Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Charlotte Corday

Regulars
  • Posts

    188
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Charlotte Corday

  1. Nothing that I’ve written implies that. The only way I can see to make the Supreme Court more monopolistic is to reduce the number of justices to one. (And this, by the way, is why Thomas Hobbes endorsed one-man dictatorship. Stable, objective government meant no countervailing [dissenting] powers and thus no checks and balances. There would be one law, dictated by one man.) Then to make your case you will have to show why monopoly government alone can provide for the objective codification of a law and protection of rights. While I support a constitutional framework for free market anarchism, I doubt very much that any society other than Hobbesian absolutism can have an immutable, monolithic legal code. The very fact that the U.S. Constitution specifies three branches for the central government is recognition that there will be varying interests and divergent interpretations. If unanimity is the most important criterion, would it not be advisable to merge the branches, and, going further, to have one person absolute in his authority to hand down “objective” law? No, I mentioned cases where police did not respond to burglary reports immediately. I’ve made no such claim about private security agents. My argument is based on the inescapable fact that capitalist enterprises are motivated by profit incentives and the threat of competition to provide the best services to their customer base. Because they are not threatened by competition, monopolies of security services, like all other monopolies, tend to raise their fees and reduce their services. This is the reason why going to the bank to get a loan is invariably a more pleasant experience than visiting the Dept. of Motor Vehicles to renew one’s license. What feature of monopoly government will insure that the rules of statutory interpretation will be carried out? If a government can ignore its Second Amendment, what is to prevent it from ignoring all rules on how to interpret the amendments? Of course there are certain advantageous economies of scale. But your mentioning that a dispute can be resolved for the cost of a postage stamp is recognition that war is not necessarily the first impulse of a private security agency. Now explain how this is any different from using the monopoly government’s attorneys and marshals to enforce your royalty claim?
  2. Fine. Now, go one step further and show that the “knowability” of laws is an attribute unique to monopoly government. Nothing in what you’ve written precludes law enforced by private companies from being known, objective and rational. And I’m still waiting to hear an argument showing why a society is better served by a monopoly in defense and criminal justice services than a 100% free market. Questions about where the constitution of an anarcho-capitalist society comes from and exactly what it says may also be directed at those proposing minarchist capitalism The reason I disagree with the claim that “law” and “monopoly government” must necessarily be one and the same is because it is obviously untrue. Western civilization has an extensive history of law existing independently of the state. We can start with the example of medieval Iceland, but there are many more. Click here: http://osf1.gmu.edu/~ihs/w91issues.html I suspect that you are sophisticated enough to recognize the difference between descriptive and normative statements. My comment about political structures being ultimately determined by the active involvement (or acquiescence) of the majority is a frank recognition of historical reality. That rulers must to some degree have the cooperation of the masses is a truism, recognized by a variety of political analysts, from Etienne de la Boetie to Ludwig von Mises. Strawman. Feel free to argue manfully against positions I haven’t expressed. Free market anarchism is not based on the idea that everyone in a community must be in 100% agreement on every point of philosophy. (I expect you’ll be able to find the odd communist or fascist in any society.) The vital point is whether the key principles of the law are accepted (actively or passively) by the vast majority of people. If so, then there will be a market for providing for the enforcement of those principles. If not, the society is ripe for some other political arrangement. The need for popular acceptance is no less necessary under a monopoly government, be it Objectivist or Bolshevik. A certain critical mass must go along -- or the government falls. I have. Rand’s proposed “voluntary” contract enforcement insurance is in effect not voluntary at all. True, one has the ostensible right not to buy the insurance. However, since one is not allowed to insure a contract by any means other than the monopoly, one is forced to pay tribute to the state or potentially suffer loss of assets -- which, of course, is a rights violation. The U.S. Supreme Court took up the matter of racially restrictive covenants in the 1948 case, Shelley v. Kraemer. Lawyers for the plaintiff, a black family, contended that racially restrictive covenants in residential deeds violated their rights under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. The Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs and held that enforcement of racially restrictive covenants was unconstitutional.
  3. Some have taken this story to be evidence that Wright was lazy or undependable. In fact, I would suggest that Wright had not forgotten the project at all but was letting the idea gestate. The client's phone call was simply a cue to commit the plans to paper.
