Limiting Government

[Greebo]

However, how does a nation become freer? Typically this is done through legislative enactment, a decree or a revolution. Regardless, it must be executed by one or more individuals. If a collection of individuals can domestically forge a freer nation or improve the level of freedom in an existing nation, why cannot they do so abroad? Post WWII Japan was made substantially freer by the Allied forces.

While the people of Eastern Germany and the USSR did not become freer, in that they still lived under a totalitarian state. The difference between what happened in the East vs. the West in post WWII does not fall to what the Allied nations did, but to what the people within those societies chose. The Japanese had been brought to near destruction by force brought upon them in retaliation for the actions of their government. I suspect that this caused them to make a fundamental change in attitude about the role of government. After all - if your Government's war mongering ended with two of your biggest cities being flattened with 2 bombs, wouldn't you be ready to vote for change?

Granted, an established, free nation will fail if there are not a sufficient number of individuals ideologically committed to keeping it free. But, since we are discussing assisting in the overthrow of a despotic government when it is not a moral imperative, why get involved in nation building if there are no individuals in the nation who are committed to freedom?

In Iraq, we have not "made them freer" - the Iraqi government and the Iraqi people are not adopting Capitalism in the vacuum of political power we created, or at the point of our forces guns. They, rightfully, feel they were invaded, and while getting rid of Saddam was a good thing for most of them, they don't see a need to change their fundamental principles. Result? The Iraqi government is *not* getting control of the situation, and we're now morally stuck there with the responsibility of taking care of the place because of the mess we made.

You can't make a nation freer unless the nation wants to be free.

[DarkWaters]

While the people of Eastern Germany and the USSR did not become freer, in that they still lived under a totalitarian state. The difference between what happened in the East vs. the West in post WWII does not fall to what the Allied nations did, but to what the people within those societies chose.

The extended plight in East Germany had a lot to do with the Soviet occupation. Remember that the Berlin Wall served the purpose of keeping the East Germans trapped within. I doubt that the residents of East Germany chose Soviet occupation.

The Japanese had been brought to near destruction by force brought upon them in retaliation for the actions of their government. I suspect that this caused them to make a fundamental change in attitude about the role of government. After all - if your Government's war mongering ended with two of your biggest cities being flattened with 2 bombs, wouldn't you be ready to vote for change?

Yes, that is the point. Moreover, most of the Japanese did not vote for a change then, they were essentially told what to do by the Allied forces. Remember that General MacArthur had the original post WWII Japanese constitution, which was drafted by the Matsumoto Commission, torn up because it was not sufficiently different from the Meiji Constitution. So as to not have the error repeated, MacArthur ordered his own staff to draft a new constitution.

In Iraq, we have not "made them freer" - the Iraqi government and the Iraqi people are not adopting Capitalism in the vacuum of political power we created, or at the point of our forces guns. They, rightfully, feel they were invaded, and while getting rid of Saddam was a good thing for most of them, they don't see a need to change their fundamental principles. Result? The Iraqi government is *not* getting control of the situation, and we're now morally stuck there with the responsibility of taking care of the place because of the mess we made.

I am not sure why you are bringing Iraq up. I am not claiming that the Bush Administration has been making Iraq freer, even if the Iraqis probably are better off without a dictator who gases villages and maintains torture camps. If you want to read a few articles by Objectivists on Operation Iraqi Freedom, then consider here, here and here. You can also view Leonard Peikoff's views against invading Iraq, from back in 1997 here.

[Greebo]

The extended plight in East Germany had a lot to do with the Soviet occupation. Remember that the Berlin Wall served the purpose of keeping the East Germans trapped within. I doubt that the residents of East Germany chose Soviet occupation.

Many didn't - they fled.

Yes, that is the point. Moreover, most of the Japanese did not vote for a change then, they were essentially told what to do by the Allied forces.

First of all - look at the contradiction in what you're saying about Japan - that Japan became freer because we TOLD them to? That's absurd on its face.

When I say vote, I don't mean a vote as in the process of an election - I mean a deep, internal vote - a change in the moral compass. The Japanese became freer because they were ready to embrace that freedom. If the Japanese had not been so, no amount of enforced constitution following would have worked in the long run.

I am not sure why you are bringing Iraq up. I am not claiming that the Bush Administration has been making Iraq freer, even if the Iraqis probably are better off without a dictator who gases villages and maintains torture camps.

