One Nagging Question

[HP11]

Politics is a branch of philosophy, and in Objectivism it is well presented that only capitalism can uphold individual rights.

Capitalism most definitely needs the rule of law, which means a government dedicated to protecting individual rights.

Rand held Law to be a branch of political philosophy. Also, I prefer to reserve the word "needs" to human beings. I prefer to use the word "requires" when referring to things including philosophy.

I have one question here, about Capitalism requiring the rule of law. If the rule of law requires initiation of force against individuals in order to itself be initiated, doesn't such a contradiction make such a supporting system immoral by its nature as compared with the fundamental rights and needs of man?

Edited February 3, 2008 by HP11

[HP11]

Rand held Law to be a branch of political philosophy. Also, I prefer to reserve the word "needs" to human beings. I prefer to use the word "requires" when referring to things including philosophy.

I have one question here, about Capitalism requiring the rule of law. If the rule of law requires initiation of force against individuals in order to itself be initiated, doesn't such a contradiction make such a supporting system immoral by its nature as compared with the fundamental rights and needs of man?

Clarification:

If the rule of law requires initiation of force against individuals in order to itself be initiated, doesn't such a contradiction make such a supporting system (the rule of law initiated / set up using that method--initiation of force) immoral by its nature as compared with the fundamental rights and needs of man?

Edited February 3, 2008 by HP11

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

If the rule of law requires initiation of force against individuals in order to itself be initiated, doesn't such a contradiction make such a supporting system (the rule of law initiated / set up using that method--initiation of force) immoral by its nature as compared with the fundamental rights and needs of man?

There is no such contradiction under capitalism. The law or the government could not force you to do anything against your will, unless you first initiated force or if you wanted to take the law into your own hands. Getting along peaceably with your neighbor is not a problem under capitalism, the problem comes in when your rights are being violated and how they will be resolved. The idea that everything will be settled with contracts, which is how I've seen the resolution of conflicts under "anarcho-capitalism", wouldn't work because contracts are enforceable by law; and if there is no law, then how do you resolve disputes regarding contracts? Miss Rand has stated that the payment to the government could be handled like an insurance policy or like a lottery, but that is the payment method, not the competing government theory that some anarcho-capitalists tend to lean towards.

The bottom line is that governments are wielders of force, and so logically any competing governments in the same geographical region would have to be settled by force -- i.e. civil war. In our current system of government in the United Sates, jurisdictions are clearly set out; that is, even though the local government and the county government overlaps the Federal government, it is set in law as to what the jurisdictions are. Under a competing government type of system I've seen regarding anarcho-capitalism, such jurisdictions would not be spelled out because there is no overriding law for a given geographical area. If you can make a case for this, go ahead and do so, but I can't see how not having pre-established jurisdiction set by law will not lead to a civil war of "competing governments". And besides, if they are governments, then it is not anarchy.

I'm still waiting for someone to tell me what they think they will gain by having anarchy versus capitalism. Any takers?

Under anarchy, there would be no one to protect your individual rights, unless you had your own security force, and as someone else has already pointed out, this is like the gangs that crop up in some of our major cities -- and they sure as heck don't settle disputes peaceably.

[HP11]

There is no such contradiction under capitalism.

I understand, the way you see it monopoly government is a necessary requirement of capitalism. But I wasn't asking about capitalism in general. I was asking about monopoly government. Perhaps a small distinction from your perspective, but not from an anarchist's, is it?

The law or the government could not force you to do anything against your will, unless you first initiated force or if you wanted to take the law into your own hands.

What if YOU were there first and didn't want to be subjected to that particular government? I suppose there the government could answer, why not? We're fair. We're just. We're magically perfect. Take our word for it. What if you didn't believe them? In such a case, wouldn't their claim of jurisdiction suggest a threat of initiatory force? In case they weren't perfect and your suspicions happened to be correct? Edited February 3, 2008 by HP11

[DavidOdden]

In such a case, wouldn't their claim of jurisdiction suggest a threat of initiatory force?

This is relevant only in the case of the beginnings of civilization in some territory, and forcible annexation. There are no such places on Earth. If you were to settle on an asteroid and wanted to live entirely apart from civilization, you can. However, as an outlaw who has rejected civilization, you're not entitled to the same presumptions of goodwill that are afforded to civilized people, and whether or not you keep yourself apart from society, you still can't threaten society. If you allow your asteroid to be used as a base of operations for terrorists, the government has the right to come in and root out these terrorists by force. In this case, it is the terrorists who are initiating force, and the governments action is retaliatory, not initiatory.

[HP11]

This is relevant only in the case of the beginnings of civilization in some territory, and forcible annexation. There are no such places on Earth.

