the ultimate swear word. Barbarian first, cretan, papist, yankee, etc. etc. Today we're so politically correct there is no epithet sufficiently powerful for comparison. Asshole - yes, that's the closest, but it lacks personal emotional weight. Marxist used to work; commie was used a lot too. But those are now considered maybe good thing. Jihadi should be the ultimate epithet of our age - but noooooo..... So I guess we can anticipate the next conflict, keeping the emotional relevance of today. Take your biggest enemy, and hit him hardest where it hurts him the most. Collectivist elitists tend to have two soft spots. The first is the status of their elitism - they are desperate to preserve it, and perhaps their most sensitive weak spot. The second is the reality that people can get away with not agreeing with them. This has everything to do with the first, but is worth noting separately because it has more to do with people who both socially do not agree to the norms and standards of the elite, as well as and importantly having to do with people actually defending their right to make independent judgments and keep the products of their labors for their own use. "Crimson rednecks"? - Harvard educated but just as useless and ignorant as the stereotypical rural racist (their perspective)? That doesn't work for me, because it's sort of lame and doesn't immediately cause the proper integration of ideas. Epithets, like narratives, integrate meaningful ideas for the sake of absorbing emotional energy (correctly or incorrectly). This also has little to do with the original character trait I was hoping to describe. But I feel like I'm moving in the right direction. I mean, we don't have one single cultural touchstone nowadays for negative attention. For the left, it's Sarah Palin - but a whole lot of people don't share that viewpoint. Tiger Woods, Chris Brown, Michael Jackson - there are a few notable celebrities that draw attention, but not in the right way. It's as if the 'Idiocracy' movie is coming true, and the most intelligent touchstone we have in common for someone negative is "DUMB ASS". Cretin, huh? Well, Idiocrat is sort of funny... Going back to my character trait, 'selfish', I think I'd now best define it as someone who lacks integrity. A brutish pragmatist: someone who doesn't live by standards, but just takes what's in front of his face with no thought to the past or future. No integrity, no perspective. So some synonyms: vacillate, flip-flop; short-sighted, clueless. An Obama? Just kidding. I'm going to think this over for a sec, write my best effort to make up this word/phrase I'm looking for, and then I'll drop it for a while. ...

Well, their error is that they live as brute pragmatists. It's available, heaven has blessed me? I'll take. So, "Brutish Desperation"? Brutishly desperate?

I don't think that is all there really is to it. Your propositions are flawed because they have been detached from the proper context. Asking "Does an individual have a right to use force in retaliation against another individual who has initiated force against him?" the way you are asking it is like asking "Does an individual deserve to be happy?" Context absolutely matters. I'm pressing this argument because you previously tried to argue that the objective judgment of an individual was all that mattered in terms of the use of retaliatory force in protection of rights, and that that judgment needn't be subordinated to a government's. That's where you're wrong. An individual deserves to be happy... inasmuch as they can actually obtain happiness - yes, they would then have every right to be happy. An individual has a right to his property and person against the use of initiatory force by others... yes, that doesn't require a government to be valid. But does an individual have a right to use force in retaliation? No, not if its illegal and against the prescription of government. There are two alternatives: the use of force is subject to objective rules instituted by a government, or it's a free for all. In some sense, the first is a free for all, but proper consequences and standards are established to lessen anarchy. There is no right to the use of force. The use of force can or cannot properly be employed for the protection of rights. Depending on the context, rights inform what the most proper use of force will be. In anarchy, your individual objective judgment is a sufficient means of determining just action. When rational people interact with each other, and reasonably can institute some form of government, they ethically must. That government is what determines the proper use of force in defense of rights. This 'government' could be anything from a 'Merchants' Code of Honor' to a constitution. The latter is more proper. As to the use of force - there is no such pure concept as 'retaliatory force'. It is an abstraction. There is: shooting someone in the heart with a bullet, punching someone in the face, tearing an item from someone's arms, sneaking into someone's house and stealing something, destroying someone's property, and so forth. There is no blanket 'right' to use any or each of these tactics 'in retaliation'. Use of force implies automatically an action. That action may or may not be proper. Should someone be shot for robbing a bank? If it's 1885, they have $15,000, will be untraceable once they leave town, you're the U.S. Marshall, and all that stands between the depositors' and their earned wealth is your bullet... Well, if your savings means eating or drinking, living or dying in a desert boomtown, then you'd say yes. If it's just a new iPod you're losing, then no. That's why voting and 'society' and the legislative process determine the proper use of force. Otherwise, why couldn't the thief be killed because, well darn, the Marshall is supposed to protect that money, and he's pissed today. Proper use of force is in proportion to the stakes for those whose rights are violated. We can't all be running around with different standards when we can come together rationally and agree upon a common one. Objective rights are the foundation.