No, the Bush camp is. And thats my point exactly - we went in by force to tear down an oppressive regime, to Liberate and Free the people. I bring up Iraq, because Iraq is as near of an example to, as you said, "force tyrants to relinquish power at the point of a gun and hand it over to those who truly wish to uphold freedom." Remember the names they used: "Operation Iraqi Liberation", "Operation Iraqi Freedom". We committed ourselves to bring the Iraqi people to freedom at the point of a gun, and oh its been a colossal failure, because the Iraqi people are NOT ready to embrace freedom, and we can't make them do it. By destroying their political structure, when they had not initiated force (this time), we fueled the sentiment among a significant number of the population that we wanted to destroy Iraq as a nation, not bring freedom. Many welcomed us into Iraq - but many also rose up to fight us as an oppressive invading force, which has forced us to become exactly that.

We went to Japan because we were retaliating for the initiation of force by their government against our people and property. I don't know what the names of the operation were, but they should have been 'Operation kick the crap out of the bully who just assaulted us until they go running for cover', cause that is exactly what we did. We were attacked, we met force with force, and we inflicted upon the Japanese people the life they had chosen - to the utter brink of destruction - and I believe that it was only because they saw what their hundreds of years of traditional subservience to their betters had brought them that they woke up and smelled the freedom.

Making someone freer cannot be done at the point of a gun.

[Zip]

Just a point for both David and DragonMaci. The word harm is very specifically defined as physical harm. The ridiculous notion that if someone charges you more for something he could be said to be harming you is nonsense. The idea that the government could claim that someone speaking out against some law could constitute harm it is similarly untrue.

This is the problem. I define harm as a physical thing. If I kick you in the groin I am causing you harm. If I call you an idiot and looser I am not causing you harm. If I lock you in a room without ever touching you, feed you and keep you alive I have removed your freedom but I have not harmed you, the removal of freedom is just as evil an act as physical harm but it is not the same. To claim otherwise is to open up the possibility that someone saying something you don't like is harm, someone taking over your business is initiating force.

The ridiculous example most often claiming initiation of force and causing harm is taxation. Taxation is not harm as it is not physical force. It most certainly infringes on liberty (in that we as individuals in the world today can not choose to not pay) but it causes no physical harm. The broader definition of harm as you seem to construe it leads to the sort of perpetuation of fabricated "rights" like we in Canada are now seeing as people claim that their right to not be offended (because it causes them harm) trumps the right of free speech or freedom of the press. Google Ezra Levant or Mark Stein if you want to see where the hypersensitivity to 'harm' leads you

So how would any of the rest of you concisely and simply limit a government to objectivist political principals? Give it a try. Put your ideals where your mouth is.

[Greebo]

Just a point for both David and DragonMaci. The word harm is very specifically defined as physical harm. The ridiculous notion that if someone charges you more for something he could be said to be harming you is nonsense. The idea that the government could claim that someone speaking out against some law could constitute harm it is similarly untrue.

Reputation and customer trust are real assets, even though they are intangibles. (Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal). If a person damages your reputation unjustly, they have done you harm.

The ridiculous example most often claiming initiation of force and causing harm is taxation. Taxation is not harm as it is not physical force.

Really? Try not paying it and see how long it takes for them to come with guns and put you in jail.

[Zip]

Reputation and customer trust are real assets, even though they are intangibles. (Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal). If a person damages your reputation unjustly, they have done you harm.

No they have slandered or libeled you they have not harmed your person

Really? Try not paying it and see how long it takes for them to come with guns and put you in jail.

Show me the cuts or bruises you received from paying your taxes.

Compulsion under law is not harm. I am not harmed by being forced to stop at a stop sign nor am I harmed when the police pull me over for it and ticket me.

Let me be very clear I know that the vast majority of current 'laws' infringe on my rights to life, liberty and property as they should be but that in and of itself does not harm my person.

[Greebo]

No they have slandered or libeled you they have not harmed your person

Harm my businesses reputation by lying about me, you harm my business. Harm my business, you harm me.

Libel and slander laws exist as protections against the harm done BY libel and slander.

Furthermore, the word Harm appears three times in the Original post. In only two of those three cases, is Harm defined as "physical" harm.

Show me the cuts or bruises you received from paying your taxes.

Compulsion under law is not harm. I am not harmed by being forced to stop at a stop sign nor am I harmed when the police pull me over for it and ticket me.

Let me be very clear I know that the vast majority of current 'laws' infringe on my rights to life, liberty and property as they should be but that in and of itself does not harm my person.

The 2nd definition of harm, per dictionary.com, is a moral wrong or evil. If Harm is going to be in the proposed Contract (constitution), then the full and total meaning of ALL definitions of "Harm" must be considered, because Harm is used in the aforementioned "Harm clause" without any limiting adjective such as "Physical" - it is stated simply as "harm".

[DarkWaters]

First of all - look at the contradiction in what you're saying about Japan - that Japan became freer because we TOLD them to? That's absurd on its face.

