JamieP

Yeah, this does seem really off point. It seems that the main point in the governments like Somalia is that there is a lack of law enforcement (and by law enforcement I mean actual ENFORCEMENT of the laws of the land, not lack of police officers...although that might be true as well). Does this seem like a good summation?

This is helpful thank you. Could you (if possible) elaborate more on the religious aspects of these countries? Do they not have separation of religion and state? Clearly that would be a difference between them and the constitution. Also, do you have any specific examples of disregard for individual rights?

In my estimation, he sees similarities in that they are all "government lite" so to speak. Clearly, what is more important is the proper functioning of a government...NOT how much "governing" a government has to do, so to speak. A government (as far as I see it) should act as strongly and as often as it is required to. If there happens to be a high number of thefts one year, then the government will just have to hold court that many more times.

sNerd, I want to thank you for your input. You've been consistently helping me these last few days and I appreciate it. The reason why I bring this one up is that a friend of mine is comparing the government set up by our founding fathers (jefferson, etc) to these other governments. I would like to show him specific examples of how each of the other governments is flawed and doesn't do the real job of protecting property rights, etc. I know that the constitution was be no means perfect, but my understanding is that is was pretty close to the right idea. It was things like the abuse of the "interstate commerce act" that allowed government to expand its reach to a point that the founding fathers had not intended. but this is sort of besides the point. I'd rather just show how these other countries fail in terms of having the ideal objectivist government to show how they are not real examples of a "failure of objectivist societies" (according to my friend).

I know very little about Nigeria, Sudan, and Somalia...and even less about how their governments are set up. I'm wondering if anyone who happens to pass by this topic and happens to have knowledge of how these governments operate could comment (really anything helps). I'm really looking for ways in which their governments are similar and ways in which they are different from the ideal objectivist government. thanks.

Thank you for this response. It makes sense to me that what is "moral" is much more subjective in terms of parenting because different people can disagree on how best to raise a child. Regarding the legal issues, is there an objective way of defining what acts violate the fiduciary obligation of a parent? How do you know if a line has been crossed?

Ok, this is getting more to my point. So if the parent/child relationship should morally involve quite a bit of force, how do you make a clear objective distinction between "good" force (bedtime, do your chores, etc) and "bad" force (something like child violence or sexual abuse)?

This makes sense to me, but I was wondering more along the lines of morality with the relationship of parent and child. Sometime parents "force" their kids to do something like play a musical instrument. Is that wrong? Generally this would probably be looked as an OK thing because it's a wonderful/positive experience, but isn't the use of force involved (sort of)?

I was having a tough time tonight when it came to thinking about the role of govt and force with concern to raising children and being a gaurdian vs. "being an adult and making decisions for yourself." Being a parent means that you are liable for their actions up until some arbitrary age (which probably shouldn't exist), and then after this arbitrary age is reached they are "adults" and are responsible for their own actions and decision making. How should child labor be viewed? At first thought, it's simple when you think of every individual as "an adult" and they are capable of making their own decisions. But when you are "not of the age to be able to make decisions for yourself" it becomes less clear to me. The reason I ask in this forum is because I remember reading about it I think in one of Ayn Rand's Q&As if memory serves but it's a little bit fuzzy for me. It seems to me that if a parent thinks that their child working is in their best interest and if there is no force being used then there is nothing wrong with this. Many could argue that working at a young age could be considered a very good learning experience.

The author of this quote claims that asymetric information is "proof that free markets don't work." It seems to me that there will always be some sort of asymetric information in any trade, but that doesn't mean that free market capitalism fails. I'm just not sure what the true counter argument is for this. quote: "I have not been a great fan of the theory of rational expectations – the belief in cold, rational, c"alculating homo sapiens; indeed, I believe it to be the greatest-ever failure of economic theory, which goes a long way toward explaining how completely useless economists were at warning us of the approaching crisis (with a half handful of honorable exceptions). But it would be a better world if their false assumptions were actually accurate ones: if only information flowed freely, were processed efficiently, and were available equally on both sides of every transaction, we would indeed live in a more efficient and probably better world. The problem that information is asymmetrical in the financial business is a serious one. One side of the transaction, say an institutional pension fund, is often at the mercy of the other, say the prop desk of a talented and mercilessly profit-oriented investment bank."

One would have to know what you mean by "emergency situation." My friend has detailed his question for me....the emergency situation I'm referring to is #s 3 and 4 in the parts where he's asking "If this isn't acceptable" "So Nigeria has minimal government, lots of oil, and very little business regulation. Oil companies have been extracting oil there for over 50 years, with large negative externalities. Roughly one Exxon Valdez-load of oil leaks into the Niger Delta every year, which I think we can agree is a rough end result for the people and the environment there. I see this as an obvious consequence of a minimal government, minimal regulatory system. So question is: 1) Is this acceptable and just a consequence of industry? or 2) Is this not a free-market system and is the spill problem a result of the non-free-market system characteristics? or 3) Am I missing some way a market-based system could work to correct a problem like this? If this is a problem that is not acceptable: 1) Who in the private sector assesses the extent or dollar-value of the damage? 2) Who assesses the health consequences to the population? 3) Who provides emergency or interim aid to those affected until a party is deemed responsible and reimbursements are made to the affected parties? 4) Who organizes the clean-up? If it is the offending party, who oversees them to ensure it is done sufficiently? Who sets the standards as to what is sufficient?"

ok this makes sense. But I have a few follow up questions: 1) What happens if the damage incurred by a disaster like this oil spill is greater than the company can actually pay? What happens to those people who were owed money? do they all just get a reduced share? Does anyone make up the difference? 2) does the scenario in question one constitute a emergency situation?

