One Nagging Question

[DavidOdden]

Enforcement of customary law is often not necessary.

Such customary laws might include "first come-first served", "finders-keepers", "if you run out into traffic suddenly, it's your own damned fault", etc.

Well, certain customary laws are simply observations of metaphysical fact, whose enforcement is in the hands of mother nature. When customary laws contradict each other, for example "first come, first served" versus "possession is nine tenths of the law", one of these two is necessarily enforced when a case arises. If the thief is stronger, he can enforce the possession law, and if the victim is stronger, he can enforce the "first come" law. The law about giving the king a shilling is always enforced, in fact, I think most customary laws are enforced.

I basically agree with your definition of statutory law, though I'm uncertain what you mean by "special".

That these are requirements that all men are held to; that they are not just good ideas, which we hope you will follow, but rather they will be enforced if you violate them. This clarifies their relationship to the enforcing body, "The Government", and distinguishes it from mom's training.

It is therefore sufficient to consider other options...

Sufficient to what end? Before moving to the sufficient, we need to get the necessary part sorted out. It is necessary that the law be stated objectively, so that a man can know what is and is not permitted in a society and can know what punishment will result for violating the law; it is necessary that the law describe those ends that are objectively proper given the purpose of government (protection of rights by regulating the use of force); it is necessary that the law actually be applied in order to achieve those ends. I don't what act is sufficient to reach those ends.

[HP11]

Well, certain customary laws are simply observations of metaphysical fact, whose enforcement is in the hands of mother nature. When customary laws contradict each other, for example "first come, first served" versus "possession is nine tenths of the law", one of these two is necessarily enforced when a case arises. If the thief is stronger, he can enforce the possession law, and if the victim is stronger, he can enforce the "first come" law. The law about giving the king a shilling is always enforced, in fact, I think most customary laws are enforced.That these are requirements that all men are held to; that they are not just good ideas, which we hope you will follow, but rather they will be enforced if you violate them. This clarifies their relationship to the enforcing body, "The Government", and distinguishes it from mom's training.Sufficient to what end? Before moving to the sufficient, we need to get the necessary part sorted out. It is necessary that the law be stated objectively, so that a man can know what is and is not permitted in a society and can know what punishment will result for violating the law; it is necessary that the law describe those ends that are objectively proper given the purpose of government (protection of rights by regulating the use of force); it is necessary that the law actually be applied in order to achieve those ends. I don't what act is sufficient to reach those ends.

Yeah, David, we definitely ought to get the customary thing defined here. I suggest the shilling for the king example is not customary law, but statutory, because it is enforced by the kings government and probably was written down, depending of course which point in history we are using in our example.

I'm assuming here we're defining government as some sort of monopoly of force within a geographic area.

I'm really not certain whether or not most customary law is enforced by governments or not. I'm not yet certain how to answer that question definitively. I don't include laws of nature, such as gravity, etc in the realm of customary law.

Yes, "It is necessary that the law be stated objectively," if the law is to be OBJECTIVE.

But let's stop confusing the issue here, shall we? Such is not necessary for a law to become statutory. And, it is not necessary for it be enforced in an objective manner either, is it?

As good as it is, there are many, many clauses within the U.S. Constitution which are not objective.

Government may be objective or it may not.

Is being of government sufficient for objectivity?

[DavidOdden]

Furthermore, I disagree that it is a necessary aspect of customary law that it be subjective. In point of fact, many is the customary law which will erase those people who do not accept its objectivity, as is the case of those who violate the running out into traffic example above.

The first problem with the subjectivity of customary law is that it is not expressed in fixed, inspectable form. This tends not to be a problem for small primitive societies where people live their whole lives and die in a single hamlet, but becomes a problem when you have an advanced civlization and people move into an area, not knowing the local customs that kids are taught from birth. This is especially why Rome is famous for its development of statutory law, so that all people could know what is required of them. Customary law is not objective, because it isn't out there so that any man can see what it is.