  4. Wonderful. I think Bush should be allowed to spend whatever he wants to on what he calls "Operation Iraqi Freedom" as long as he doesn't use funds coerced from wage earners. Agree? Well, apparently even hard-line Objectivists are now starting to back away from "Operation Iraqi Freedom." ARI's Mid-East expert Yaron Brook is calling the Iraq war a failure: "Dr. Brook retracts his previous, hesitant endorsement of the Iraq War. He nows argues that the way we have fought in Iraq (and Afghanistan) is worse than doing nothing."http://objectivistsr.us/index.php?showtopi...hl=yaron++brookSo just how great exactly is this "great cause"?
  5. But surely the fact that the federal government does not pay attention to its own 2nd Amendment limitation puts paid to the idea that there is never any uncertainty about what federal law is. Have you never heard of Anti-Trust and the “ten thousand commandments”? Have you never heard of ad hoc bureaucratic rulings by OSHA, the EPA, the BATF, the TSA and even the Post Office? But it is far from certain that private protection agencies would be wills of the wisp. I’ve never known a subscriber to a private security patrol to be told by the hot-line, “Sorry, ma’am, as of yesterday we don’t respond to home invasions.” On the other hand, I have heard of homeowners who had to wait days for the local (monopoly) police to respond to a burglary report. There is nothing in the nature of government that makes its rules more certain or knowable than those of private industry. In fact, anyone with experience with both private industry and government will likely confirm that the government is far more likely to be inconsistent, two-faced and indecipherable. Next, I suppose, you’ll tell me that federal laws banning certain weapons exist because such laws are not constitutionally prohibited. What a curious view of entrepreneurship! A profit-making company would rather exhaust its resources in a war rather than work out a compromise? Yes, if one were very, very stupid he might hire a $5 per hour thug to break into a home to collect $6 in royalties from a kid who illegally downloaded a CD.
  6. Where does the U.S. Constitution’s empowerment of Congress to “lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises” come from? What are the “first principles” that justify seizing unearned wealth (implied by levying taxes and duties)? If the “first principles” must pertain to the protection of rights, what part of the U.S. Constitution protects the rights of the owners of those “Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises”? In other words, precisely why should we engage in support of the current U.S. government? I do not agree that “law” and “monopoly government” must necessarily be one and the same. Nor do I agree that a single institution must enforce the law. Ancient Iceland is an example to the contrary. Be it a republic or free market anarchism, ultimately it is the opinion of the majority of those citizens who choose to be actively involved in such questions that shapes political institutions. The fact that criminal justice is a more serious matter than computer operating systems is not particularly relevant to how the system evolves. Standards can still emerge and be enforced independently of a governmental authority. Just because most contracts use a tax-subsidized means of adjudication does not mean that government is the ideal means of adjudication. The Law Merchant provided methods of conflict resolution entirely independent of the state. Our own government regularly tosses out venerable contracts on the grounds that they violate newly minted rules of political correctness.
  7. Why? Do states have the right to retaliate while individuals do not? That would mean that there are certain rights that only collectives, but not individuals, could enjoy. If that is the case, then we would have to reject large portions of the Objectivist ethics. Because your rights to your life and property are inalienable, you always have a right to recover your property -- regardless of whether the state that asserts power over you agrees. If we accept the state as final arbiter then we would have to assess any claims by the victims of the Soviet gulag as illegitimate. I will acknowledge that “felony” does have a very specific (albeit varied) meaning under current U.S. federal and state law. However, I reject the notion that only the ruling government can define what is criminal. If that is the case, then all of Mao’s murders and torture during the 50’s and 60’s would have to be treated as legitimate. Actually my position is that rights violations can take place regardless of what laws in a locality specify. For example, I regard our federal government’s actions against Martha Stewart as ethically illegitimate and therefore criminal. The fact that “our” government leaders believe in the campaign to jail Ms. Stewart and deprive her of her livelihood, does not mean that the government’s actions are in any sense proper or consistent with a rational ethical standard. Allow me to reiterate: declaring oneself a sovereign and independent government does not immunize one from the repercussions of rights violations.