1787/09/19 Wed - Constitution is published in the Pennsylvania Packet

1787/09/28 Fri - Congress approves the Constitution and sends it to the states

1787/10/05 Fri - First Centinel Anti-Federalist letter published

1787/10/27 Sat - First Federalist Paper is published

1787/12/07 Fri - Delaware ratifies

1787/12/12 Wed - Pennsylvania ratifies

1787/12/18 Tue - New Jersey ratifies

1788/01/09 Wed - Connecticut ratifies

1788/02/02 Sat - Georgia ratifies

1788/02/06 Wed - Massachusetts ratifies

1788/03/24 Mon - Rhode Island referendum rejects Constitution

1788/04/28 Mon - Maryland ratifies

1788/05/23 Fri - South Carolina ratifies

1788/05/28 Wed - The Federalist published (Federalist Papers 1-85)

1788/06/21 Sat - New Hampshire ratifies

1788/06/21 Sat - Constitution Ratified

1788/06/25 Wed - Virginia ratifies

1788/07/02 Wed - Congress is informed the Constitution has been ratified

1788/07/26 Sat - New York ratifies

1788/09/13 Sat - Congress votes to begin a new government on the following March 4

--->HOW ABOUT RIGHT HERE?

[HP11]

This is relevant only in the case of the beginnings of civilization in some territory, and forcible annexation. There are no such places

Isn't that known as context switching? What's that got to do with it? Why look to disprove a moral principle based on whether or not you can find a present day example? I do, however, appreciate your honesty in conceding it would be "relevant".

[HP11]

This is relevant only in the case of the beginnings of civilization in some territory, and forcible annexation. There are no such places on Earth.

Would another example include: Say someone's property is in such and such a county...then a nearby city votes to expand and forcibly annex that part of the county into their area of incorporation? Allow me to point out there might be new restrictions on deeds and other laws, such restrictions amounting to a violation of the takings clause. And of course this example does not represent an idealized Objectivist government. But it is a present day example, isn't it? I mean as long as we're context switching from the abstract moral to the concrete? Edited February 3, 2008 by HP11

[DavidOdden]

Would another example include: Say someone's property is in such and such a county...then a nearby city votes to expand and forcibly annex that part of the county into their area of incorporation?

That would be the initiation of force. All of the ensuing reasons for such annexation are initiation of force anyhow.

There never exists any context where annexation is moral, and there no longer exists a context where men move into an area not already within the jurisdiction of an existing government. So it isn't a "claim" about jursdiction when a man moves somewhere, it is a fact. It doesn't matter whether you want to be subjected to a particular government or not, what matters is that it is right and proper for the government to force you to comply with just laws, as long as you are indeed living within the territory that the government has jurisdiction over. That's the moral principle that you need to come to grips with.

[HP11]

...and there no longer exists a context where men move into an area not already within the jurisdiction of an existing government.

When does an example become a context?

[DavidOdden]

When does an example become a context?

That doesn't mean anything. Did you mean to ask something else?

[HP11]

That doesn't mean anything. Did you mean to ask something else?

In your previous response you used the word context instead of example. Why?

[DavidOdden]

In your previous response you used the word context instead of example. Why?

A context is conceptual, an example is a concrete. I was addressing the question on a principled basis.

[HP11]

A context is conceptual, an example is a concrete. I was addressing the question on a principled basis.

Ah. I thought you were using the word context as if it were representing analogically an actual place, because of the word "where" following it. Maybe a comma after the word "context" would have helped or another sentence structure. Thanks. Edited February 4, 2008 by HP11

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

1788/09/13 Sat - Congress votes to begin a new government on the following March 4

--->HOW ABOUT RIGHT HERE?

You still haven't told me what freedoms were lost when the new United States Government was ratified. At that point, it was the most free government ever conceived on earth and throughout history. How was this capitalist system imposing things on those who lived in the United States? I mean in terms of what individual rights did they lose?

I suppose that one of the things the anarchist doesn't like is that if he disagrees with the law he can't just disregard it and go on with his life as he was doing, but what was he doing under a wilderness condition that he wouldn't be able to do under capitalism?

One issue that came up early on was taxation, especially the Whiskey Rebellion in Pennsylvania whereby the whiskey manufacturers were taxed. I do think that sin taxes are corrupt, as they do violate individual rights, such as the very high taxes I pay for smoking cigarettes, but the solution is not to ignore the law and possibly get thrown in jail, but rather to fight ideologically for capitalism. Taxation to support the government was one of the things I wish they would have resolved better at the beginning, but they didn't. They did, however, set up a means of voicing one's grievances against the government and made it possible to find better representatives, and thus change those laws. So, one of the things that an anarchist doesn't like is the idea that he has to make an ideological position clear to others -- i.e. he must be civilized -- instead of just blindly rebelling on the range of the moment; that is simply refuse to obey the law. Shooting the revenuers, as they did during the bootlegging time period was not a solution, since it is short-range and does not get to the root of the problem. So, if those whiskey manufactures had come up with a better solution to taxation, we would all be better off.

In other cases of disagreeing with the law, such as thinking that software programs ought to be copyrighted instead of patented so that one could be free to use patented software in one's own programs without the need to consult the creators of those patents, disagreeing with the law in action -- i.e. ignoring software patents -- would be a violation of the rights of the patent holder. In other words, just because one disagrees with the law as it currently stands even under pseudo-capitalism, this does not mean that in practice one is upholding individual rights better than the government. A disagreement with the law is not a proof of it violating individual rights.

The philosophy of law is a specialty, that is determining if a given law violates individual rights or upholds them does require a specialty that is not directly answerable via the abstraction of capitalism under Objectivism, but this must be determined under the political branch of philosophy that sets the general guidelines -- i.e the law ought to uphold individual rights of all of those involved in the dispute.