Well, this sort of mentality is what lawyers love. I mean, heaven forbid two parties sign a contract, it goes unfulfilled, and in the end one willingly takes losses because they are honest about their role. People seem to feel they need to take all the can squeeze out of a situation. Let's say you promised something, and the other party misplaced their notarized copy, or recording or whatever evidence. You can't just screw them because they 'should have been more careful' and the court will side with you. That's another example. And I really hate this sort of mentality, and I think 'selfish' is too dignified a word for it.

There is one common use of the word selfish, which I hope to find a good word or phrase as replacement. I will first give an example of the word, then attempt to give a good definition. For my example, I'm going to use Medicare. I was watching a politically conservative commentator who was interviewing a group of 'tea-party' senior citizens. After many of them proclaimed how wrong it was for government to grow, for everyone to pay for everyone's medical care, for bailouts, and so forth, somebody said, "And they're cutting our medicare benefits?" WHAT THE HELL? Why can't a senior say, "Yeah, you know, I voted for Medicare supporting politicians, I relied on Medicare, and I was wrong. I deserve to reap the consequences of my immoral and irrational years of evading reality." ? Along those lines, why the hell should we send troops to stabilize regions with oil so we can buy it from the area's dictator's? We're not entitled to that oil (there's a broader argument about whether we can appropriate it directly, but lets ignore that). Normally, these examples are of something that our modern culture calls 'selfishness'. Yes, technically, the issue at hand is self-interest. The seniors benefit from not having to cover their own medical expenses (above and beyond anything they ever paid into Medicare). But it's not rational self-interest. So what's a good word/phrase for: a character trait that pursues self-interest in a manner that requires for its successful completion an objectively improper exploitation of others through a violation of their rights. This is characterized too by a paranoid, vicious sense of entitlement. If I feel like I've really worked for something, I'll defend my right to it - if reality is on my side. But this sort of 'selfishness' involves a sense of entitlement to whatever might be available - only because it's available. Another example: People with pre-existing conditions who ride mild thrill rides, and get injured, and sue. Their suits have nothing to do with the proper functioning of the ride, and are merely about "they have money, I want money, I got lucky because I got hurt". WHAT THE HELL? So, what's the word? I would say 'entitlement princess', but it doesn't have a ring, and barely connotes viciousness. 'terrified by reality' is maybe another. 'spiritually void'. Help me out here.