There is no contradiction or absurdity in what I said. Post WWII-Japan had a significantly more properly designed government because the U.S. forces saw to it that they did. This would not have been the case, had the Japanese been left to their own devices to design whatever post WWII government they wanted. We have every reason to believe that the Japanese would have significantly less individual rights upholded had the Allied Forces not taken an uncompromising stance on seeing the separation of Shintoism and State as well as on the content of their new constitution.

No, the Bush camp is. And thats my point exactly - we went in by force to tear down an oppressive regime, to Liberate and Free the people. I bring up Iraq, because Iraq is as near of an example to, as you said, "force tyrants to relinquish power at the point of a gun and hand it over to those who truly wish to uphold freedom." Remember the names they used: "Operation Iraqi Liberation", "Operation Iraqi Freedom".

To reiterate from what I said before, when President Bush and the Neoconservatives say "freedom", they mean something substantially different in essence from what I mean. When the former speak of freedom, they mean the freedom to be ruled by democratic elections, even if it results in the Parliamentary majority of the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council and the Islamic Dawa Party. When the Neoconservatives speak of freedom, they mean the freedom to force all residents to be subjected to Sharia Law, if that is what the "people" want. When the Neoconservatives and the Bush Administration speak of freedom, they mean the "freedom" for electorates to vote to nationalize private industries. In practice, by freedom, the Neocons mean rule by tyranny of the majority, with a few nominal constitutional constraints. This is the "freedom" that was brought to Iraq, and it will not succeed, even if it is an improvement over the rule of Saddam Hussein.

When I speak of freedom, I mean a government founded on protecting individual rights, most notably, the rights to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness and property. I am adamantly against the idea of rule by democracy. 90% of the country cannot rightfully vote to deprive the other 10% of their rights. Instead, I advocate a society based on laissez-faire capitalism where individuals live by the Trader Principle. I advocate a society with a strict and uncompromising separation between religion and state. This notion of "freedom" was not brought to Iraq. It was never even on the table.

Please stop equivocating these two concepts.

Edited May 2, 2008 by DarkWaters

[Zip]

by lying about me

That is slander and you are protected from slander.

Furthermore, the word Harm appears three times in the Original post. In only two of those three cases, is Harm defined as "physical" harm.

The 2nd definition of harm, per dictionary.com, is a moral wrong or evil. If Harm is going to be in the proposed Contract (constitution), then the full and total meaning of ALL definitions of "Harm" must be considered, because Harm is used in the aforementioned "Harm clause" without any limiting adjective such as "Physical" - it is stated simply as "harm".

Good point. I'll fix that.

Edited May 2, 2008 by Zip

[DavidOdden]

The word harm is very specifically defined as physical harm. The ridiculous notion that if someone charges you more for something he could be said to be harming you is nonsense. The idea that the government could claim that someone speaking out against some law could constitute harm it is similarly untrue.

"The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others." What is physical harm? I assume that theft is not physical harm; that kidnapping is not physical harm, if done carefully without brusing the victim. Depriving a person of medication that he needs for his body to exist, alive, is clearly causing physical harm. Only certain kinds of causing physical harm constitute the initiation of force, and numerous kinds of initiation of force do not cause physical harm.

If a law cannot be harmed, what is the point of having a constitutional provision that allows the government to initiate force against an individual in order to "protect a law"?

Of course if the intent is simply to set forth a synopsis of basical political statements that would reflect your philosophy, as benevolent ruler of the people, then it isn't important to state law and (constitutional) meta-law objectively, and we could just trust in your good intentions. The term "welfare" is contained in the infamous Welfare clause -- it isn't defined, which unfortunately means that the welfare state is actually mandated by the Constitution.

Here is an uninvited revision of your constitution which I think corrects the basic errors and otherwise keeps to the original (minus the article on Security)

Article 1: Government;

The sole purpose of government is to protect the rights of individuals from the initiation of force. A private individual may do anything except that which is legally forbidden; a government official may do nothing as a government afficial except that which is legally permitted. A law is valid only if it serves the purpose of protecting the rights of individuals, and the creation and enforcement of such laws is the fundamental obligation of the government.

Article 2: Rights;

The XXX Objective Republic affirms the following fundamental rights;

• Right to Life – Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign. No government shall set down or offer implicit support to any means, method, or moral code by which any person may live, make or rule his own life.

• Right of Liberty – The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any person, against his will, is to prevent the initiation of force against others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant for the use of force. Government shall not initiate force against the individual, and shall not use force against the individual except as prescribed by law in order to protect the rights of others against the initiation of force.

• Right of Property - The right of property is among the most important individual rights guaranteed by the Constitution and the one which, united with that of personal liberty, has contributed more to the growth of civilization than any other institution established by the human race. Government can not in any way appropriate property except when seized according to law as punishment for violation of rights. Said property once seized must be auctioned or sold in the open market.