The second related problem of customary law is that because it is not expressed in a definite form, it is very hard to determine whether a particular instance is allowed or prohibited by the law. There are no abstract principles to guide interpretation, so laws have to be applied with reference to the emotions of the ajudicators, i.e. whether they feel that the outcome would be good. Abortion could be called an instance of murder or not an instance of murder, depending on whether the judge holds that a fetus is / is not a "person". In a statutory system, a law prohibiting murder can and is connected to an authoritative, statutory definition of "person", and the meaning of "person" is not left up to the personal whim of the judge. Of course a statutory system can fail to provide those definitions. But a customary law has no means for expressing an authoritative definition, thus a customary law refers to whatever it is that the judge personally feels that the law refers to, and judges & men can differ substantially in those feelings.

Another example is IP law. Protection of a man's right to the product of his mind is extremely limited under customary law, and there is no customary equivalent of or possibility for copyright and patent law with customary law.

[HP11]

So to boil down your definition, David...

Customary law is law which is not written down and therefore not objective?

You might find this interesting:

Politics By Aristotle, Book Three, Part XVI

Again, customary laws have more weight, and relate to more important matters, than written laws, and a man may be a safer ruler than the written law, but not safer than the customary law.

Found at: http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/politics.3.three.html

Edited February 2, 2008 by HP11

[DavidOdden]

Yeah, David, we definitely ought to get the customary thing defined here.

Clearly. Customary law refers to the enforced social customs of various villages, and sets of associated villages. I don't know the details, but I understand that West Saxon, Mercian and Danish customary law were different although fundamentally in agreement in certain ways. There were probably analogs in Greece, and certainly in Rome. I think that in England there were differences in the customs regarding division of property when a man dies. Whether all of the property goes to the oldest son, or 2/3 goes to the oldest son and 1/3 to be divided among the remaining sons, would be an example of different customs. There may be customary laws governing bride price which differ according to location (sometimes the bride's family gives property to the groom, sometimes the groom's family gives property to the bride's family); the nature of the ordeal in a trial by ordeal.

What is required for objectivity is (1) objective statement which entails permanent form (a statute), (2) objective interpretation which entails principles of jurisprudence and an objective method of connecting the law itself to concrete instances (see Smith's Duke journal paper on Originalism for a good discussion), (3) objective justification, i.e. a repudiation of the legal positivist position that it doesn't matter what the law is and that law is an end in and of itself. Rather, law serves a purpose -- a specific law is objectively justified if it correctly captures the relationship between that purpose and the instances described as "prohibited".

The Objectivist understanding of law (and everything) emphasizes "purpose". Your starting point for the man-made must be "what is the purpose?" We then extract a principle that relates facts of reality to that purpose -- if the principle does not correctly relate the purpose and reality, the principle is wrong and must be stated to integrate the purpose and the facts.

[HP11]

Customary law refers to the enforced social customs of various villages, and sets of associated villages.

I cannot agree that Customary Law has either ancient history or villages as essential defining characteristics.

Nor do I see 'enforcement' as essential / necessary, if you mean enforcement by government.

From Bruce Benson's The Enterprise of Law:

Customary law is recognized, not because it is backed by the power of some strong individual or institution, but because each individual recognizes the benefits of behaving in accordance with other individuals' expectations, _given_ that others also behave as he expects. Alternatively, if a minority coercively imposes law from above, then that law will require much more force to maintain social order than is required when law develops from the bottom through mutual recognition and acceptance.

and

Law can imposed from above by some coercive authority, such as a king, a legislature, or a supreme court, or law can develop "from the ground" as customs and practice evolve. Law imposed from the top — authoritarian law — typically requires the support of a powerful minority; law developed from the bottom up — customary law — requires widespread acceptance.

This comes much closer to a definition of Customary Law.

Now Objective Law, Required: (boiled down from your post)

(1) objective statement

(2) objective interpretation, principles connecting the law itself to concrete instances

(3) objective justification, serves a purpose, if it correctly captures the relationship between that purpose and the instances described as "prohibited".

(3) could be better explained: objective justification, reason such purpose is prohibited as derived from the nature of man.

But also required is (4) objective enforcement.

Statutory Law may not necessarily fulfill ANY of these requirements.

Now then, Is government as I've defined it above, which I'm assuming you agree with, "monopoly of force within a geographic area" the only way to obtain such objective goals?