In other words: "I'm dogmatic, you are trying to call me on it, so STFU." On the one hand he's trying to control the argument via semantics - as in, 'what is freedom', but he assumes that his definition is the definitive one from the outset. There is no pluralistic debate here, just an immature close-minded dogmatist. But, assuming this person wanted to suddenly have an open mind, here's where I would approach his point of view: what, according to the nature of man and the universe, is the proper thing for man to do? This is basic standard of ethics. He talks about how the 'resource structure' of capitalism doesn't represent how things have always been or how they may always be. So, his argument seems to be centered around the standard of ethics I have mentioned. The solution to the debate centers around answering metaphysical questions, down on to defining the nature of man. Consider these questions: what is man's proper pursuit in life? how does he go about pursuing it? what social circumstances affect this effort? Here's the point: in answering the first two questions, you necessarily think of man as an individual. The receipt of values, and the pursuit of values is ultimately an individual concern. It can, from that point broaden out into a social concern, but only from an individual foundation. This means that social circumstances, where they contradict the role of the individual in the pursuit of value, can only hinder that pursuit. This is why freedom is in fact a 'negative' proposition. Like someone has said before, it is no more within a man's proper nature to be entitled to the economic circumstances of his neighbor, as it is in his proper nature to be entitled to flight. Both must be achieved, and only according to proper circumstances: in the latter case man must obey the laws of nature, in the former, he must obey the laws of the land. Put another way, collectivists like saying that individuals only build sandcastles, societies build skyscrapers. I like to tell them that collectives only build wigwams - skyscrapers require some concentration and centralization of capital. Free markets, free trade, different people filling different roles of differing value according to a division of labor work to make industry and vast wealth available - and going back to the original argument: everyone is better off with skyscrapers over sandcastles, and wigwams. But that's not even really ethically relevant. In the end, this instructor is accusing you of a dark, dehumanizing outlook - because you're merely trying to say: please don't destroy what I've worked to build. Your defense of your rights is what makes this anti-human, anti-freedom, anti-pluralism, anti-intellectual barbarian so darn angry.

This idea might be the problem. [edit-sorry, posted too soon by accident] I'll concede the use of the word exist. I'll replace it with 'manifest'. Rights are manifest only when they are properly respected. My point is that the concept of rights is incomplete when applied to situations in which they are not manifest in a society of individuals. I'm trying to say that I think its improper to have a discussion about rights when you don't address the circumstances under which they are to be properly respected.

The problem with prison rape is that you concentrate people who have essentially lost their incentive to behave according to law (being in prison already), who also never cared much for legality anyway (having committed crime). There's no real reason to expect them to not act as criminally as they desire, and since they are fed, housed, and care for medically - they have no rational reason to really do anything. Stopping rape means treating people like cattle. The solution then has to do with criminality itself, and how the law deals with it (or, just managing the cattle better). This isn't really an economic question, but is in the realm of political philosophy. No 'invisible hand' will deal with violent criminals better. I'd say then to just make sure that maybe imprisonment isn't the proper punishment for non-violent offenders. Garnish wages, recompense damages, limit movement - but if the crime didn't involve violence, someone shouldn't be locked up like cattle with violent rapists.

You are free to act in any manner that you, through your brute force visavis that of those around you, are capable of acting. That is a statement of fact based on the nature of reality. Your 'rights' exist only in the context of 1) rational men who 2) choose to rely on an alternative standard to brute force to govern their interactions. Any time anyone hopes to legitimately agree on a non-force standard for interaction, the question of rights must appeal to objective reality - as opposed to the whims of the powerful or majority and so forth. But there must be first the decision that might is not right, and an agreement between men on the terms of this arrangement. Your personal sense of entitlement to your right, no matter how proper and objective, means nothing to those who cannot accept your point of view and therefore accept some role for force in dealing with you. Therefore the enforcement of rights in society very much depends on a consensus concerning the specific means of using force in retaliation against the users of force. In anarchy, you would have an argument - but that assumes that few or none of those with whom you interact are willing to agree to a standard of non-violent interaction as an absolute. So, make sure to save some money for bodyguards, and suspect everyone with whom you deal.

Awesome!

To make my point more clear, I want to say something about the proper means of coercive taxation. Theoretically, you confiscate wealth from criminals to fund law enforcement. That would be wholly proper. However, a law enforcement apparatus sufficiently empowered against potential crime (as a deterrent) should not have to rely on actual crime to have that power. That is, the goal ultimately of law enforcement is to create a society where crime and the use of force altogether is rare. That's the point of government. So it's unreasonable to expect crime prevention to depend on crime to have teeth. Instead, just as no citizen should presume to have the individual prerogative to decide how his own rights should be enforced (as in, he must follow the objective laws of society), no citizen should presume to have the individual prerogative to decide how/when/why the law enforcement should ultimately be funded. It will be funded according to the proper exercise of government. A legislature could choose to fund it through a system of voluntary donations, but might also choose a coercive tax as necessary. I guess my issue is that I don't see a difference between the what and the how of the use of force by the government. If the government should use force in certain circumstances, then it should. Being obligated to use force to protect rights and uphold the law necessitates some ability to be empowered properly to do so. The issue seems to be the same to me. If society votes for a police force to use force in certain instances, but it can't afford to - doesn't that just indicate some disparity between the fair and objective interests of most of society and those who have concentrated wealth? Is that not objectively improper, and a failure of government to fulfill its proper and objective role?