My friend writes: "I don't mean to continually shellack the libertarian/objectivist position, but how would such a position deal with the oil spill? Or how would it prevent such spills from occuring in the first place. This article really struck me as an example of unregulated capitalism: "In Nigeria, Oil Spills Are a Longtime Scourge" http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/17/world/af...eria&st=cse The Nigerian people, sadly, have decided not to form a private organization to combat the fact that international oil congolomerates spill roughly an Exxon Valdez-worth of crude oil into their environment every year, for the last 50 years." What is the proper system to have set up? Is it to have BP (or whoever is drilling) be responsible for all damages? To have property rights for all fishing areas in the ocean and have BP (or whoever is drilling) to have to pay them to use their property for drilling?

I have no trouble believing this author is a very biased predictor of impending doom. My question was more one of the proper role of govt in the area of negative externalities with regards to energy. More specifically, how does one account for pollution, carbon emissions etc (given these are things that are provably negative for everyone).

*** Mod's note: Merged topic. - sN *** My friend writes in an email list I am on: "So I decided to read a non political/history book for a change so I picked up The Dominant Animal which had been lying around since someone recced it to me lasy year http://www.amazon.com/Dominant-Animal-Huma...t/dp/1597260967 I'm most of the way through it, but it's in many ways a stunning indictment of capitalism. We literally can't have the growth rates weve been having, nor the currnet rates of consumption for much longer at all. The neg externalities are way higher than I ever thought. The impact of destruction of biodiversity, monoculture farming, and constant releases of poisons and toxins, along with the destruction of our oceans ecosystem and wild fish, pesticide resistant pests and antibiotic resistant bacteria is frightening. I would like one of the libertarians/objectivists on the list to read the book and tell me how the market deals with all these things." Before reading the book, I realized that I am unfamiliar with the objectivist stance on negative externalities. I know there are a few other free market institutions (CATO I believe is one) that suggest that all of the negative externalities should be priced in to each different type of energy for example, in order to "even the playing field" in terms of pollution. is this a proper function of govt?

I think I understand. Essentially, Man (which includes the human race and some other sub-categories of animals) is able to exist/survive only by the use of a rational thought process (rational meaning the faculty of reason). Since man enters the world with no automatic knowledge of what is good/bad/necessary/etc, man must use this rational thought process to provide those things necessary for survival. Since man needs the things he has produced as a result of this rational thought process to survive and exist, man then has a right to his own life? This feels close but possibly missing a step?

It is not obvious to me that all other animals don't have rights because it is not obvious to me that all other animals never use reason. I'm not sure if this is a stretch, but aren't there some sort of chimp/monkey/type of animal that possess some sort of ability to reason (even if it is very minimal)? And even if they didn't the ability to reason the way we as humans do, it isn't obvious why we have the right to our own lives where as they do not.

I have a friend who wants to know where the basic idea of the right to one's life comes from. he writes: "I really don't want to get involved in this argument, but just had a quick question. What is the support for the idea, "There is one right, the right to life"? This is not something that exists in nature, in fact it is almost unnatural in its construct. Animals kill and maim other animals all the time. Chimps like to rip off each others testicles off and throw the young of opposing troops out of trees so they plummet to their little chimp baby deaths. sad face. So where does this come from?" probably a little exaggerated/comedic in an attempt to keep the topic light and not confrontational because the rest of the thread has been a little bit aggressive at times.

asking those questions seem irrelevant to debating the particular hypothetical in question. but I think I understand your answer to be - the choice is between "earning your own exisitence" and "robbing someone" in normal scenario. This hypothetical removes "earning your own existence" as an option, thus there is no moral debate possible because there is only 1 option?

This answer is very helpful, thank you David. The only problem again is that in this particular hypothetical, "earning your own means of existence" is not an option (again not realistic) and this is where I get stuck.

He is using in his hypothetical scenario that in order to live, this starving person must eat this loaf of bread by stealing it. So I think the answer is yes, it is necessary in this scenario. Even though, this is a hypothetical scenario and not realistic, I still think it is a good thing to have answers for the hypothetical scenarios.

is it useless to debate the hypothetical in this instance?

Rand definition of one true right: "A “right” is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man’s freedom of action in a social context. There is only one fundamental right (all the others are its consequences or corollaries): a man’s right to his own life. Life is a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action; the right to life means the right to engage in self-sustaining and self-generated action—which means: the freedom to take all the actions required by the nature of a rational being for the support, the furtherance, the fulfillment and the enjoyment of his own life. (Such is the meaning of the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.)" A friend of mine takes: "the freedom to take all the actions required by the nature of a rational being for the support, the furtherance, the fulfillment and the enjoyment of his own life" to mean that one can steal a loaf of bread from a grocery store to not starve. I responded by saying that they would not be acting rationally because a rational person would not use force he counters by saying it is irrational to kill yourself for an ideal. I'm not really sure if his last point is valid or if starving to death equates to killing yourself (which I don't think it does). thoughts?

I have a friend who has told me to read "Cost of Rights" by Princton Prof, Stephen Holmes....saying that it's the most succinct explanation of why "negative liberties" are a logical fallacy. He also goes on to say that there cannot be separation of state and economics because the govt is involved in all markets (even if it is just to protect our rights). He then goes on to say that a capitalist society would then degenerate into feudal europe because capital would eventually consolidate in the hands of a few and those people would use their power to influence whatever govt existed to change the rules in their favor (which they would be able to do because under his assumptions there is no way to separate state and economics). Basically his whole argument (in my mind) centers upon the argument that there is no way to have a separation of business and govt except to step in as impartial arbiter. It seems that this is certainly possible in my mind...but he seems very confident of the contra and I'm not really sure how to begin debating him on this or to rebut his statements. thoughts?