Edited February 2, 2008 by HP11

[HP11]

Now Objective Law, Required: (boiled down from your post, David)

(1) objective statement

(2) objective interpretation, principles connecting the law itself to concrete instances

(3) objective justification, serves a purpose, if it correctly captures the relationship between that purpose and the instances described as "prohibited".

(3) could be better explained: objective justification, reason such purpose is prohibited as derived from the nature of man.

But also required is (4) objective enforcement.

Also:

Written form of the (1)objective statement is not required / essential / necessary for a law to be objective.

Such a statement could be recorded on video or audio. If such an objective law is simple enough, it could be in the form of a poem known by every school child over the age of ten. It could be memorized by three Reciters, who live far enough way to have no interest in the matter.

However, It is required the interpretation and enforcement be separated from the statement.

The statement may not be changeable at the time of interpretation or enforcement.

Edited February 2, 2008 by HP11

[DavidOdden]

Now then, Is government as I've defined it above, which I'm assuming you agree with, "monopoly of force within a geographic area" the only way to obtain such objective goals?

Yes (and I agree that I omitted objective enforcement). I agree that the precise medium of the law is not essential, and video recorded law would fill the bill. Another point though is that "objective knowability" entails publication, so not just putting it in fixed form, but also making it possible to inspect that form. Law must be public, and as widely disseminated as is reaonable, so reciters would only be possible in a primitive pre-literate society.

My objection to your definition of "customary law" is that it simply defines "democracy". Since under all readings of the term that I know of, customary law is a bad thing compared to statutory law, it's not important to me whether the term means "the will of the masses" or "custom, enforced". The important thing is that law constructed by "the people" and voted into existence through the initiative process is still the creation of a statute which is statutory law. The political source of statutory law is non-essential since it can be by legislative action or direct vote of the people, and what matters is the nature of the object created, namely concrete statutes = specific laws.

The problem is, of course, that nothing necessarily yields the results we want, namely objective law in the sense "all 4 of those things". Men have free will, and can choose to contravene the law.

[HP11]

Since under all readings of the term that I know of, customary law is a bad thing compared to statutory law

Aristotle didn't think so. Neither did Hayek. Maybe you could explain what you mean by "bad thing"?

The problem is, of course, that nothing necessarily yields the results we want, namely objective law in the sense "all 4 of those things". Men have free will, and can choose to contravene the law.

Wow! I didn't think you'd ever say that! This is the reason I keep boiling things down. I've learned in law, the more words used, the more risk of misinterpretation.

So, then might it be possible to get all 4 things out of a system which is not linked to a specific geographical territory, but achieved on a contractual basis offered by multiple competing parties?

Edited February 2, 2008 by HP11

[DavidOdden]

So, then might it be possible to get all 4 things out of a system which is not linked to a specific geographical territory, but achieved on a contractual basis offered my multiple competing parties?

No, because of privity of contract and the problem of third parties. A statute obligatorily binds all people in the geographical area, a contract only binds those who specifically and voluntarily enter into the contract. (Contracts also presume governmental law for enforcement and objective evaluation of the fact / contract matching). Whether you have a contractual relationship with some other party is a private affair, but whether you are subject to the laws of a given location is a public fact.

[HP11]

No, because of:

1) Privity of contract. Whether you have a contractual relationship with some other party is a private affair, but whether you are subject to the laws of a given location is a public fact.

2) The problem of third parties. Contracts presume governmental law for enforcement and objective evaluation of the fact / contract matching.

3) A statute obligatorily binds all people in the geographical area, a contract only binds those who specifically and voluntarily enter into the contract.

Is this a correct reorganization of your three objections?

Edited February 2, 2008 by HP11

[DavidOdden]

Is this a correct reorganization of your three objections?

I don't know what distinction you're drawing. The primary distinction is that a statute obligatorily binds all people in the geographical area, and a contract only binds those who specifically and voluntarily enter into the contract. It follows from this that a contract fails the objective justification requirement, since it doesn't satisfy the purpose of law, namely protection of rights (it leaves many rights unprotected).