Is the initiation of force a proper standard really? For individuals visavis individuals, I see it operating perfectly. But once you involve government I think the standard changes. The reasoning here is that the non-initiation principle is a derivative of the concept of individual rights, itself derived from the nature of man. Looking at the higher-order concept, the idea is that everyone has the full and complete right to interact or not as they choose, consensually, with others in society. The 'right' to use force in retaliation to force is derived from this. Essentially then, a government's role is to use force properly to prevent the improper use of force between citizens. There are many assumptions here that wealth-creators would inherently be rational - and to the point where they would support a proper view of rights in society. There's no basis for that. Until and unless rules against those that do not support a proper view of rights (i.e.: criminals, defrauders, conspirators, etc.) are properly enforced, the rational wealth creators cannot compete with them purely economically. The only way to avoid the use of force in society between factions is to empower the body of the government - the force monopoly - sufficiently to maintain a general superiority over the most powerful factions. So, the government would be more powerful than any one faction, but less powerful then the people as a whole. You can't do that without coercive taxes at some level in a modern society where wealth is concentrated and centralized. Ultimately, voluntary taxes could only work if the government retained the power and implicit ability to coercively tax. So it's not necessary that they do, but necessary that they be able to. Coercive taxes may be an initiation of force, but seem to be necessary for individual rights to be protected through the proper institution of a force monopoly in society. Remove government, and there is no proper standard for the use of force in society. That is, in anarchy you must use force consistently in order to preserve a semblance of rights. I know this is counter to what is officially Objectivist, but I think that position is wrong. I think an Objective government, to be consistent with Objectivism, must indeed have the ability to coercively tax somehow (maybe at a devolved, state level). The key is that the taxation occurs according to a proper standard. Both the means of taxation, and the use of the purse must be carefully proscribed only towards the proper enforcement of objective law that protects individual rights. If I am wrong, I would liked to be convinced of where I have erred.

Referendum could exist in the context of a rights-respecting system, but 'direct democracy' precludes the protection of individual rights. As many have already clearly articulated.

All this argument proves is that the 'spiritual mind' cannot exist in the 'physical' world when its physical home, the brain, ceases to function. I don't believe in religion or God, but I don't think the argument in the link is very convincing.

I have a few points of view from my experience to share that might be helpful. When I was 19-21, (as a heterosexual male) I would get quite infatuated with certain women. One or two, but particularly one in particular quite caught my eye. Now, I'm 24. I am not friends with this girl, and I don't think I could have any feelings for her ranging between healthy attraction, and subtle contempt. It's a one way or the other sort of thing. But I don't deal with or see her ever, and I hardly ever even think of her. Another girl provoked a similar reaction, but I eventually grew to think well of her and enjoy conversation, but with contempt for her romantic habits (not sexual, just how she is in relationships) was able to 'move on' from my previous attraction. At this point in my life, I'm a lot more skeptical about women, and a lot less likely to be as convinced that certain attractions are as life-shatteringly important as I did a few years ago. I also want to point out that for a while I was a practicing Mormon (ick), and so my sexual desires in relationships were NEVER gratified - and appreciate the intensity of attraction and desire - though I have never but once faced an attraction where I KNEW it would NEVER work out. After a time perhaps you'll come to terms with this just from perspective and experience alone.