  8. The fact that Japan was a sovereign and independent nation did not immunize it from the repercussions of bombing Pearl Harbor. No, but we may assume a constitutional framework of sorts. Such a constitution does not require a monopoly government to enforce it. The Law Merchant, for example, evolved without government legislation and enforcement. Nor must it be a written document. As Roderick Long has noted, "Such paper prohibitions are neither necessary (look at Britain) nor sufficient (look at Soviet Russia) for actually operative restraints." Generally from the felons who commit them. Again standards can arise in an industry without government legislation and enforcement. The mortgage and insurance industries, to take just two examples, have developed detailed inter-company standards without the involvement of government.
  9. I think most of your points are answered in my response to Fred Weiss. But I will make a comment or two: Sudan was held up by Weiss as an example of a free market in competing defense agencies. But, as I have said elsewhere, all evidence is to the contrary. Sudan, like every other government, forcibly prohibits any agency outside its regime from offering defense/criminal justice services. The fact that it is less successful in doing this in its southern regions than in its northern regions is not evidence of a market in competition, but of a war between two or more governments for the same turf. No party asserting its right to rule there has promised not to interfere if a company down the street sets up defense/criminal justice services. Thus, if Sudan is entered as an example of anarchism in practice, we may absurdly cite the U.S. of 1861-65 and France of 1940-45 as other examples of anarchism. Regarding the terms “monopoly” and “total control”: I have shown that the inability of a state to exercise total control over its territory is irrelevant to the issue of whether free market anarchism is present in a country. The fact that Sudan cannot collect taxes in its southern provinces has nothing to do with whether or not those who wish to offer defense/criminal justice services can freely enter the market. If they can, then there is anarcho-capitalism. But no where have I seen evidence that this is the case.
  10. But I do not know of anyone who believes that “that justice can emerge ex nihilo.” Most proponents of market anarchism readily agree that there are certain cultural preconditions to the laissez faire society. Murray N. Rothbard devoted himself frequently to that topic in his last years. In any case, why does the existence of the state make the discovery of what the law should be any easier? If anything, by prohibiting all rivals the state would tend to foster the perpetuation of bad laws.
  11. You have a free market in defense when no one is prevented by force from offering protection and criminal justice services. If you are submitting Sudan as an example of a free market in defense, you will have to overcome the overwhelming evidence that the junta in Khartoum has a policy of vigorously suppressing any and all rivals. No advocate for free market anarchism has ever suggested a prohibition on defensive force. The crux of the debate is whether a group of people calling themselves “the government” may rightfully use force against a person or persons who are providing their own defense and criminal justice services. Violence or the threat of violence to prohibit a non-aggressive activity is the initiation of force. A monopoloy government to protect rights is therefore a contradiction. What happens when your car is stolen by a Canadian citizen who drives it back to his home in Montreal? Since the U.S. and Canada are sovereign and independent states with no higher master, must they go to war over your Lexus, Fred? Well, speaking as one who has visited the Sudan, I can tell you that your account is completely inaccurate and amounts to nothing other than a strawman. There are no competing protection agencies in Khartoum. There is one monopoly government, which enforces its sovereignty with a vicious thoroughness. Does the Khartoum junta have undisputed authority throughout the territory it claims? No, but neither do Moscow, Baghdad, Kabul and Bogota. Would it be appropriate to offer those government as examples of anarchism in practice? And what about the United States, 1861-1865? Was that too anarchism?
  12. Actually, that may not be the case. Just as we presently have the British Virgin Islands and the U.S. Virgin Islands, we may well end up with the Republic of New Hampshire and the U.S. State of New Hampshire. The same thing that happens when a Canadian citizen steals your car and drives to Montreal with it. Do the Canadian Mounted Police offer armed resistance when they receive an inquiry from a police department in New York? That is entirely possible. But no less possible is the chance that the Canadian who stole your car might similarly declare that he will resist with force any attempt by you, the New York police or the Mounties to take the disputed car away from him. Bear in mind, please, that making one's property sovereign and independent does not immunize one to the repercussions of committing a felony.
  13. I agree with the responses posted by Godless Capitalist and Professor Odden. The problem with current pollution law is that it is based on the collectivist assumption that the victim of pollution is society at large and not a specific individual. Unfortunately, even many free market economists accept this premise and endorse making law the creature of "social efficiency" rather than justice. The single best treatment of the subject is "Law, Property Rights and Air Pollution" by Murray N. Rothbard at http://64.233.179.104/u/Mises?q=cache:bHjO...&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
  14. We just have to keep bombing 'em till they become more democratic.
  15. I believe you have answered your own question, Fred. If a warlord has a monopoly, there is by definition no competition and therefore no free market in protection services. If you think that "good ol' anarchism" means winning a battle and taking over the protection racket in an area, then you must believe that the United States is an example of anarchism. For taking over the protection racket is precisely what the U.S. did after winning battles against Indians, Mexicans and Southerners.