[DavidV]

I think the distinction you need to be making is that of common law versus criminal law. Common law evolves through the courts, whereas criminal law is established by statutes published by legislatures. With some exceptions, common law used to be the law. The occasional legal statute such as Hammurabi's Code was just a summary of the common law of the time, meant to consolidate rule over a heterogeneous conquests.

Both are objective, in the sense that they are written statements (in court rulings and bills) which enforce predominant legal consensus. Outside of a totalitarian regime, all laws are to some extent based on legal custom. “Anarcho-capitalists” do not dispute the need for objective laws -- they just argue that the consensus of common law is sufficient to establish the rule of law.

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

“Anarcho-capitalists” do not dispute the need for objective laws -- they just argue that the consensus of common law is sufficient to establish the rule of law.

Aside from the fact that anarcho-capitalism is a contradiction in terms, because without a government one's individual rights would not be upheld, common law in some countries and traditions isn't all that bad -- especially in the United States and Great Britain, where there is a long history of striving for freedom; however, common law in and of itself, if by that one means simply the tradition that has been written or spoken, is simply insufficient to uphold capitalism. It does, however, point to the fact that laws -- i.e. governments -- follows from philosophy; but it all depends on what philosophy is predominant when one is discussing individual rights as the proper standard for the law.

Certainly for most countries of the world, the predominant philosophy is not one conducive to freedom, which is the primary reason they don't have freedom.

Regarding quoting Aristotle when it comes to governments and laws, the problem is that during that time period next to nothing was known about how to form a government to protect the individual in all aspects of the law -- i.e. they didn't have a clue about individual rights. In those times, the common law or the tradition was considered more immediately important simply because not much had actually been codified into a government structure. That is why they strove for the most wise person to run the government, because he would know the common law more thoroughly than others based on the traditions that had been handed down.

Ancient Rome made great stride in codifying the law so that once one was in Rome, anyone could know what was legal and what wasn't, as others have pointed out. However, when one has a nation of immigrants, such as the United States, who's common law is going to be followed -- the common law from one's former country or the common law of the country one has entered? You know, one cannot speak of "common law" as if it is common among all people and upheld everywhere.

So, a strict standard of individual rights is what is needed, rather than any debate about common law or codified law or traditional law.

[HP11]

I think the distinction you need to be making is that of common law versus criminal law. Common law evolves through the courts, whereas criminal law is established by statutes published by legislatures. With some exceptions, common law used to be the law. The occasional legal statute such as Hammurabi's Code was just a summary of the common law of the time, meant to consolidate rule over a heterogeneous conquests.

Both are objective, in the sense that they are written statements (in court rulings and bills) which enforce predominant legal consensus. Outside of a totalitarian regime, all laws are to some extent based on legal custom. “Anarcho-capitalists” do not dispute the need for objective laws -- they just argue that the consensus of common law is sufficient to establish the rule of law.

Thank you, GC. I was about to give up.

It's not that I was drawing a "distinction", David. I wanted to distill down your objections. I asked a simple question.

Is this a correct reorganization of your three objections? It requires a yes or no answer -- the no of course with a qualifying explanation.

1) Privity of contract. Whether you have a contractual relationship with some other party is a private affair, but whether you are subject to the laws of a given location is a public fact.

2) The problem of third parties. Contracts presume governmental law for enforcement and objective evaluation of the fact / contract matching.

3) A statute obligatorily binds all people in the geographical area, a contract only binds those who specifically and voluntarily enter into the contract.

Is this a correct reorganization of your three objections?

If they are, just give me a yes. If not, then let's simply correct what I've got wrong.

If you haven't yet figured out where I'm going with this, I'll tell you. I want to find out exactly which one or more of these cannot be answered by anarcho-capitalism acceptably. This is something I've never seen answered anywhere.

The other approach to this question includes the requirements for objective law we earlier today agreed on:

Now Objective Law, Required: (boiled down from your post, David)

(1) objective statement

(2) objective interpretation, principles connecting the law itself to concrete instances

(3) objective justification, reason such purpose is prohibited as derived from the nature of man.

(4) objective enforcement.