So, imagine that Israel gets nuked, then retaliates against Teheran. What then? We might as well ask this. The Jewish State might end due to fallout, but then again it might just go for broke and force the emigration of Palestinians from the West Bank. Would they murder them? They'd occupy Lebanon for sure - and conventionally bomb Syria in the process (Hezbollah in Lebanon). Would Iraq get involved? Would America's patriot missile shield in Iraq surprise us and shoot down both missiles? Would Israel shoot a 'dud' in retaliation to be purposefully shot down by America. What if the missile from Iran is intercepted - by Israeli or American patriot missiles? Would the fallout hit Iraq? Iran? Would the US under Obama do anything? Would it rule against Israel? Would the US be able to invade Iran? Would the world support it? Would Arabs support it? Would the Iranians support a regime change? What happens? Iran fires a missile at Israel... then what? And in the context of this thread, what would the US response be? What should it be? Missile to Israel... what happens?

First, I think of a Republic as a system of government where the right to vote exists as a check against the government rather than a voice in government. The 'rights' established in the constitution (verb) of the republic are the 'voice' of the people. So everyone should be able to vote. A cursory study of the history of civil rights for black Americans shows the importance of this, as well as the impropriety of literacy tests and poll taxes. Second, in another thread I decided that a government - at some level - must have the power to coercively tax. The reason is that the the rights articulated in the law are meaningless to criminals. Criminals cheat, conspire, assasinate, and so forth. History is repleat with examples of factions that, although it wrecks the economy and society internally, resort to feudal bickering which you can see operating in the modern-day examples of the mafia. The ability to finance power - thugs, muscles, arms, guns - will exceed that of the legally commissioned law enforcement if the wealth of society is sufficiently looted by this criminality. If the police don't have money, they can't stop criminal cartels from burning down their rivals' infrastructure. Then, more of the wealth is concentrated with the criminals, and there aren't enough non-criminals to donate. Law enforcement therefore needs to be able to procure funding necessary and proper to do their job. Third, taxation for defense is only proper when protection exists as a public commodity. What I mean (in an example) is that protection in 1700's S. Carolina from pirates did not affect the immediate safety of Britain. Britain, therefore, theoretically, did not have an obligation to fund the choice of S. Carolinians to live in S. Carolina unless they felt an interest. Protecting trade, keeping the pirates from someday reach England - sure, those are reasons, but reasons up to England to decide upon. So, mandated national defense is sort of altruism depending on the scope, but not altruism also depending on scope. Technically, I, in Maryland, don't have to worry about Mexican drug cartels in Arizona, or N. Korean missiles in Hawai'i, if I don't want to. But illegals or terrorists that cross the border in Arizona, and come to Maryland, or Russian missiles that can equally target any spot in America - these issues affect all America. Just as much as I shouldn't have to pay for the defense of other regions/states, they shouldn't have to bear all the burden of the cost of defending my region when the threat is nationwide. I think the solution is to use state governments to raise militias, with the power to do so coercively (I mean they may tax). The idea is that if you are walking safely on the street or trading in the market of a town, you are receiving the benefit of those who have defended that homogenous area. Residency itself requires that you pay money. I don't know what to do about the national army - on the one hand, donations would be appropriate because you can't argue the 'country as a whole' is one unit or identity that is explicitly defended as a whole - not if it's sufficiently large. Technically, the American Navy and Air Force are one 'unit' that effectively deter and depress major conflict worldwide. So, technically, the whole world 'owes' America. It's complicated, but I can see philosophically how taxation or no taxation for national defense would be consistent policies. The issue has to do with Ayn Rand's insistence that economic power is not political power. This is a conditional thing: It is political power in fact, because economic power is the power to obtain and concentrate value from the physical world. This idea is about the same as accumlating and concentrating the ability to project power in the physical world. Technically, value usually has to do with building, force with destroying - an important distinction - but both rely on the ability to concentrate energy for one purpose or the other. My point is that economic power is not political power only in a system of power where individual rights are properly protected. Not theorectically or philosophically protected, but actually successfully protected. The American system is really really good. It's incomplete and outdated in ways: for one it was envisioned with no real precedent, and assumes many roles of a traditional 'crown' and relies a great deal on traditional common law. It is outdated in the sense that there might be better ways than winner-takes-all regional congressional districts. I think Jefferson and later Heinlein imagined a system where within large regions like-minded citizens formed their own representative blocs. But overall it is astonishing. The republic as a government of laws, and therefore rights, and not people is the only proper way to have government. Federalism is also something I think is necessary. You have states on one end which are sufficiently empowered to protect rights (taxes and so forth), but a federal government on the other which technically is empowered only against the states for the sake of the people, or foreign enemies. The ultimate idea is the limit power as much as possible, so that nowhere in society can a man or men claim any political power for their own will or ideas. Brilliant really. Too bad the idea of this comes from the notion of man's depravity. Rather, man has no right to initiatory force. So the use of power must be articulately proscribed beforehand in order for man to properly retaliate.