  16. Wrong? Actually, what the War Between the States proved was that the Constitution didn't work. Despite the fact that the Founders insisted that the union was voluntary, despite the fact that no article in the Constitution prohibited secession, one group of states was able to prevent by force another group of states from assuming "the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them." It has been answered, Fred. The Republic of New Hampshire (consisting of those property owners who want independence) secedes. The rump State of New Hampshire (comprised of anti-secessionist loyalists) remains in the union. Yes, I did bring up New Hampshire's secession, but I never endorsed the collectivist idea that everyone in the state must go either one way or the other.
  17. Okay, lets's first consider who is going to benefit, and who is going to pay. If the nation doing the regime replacing is not a laissez-faire government, does it have the right to seize a portion of the wealth of the productive class to replace "less free" with "more free" governments? Since our current government is explicitly anti-wealth, anti-production, why should we support foreign adventures that drain the wealth of the producers in order to benefit people in Iraq and Afganistan that have contributed nothing to us?
  18. Thanks for your thoughtful response, Dr. Odden. May I suppose that the point you're making is that the ruling military junta in Khartoum does not have complete control over the entire territory of what is generally recognized as the Republic of the Sudan? If so, two points come to mind here: 1) Just what government does have *total* control of the territory over which it claims sovereignty? Does the government of the United States have unchallenged authority over the underground drug market? Over the market in prohibited weapons sales? Over income tax evaders? Over employers of illegal aliens? Over under-the-table political contributors? Indeed, anyone that follows the underground economy must notice its phenomenal growth despite the breast-beating claims of establishment yes-men to the contrary. 2) In what respect is the military junta in Khartoum *not* to be considered a proper monopoly? Does it officially *allow* competing governments (or rather protection agencies) to operate within the same areas that the junta lays claim to? As a folk art retailer looking for African sculptures, I visited Khartoum in 1990 yet found no evidence of any free market in protection services. The entire city was under the rigid grip of a single authority: the military-Islamist elite that had seized supreme power a year before. (Although, I must admit, that the regime was powerless to prevent me from engaging in a back room, illegal exchange of Sudanese dinars for US dollars at a rate different from what was officially dictated.) Perhaps this is what you meant, Professor Odden: Sudan is an anarchy because it cannot enforce monetary exchange controls. In that case, several hundred other nations must also be considered anarchies.
  19. Ergo, some monopolies in protection services provide better safeguards of the rights of the accused than other monopolies.
  20. Sorry, I thought you understood me. The property owners that want a separate country leave the union. The property owners that want to remain part of the U.S. stay. Think of it as emigration without moving.
  21. Hey, don't we have some sort of "efficient" chemical or bomb that will wipe out all those nasty initiators of force and leave the non-initiators unharmed?
  22. Great. Does the bonus DVD include any material on the psychologist who helped propagate Ayn Rand's ideas from 1957 to 1968? Or is he still officially a non-person?
  23. I guess that's why Peikoff is voting for the Democrats' nominee for President -- an alternative to supporting a party that will "betray, undermine, and destroy capitalism."
  24. You are presupposing that whatever gang has banished all competition in protection services also has a monopoly on what constitutes "proper retaliatory force.” Where is the proof that a monopoly in protection services must necessarily provide better safeguards of the rights of the accused than a set of competing protection agencies? Not at all. My right of self-defense ends precisely where your own property rights begin. Neither I, nor any other proponent of market anarchism, has proposed that one man’s “self-defense” means riding roughshod over the rights of others. (Although I think this does hold true in regard to Miss Rand’s theory of war.) Very well, let us contrast what you call the “anarchist fantasy” with a real world example of “limited government,” i.e. an instance of a state which does not (or did not) violate individual rights. Come, now. Bring forth your “actual,” “objective,” “non-force-initiating,” “limited” monopoly government.
  25. Nope. No man is a means to the ends of another.
×
×
  • Create New...