Assuming the list is complete, I want to find to find out SPECIFICALLY WHY anarcho-capitalism cannot fulfill these requirements.

I've never seen that answered anywhere either. A detailed answer as to why anarcho-capitalism cannot produce objective law.

Let's get off this objective = statutory claim and get down to specifics.

Edited February 3, 2008 by HP11

[HP11]

The question doesn't make any sense. Obviously the US is "limited" -- compare the US to North Korea. For that matter, consider a meddling centralized bureaucracy, Germany -- it is still limited. If you mean "When has a state ever been limited to just performing the proper functions of government", the answer is "As often as anarchy has actually proven to be a workable political system that doesn't decay into terrorism and despotism".

No, I suspect by limited he meant when has the state ever been limited to not securing more power to itself? As an absolute. Not as a comparison to some slave state.

The problems that you are alluding to arise because the individual rights protection aspect of the US Constitution is weak, but it can be remedied.

SoftwareNerd Wrote: The constitution is a powerful philosophical document. It does more than instruct judges; it is part of the commonly accepted political philosophy. For instance, many people in the U.S. support things like free speech, separation of church and state, and even gun ownership, based on what they have been taught is right. A big part of this is because of what the constitution says, and what people have accepted as "a good political system", based on that.

SN's is a better answer to what we've been discussing, David. Actually his is quite an eloquent answer. Why? Because in other words, the principles pioneered in The Constitution have become a part of Customary Law. The Constitution has taught and promoted this new Customary Law far and wide. But can an established system in be changed to become more objective? I doubt it, but we shall see. So far it's been going the wrong way. The question is, if something isn't working, do you keep on doing it? Edited February 3, 2008 by HP11

[HP11]

Aside from the fact that anarcho-capitalism is a contradiction in terms, because without a government one's individual rights would not be upheld

So you define the terms as:

1) Anarchy: No government

2) Capitalism: upholding individual rights.

Or do you prefer: a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned.

Is this correct?

Edited February 3, 2008 by HP11

[DavidOdden]

Is this a correct reorganization of your three objections?

I have no idea what that would mean -- it isn't how I said it, and I don't understand what you think comes from combining the words in a different order. Therefore, since it was not what I said and the only standard for correctness that I can imagine is "is what I said", then it is not correct. I assume that you can still address the point without rearranging my words.

I want to find out exactly which one or more of these cannot be answered by anarcho-capitalism acceptably.

That, btw, is why I said that "The primary distinction is that a statute obligatorily binds all people in the geographical area, and a contract only binds those who specifically and voluntarily enter into the contract. It follows from this that a contract fails the objective justification requirement, since it doesn't satisfy the purpose of law, namely protection of rights (it leaves many rights unprotected)."

Let's get off this objective = statutory claim and get down to specifics.

And similarly let's move off of this customary law confusion, and simply stick to the rule of law under a government monopoly, versus unlimited competitive use of force with contracts. I do find it more useful to know what your real motives are. Why don't you instead set forth the claim that you want to defend, and then give your arguments for it. I assume you're aware of the numerous arguments against anarcho-capitalism which have been advanced in various anarchy threads here. Don't argue from word-redefinition, argue from fact. Show me how a man's rights are protected under anarcho-capitalism through contracts.

[HP11]

I do find it more useful to know what your real motives are.

I gave my REAL motives in my previous post. The word "real" here is offensive. Think about it, David.

Why don't you instead set forth the claim that you want to defend, and then give your arguments for it.

I'm absolutely not advocating anarcho-capitalism. I find it an interesting possibility which I've not yet seen satisfactorily refuted. At this point I have nothing to defend.

I assume you're aware of the numerous arguments against anarcho-capitalism which have been advanced in various anarchy threads here.

Nope. Got here today. But I'll take a look. Any suggestions where to start?

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

I'm absolutely not advocating anarcho-capitalism. I find it an interesting possibility which I've not yet seen satisfactorily refuted. At this point I have nothing to defend.

If you don't have a position to defend, then what are you writing about?

Capitalism can only exist when there is a government to secure individual rights, that includes a recognition of private property on all levels. The true anarchist has nothing whatsoever to offer, because it doesn't even claim that individual rights will be upheld -- upheld by whom? -- blank out! One cannot rely on the good will of one's neighbors or fellow countrymen to uphold individual rights.