Still, a guy spending 40 years doing who-knows-what in another country, emigrates, rises to prominence and is elected President of America? At least natural-born citizens can be monitored by the FBI - like if their parents are brainwashing terrorists. Of course, a kid can always move to some Indonesian cloister during his formative years, having been born in America, and then returning to it later... OH NO!!!!

I was careless in using eco-careless. But hopefully you still got the point. Objectivists are more enthusiastic about shaping the environment to suit them than what is commonplace in today's high-tech world - you know, like actual Americans.

If there is no comprehensive and properly funded law enforcement, then bribes, chicanery, threats, assassinations, conspiracy, and patronage are more than capable of assuring that there will not be plenty of donors to choose from. As for the national defense, I don't think the same problem with corruption would occur, but I'd be concerned about the Army's ability to be effective on just donations. Ultimately, I guess I'd have to say that my rights should not depend on the will of my countrymen to fight for them. This is an extension of the idea that my rights don't depend on the desire of my neighbors to recognize them (ie, if they want to steal from me). Perhaps that's a fallacy, but it still presents two alternatives. One: we are all individually responsible for the protection of our rights, and may choose to combine forces with like-minded neighbors with whom we trade, but they may choose at any time to abandon me and my rights to barbarians if it is too costly to them and I can't alone afford it. Two: rights are incontrovertible, and they are collectively recognized and protected. It is important to think of these as individual rights, and not some other false kind. It seems that option 1) is more appropriate. After all, imagine a scenario: what if there are powerful barbarians to the south; these men are very costly to fight off. Presumably, there is a choice to live in South or North. Why should the North be forced to pay for the South men lifestyle, when they intentionally expose themselves to that harm and cost? Protection and force are commodities subject to laws of scarcity and commerce like anything else. We don't (well we do, but we shouldn't) pay a whole lot of money to rescue idiots who intentionally expose themselves to the ravaging forces of the wilderness (avalanche, blizzard etc.). They must assume the cost of their choices. Now a more complicated scenario. Assume all I say here is true. It is the American civil war: if the North and South split, the two republics won't be able to afford collectively to preserve their geopolitical posture, and will both someday be overrun by Spanish, Russian, and British tyranny (and there are no slaves somehow). Collectively, their wealth and manpower can afford to 'keep the flame of freedom alive'. Does the North have a right to conquer and 'loot' the south, if the purpose of that looting (or forcing them into the fold for taxation) is the very survival of rights. Well, no, because then the rights are purchased according to a contradictory premise. But I think this scenario frames the issue more closely. Now, the right answer to the barbarian scenario has a historical precedent in the militia. The south men would properly have to fund their own defense. The north would be involved only when the conflict threatened the polity as a whole, or if their interests coincided (colonizing the wild west). What I am concluding from this thought experiment is a hybrid system. States may coercively tax for law enforcement purposes (absolutely necessary), and presumably for defense purposes (national guard) since the scale is small enough that all defense is a public commodity. The federal government may not coercively tax since its scope does not include law enforcement - and when it does a collaboration between states who have secured funding would suffice. The federal government's defensive scope is also very broad. It will raise the funds it needs for the actions it needs when a sufficient number of people consent to and fund the action. It can use: donations from the states (hard pressed to fund law enforcement and militia already), donations from individuals (publicly documented), and theoretically bonds (if you anticipate reparations). What a state should be, and how the federal system is organized, are then very important. It would really be a confederation with a few beefier powers (feds can strike down trade barriers for interstate commerce, send Marshalls if minority groups are persecuted in one region or another).