And, besides, what freedoms do the anarchist want that they wouldn't have under capitalism? There is only one that I know of, the power to get together a gang of like minded individuals to settle disputes with force at their discretion, since there won't be anyone to interfere with them, except for that other gang who might disagree with you. What the anarchist want is rule by force of whoever has the most guns and the biggest gang. If they truly wanted to be left alone to live their lives they'd be all over capitalism, because that is what capitalism offers. But, they don't want that. When it comes to settling disputes, they don't want to have to go to the law and have their case heard, they just want to take up arms against the alleged wrong doers and take care of it themselves, which makes them very dangerous to those of us who want individual rights.

[DavidV]

Aside from the fact that anarcho-capitalism is a contradiction in terms, because without a government one's individual rights would not be upheld

That is not a contradiction “in terms.” A contradiction “in terms” implies the use of a logical fallacy or stolen concept in the definition of the word. There is no stolen concept in the question “is government needed to protect rights” because the concept of “rights” is more basic than the concept of “government.” You imply this when you add “would not be”, which is an appeal to consequence.

Whether or not a government is necessary to protect individual rights is not a philosophical question. That matter is different from the question of “what social conditions are necessary for man’s life,” which is an issue of political philosophy. Philosophy can only prescribe the basic social conditions for social existence – freedom and private property. It is the realm of political science to apply philosophical premises to determine which political system best achieves these conditions. The difference matters because philosophy induces from evidence which is essentially universal, whereas the specific sciences require specialized research and expertise.

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

Philosophy can only prescribe the basic social conditions for social existence – freedom and private property. It is the realm of political science to apply philosophical premises to determine which political system best achieves these conditions. The difference matters because philosophy induces from evidence which is essentially universal, whereas the specific sciences require specialized research and expertise.

Negatory. Politics is a branch of philosophy, and in Objectivism it is well presented that only capitalism can uphold individual rights. And capitalism most definitely needs the rule of law, which means a government dedicated to protecting individual rights. Those who want to initiate force will be answered with mind and force -- i.e. the law -- which would be universally applied.

As I have said previously, the only thing an anarchist can argue for that he can't have under capitalism is the retaliatory use of force not dealt with by the government (except for emergencies). With capitalism, you would be free to do anything you want, so long as you don't engage in force or fraud or con-games. What in the world would prevent someone from accepting that?

What do you want to be able to do under "anarcho-capitalism" that you couldn't do under capitalism?

And anarcho-capitalism is a contradiction in terms because anarchism means no laws and no agency to enforce the law (including contracts); and capitalism requires strongly enforced laws upholding individual rights.

Please re-read "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal" or at least tell us what you think is wrong with it; because if you want to uphold anarchy in any form, then you are most definitely not a capitalist. Anarchy has always and will always mean rule by brute force by whoever believes they have been wronged. Anarchy does not mean peaceably getting along with your neighbors.

[HP11]

1st, I want to call your attention to my question here which you ignored:

Aside from the fact that anarcho-capitalism is a contradiction in terms, because without a government one's individual rights would not be upheld

So you define the terms as:

1) Anarchy: No government

2) Capitalism: upholding individual rights.

Or do you prefer: a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned.

Is this correct?

Capitalism can only exist when there is a government to secure individual rights, that includes a recognition of private property on all levels. The true anarchist has nothing whatsoever to offer, because it doesn't even claim that individual rights will be upheld -- upheld by whom? -- blank out! One cannot rely on the good will of one's neighbors or fellow countrymen to uphold individual rights.

And, besides, what freedoms do the anarchist want that they wouldn't have under capitalism? There is only one that I know of, the power to get together a gang of like minded individuals to settle disputes with force at their discretion, since there won't be anyone to interfere with them, except for that other gang who might disagree with you. What the anarchist want is rule by force of whoever has the most guns and the biggest gang. If they truly wanted to be left alone to live their lives they'd be all over capitalism, because that is what capitalism offers. But, they don't want that. When it comes to settling disputes, they don't want to have to go to the law and have their case heard, they just want to take up arms against the alleged wrong doers and take care of it themselves, which makes them very dangerous to those of us who want individual rights.

[HP11]

1st, Thomas, I want to call your attention to my question here which you've so far ignored:

Aside from the fact that anarcho-capitalism is a contradiction in terms, because without a government one's individual rights would not be upheld

So you define the "terms" as:

1) Anarchy: No government

2) Capitalism: upholding individual rights.

Or do you prefer: a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned.

Actually I would prefer for #2: "a political system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned.

I'm calling it a political system because Rand said politics was one of the 5 major branches of philosophy, and that her choice was capitalism. I like her delineation of branches and her choice.

If you agree with the definitions 1 & 2 here, my understanding is you contend "No Government" and "a political system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned" are contradictions in terms.

Now if I have your statement well defined and compared, I'm willing to take a crack at refuting your assertion, that these terms contradict each other. IF you're willing to allow a level playing field. This means no insults, no arguments from authority or arguments from intimidation, or references to outside documents. A fundamental agreement that all arguments, ideas and ideals, stand or fall on their own merits, their own logic and premises. If you are not willing to grant something along these lines as a starting point, then we have nothing to discuss.

As to why I'm here, if I have nothing to defend: Since I am NOT here to advocate anarcho-capitalism or anarchy, I'm here to learn. I'm here to follow conclusions right down, link by link to their roots, to their basic premises.

***

Second, Thomas,

Capitalism can only exist when there is a government to secure individual rights, that includes a recognition of private property on all levels.

The true anarchist has nothing whatsoever to offer, because it doesn't even claim that individual rights will be upheld -- upheld by whom? -- blank out!

One cannot rely on the good will of one's neighbors or fellow countrymen to uphold individual rights.

If you look closely, the 1st and 3rd are assertions, conclusions without basic premise. The second is an assertion based on a straw man as a premise -- a claim to know what an anarchist doesn't claim.

And, besides, what freedoms do the anarchist want that they wouldn't have under capitalism? There is only one that I know of, the power to get together a gang of like minded individuals to settle disputes with force at their discretion, since there won't be anyone to interfere with them, except for that other gang who might disagree with you.

What the anarchist want is rule by force of whoever has the most guns and the biggest gang.

If they truly wanted to be left alone to live their lives they'd be all over capitalism, because that is what capitalism offers.

The word "gang" is pejorative here. Congress, also, at its worst, could be construed a gang. I suggest, when you use words like this you may be compensating for weak argument. That said, in the first instance, you may not "know of" one, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist; of course that doesn't mean it does exist either. However, I'm willing attempt to find some possibilities, if they'll be given honest consideration. In the second instance, again, this is your unsupported assertion.

But, they don't want that. When it comes to settling disputes, they don't want to have to go to the law and have their case heard, they just want to take up arms against the alleged wrong doers and take care of it themselves, which makes them very dangerous to those of us who want individual rights.

Again, Thomas, this is what you say. You are speaking for them.

So what do you say? Are my conditions acceptable? Or not?

Edited February 3, 2008 by HP11

[HP11]

On second thought, Thomas, after reviewing the forum rule pasted below, perhaps my idea is not such a good one. Perhaps an admin can rule in advance, but though anarchy and anarcho-capitalism are not strictly mentioned therein, it seems that even playing devils-advocate to the best of my ability in favor of them might be construed as spreading ideas which are a part or a form of libertarianism, or at least contrary to Objectivism.

Prohibited Behavior

1. Consistency with the purpose of this site

This site supports discussion of, first, the principles of Objectivism, as defined by the works of Ayn Rand and supported by the Ayn Rand Institute; and, second, their application to various fields. Therefore participants must not use the website to spread ideas contrary to or unrelated to Objectivism. Examples include religion, communism, "moral tolerationism," and libertarianism. Honest questions about such subjects are permitted.

This forum will not tolerate rude or insulting comments about Ayn Rand, her philosophy of Objectivism, the Ayn Rand Institute, the representatives and supporters of the Institute, or the adherents of the philosophy.

Edited February 3, 2008 by HP11