• Right of Equality – All individuals are equal in all respects before the law and government.

Article 3: Law;

The XXX Objective Republic does hereby limit the legislative purview of government;

• Government shall pass no law except as required to protect the rights of individuals from initiation of force.

• Government shall make no legislation limiting business or other free and voluntary associations and agreements.

• Government shall raise no taxes.

• Government may only legislate punitive law where it is demonstrably justified that the action or omission by an individual, group, corporation or similar entity will violate the rights of another.

• Government may develop and institute such law as required to resolve breach of contract and civil torts.

An alternative start is here; it focuses more on the purposive foundation, and may not be suitable for your purpose.

[DragonMaci]

Just a point for both David and DragonMaci. The word harm is very specifically defined as physical harm. The ridiculous notion that if someone charges you more for something he could be said to be harming you is nonsense. The idea that the government could claim that someone speaking out against some law could constitute harm it is similarly untrue.

That is just as flawed. Charging prices for food that I cannot afford could lead to me going hungry and suffering the pjysical harm of hunger. That should not be made illegal, but by not specifying force, you leave it open for the government to do so. In other words, you need to do better than word it as physical harm, you need to word it as iniating force. The crack is there whether you want to accept it or not.

Besides, harm isn't the essential issue here. The essential issue is the iniation of force. You should stick to the essentials rather than non-essentials like harm. Also, consider that force can be initiated without any detectable harm. If the law and constitution focus on the non-essential of harm a person that iniates force without causing noticeable harm can and at least sometimes will get off scott free.

This is the problem. I define harm as a physical thing. If I kick you in the groin I am causing you harm. If I call you an idiot and looser I am not causing you harm. If I lock you in a room without ever touching you, feed you and keep you alive I have removed your freedom but I have not harmed you, the removal of freedom is just as evil an act as physical harm but it is not the same. To claim otherwise is to open up the possibility that someone saying something you don't like is harm, someone taking over your business is initiating force.

No one is claiming they are the same.

The ridiculous example most often claiming initiation of force and causing harm is taxation. Taxation is not harm as it is not physical force. It most certainly infringes on liberty (in that we as individuals in the world today can not choose to not pay) but it causes no physical harm. The broader definition of harm as you seem to construe it leads to the sort of perpetuation of fabricated "rights" like we in Canada are now seeing as people claim that their right to not be offended (because it causes them harm) trumps the right of free speech or freedom of the press. Google Ezra Levant or Mark Stein if you want to see where the hypersensitivity to 'harm' leads you

Wrong, wrong, wrong. Taxation does cause harm, financial harm. And it does involve initiation of force - you will get thrown in jail at the point of a gun if you do not pay your taxes and will be forced to pay them at the point of a gun. That is physical force. Besides, you contradict yourself by saying it isn't force and that we can't choose to pay it. The only way we couldn't choose whether or not to pay it is if we were forced to pay it. As for it not causing physical harm, what about the people that cannot afford to feed their children and themselves properly, but would be able to if they were not taxed? Hunger is a form of physical harm, one that they are forced to put up with.

As for the broadness of the definition of harm used, well me and David are trying to tell you yours is too broad and needs to be made thinner for lack of a better word. So, now we are not using a broad definition that leads to the "rights" claimed in Canada. We are arguing for a definition that is less broad. As for Ezra levant, I have no need to Google him. I read his blog. As an example, I recently reaf about the ex-McDonalds worker that has the "right" to infect McDonald's customers.

In addition I am saying you need to focus on the initiation of physical force since that is the essential and harm is non-essential. I think David would agree with me that the initiation of force is the important issue here, not harm.

EDIT: David's most recent post (the one above this one) suggests he does agree with me as i suspected he would.

Edited May 2, 2008 by DragonMaci

[DragonMaci]

Here is an uninvited revision of your constitution which I think corrects the basic errors and otherwise keeps to the original (minus the article on Security)

Article 1: Government;

The sole purpose of government is to protect the rights of individuals from the initiation of force. A private individual may do anything except that which is legally forbidden; a government official may do nothing as a government afficial except that which is legally permitted. A law is valid only if it serves the purpose of protecting the rights of individuals, and the creation and enforcement of such laws is the fundamental obligation of the government.

Article 2: Rights;

The XXX Objective Republic affirms the following fundamental rights;

• Right to Life – Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign. No government shall set down or offer implicit support to any means, method, or moral code by which any person may live, make or rule his own life.

• Right of Liberty – The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any person, against his will, is to prevent the initiation of force against others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant for the use of force. Government shall not initiate force against the individual, and shall not use force against the individual except as prescribed by law in order to protect the rights of others against the initiation of force.

• Right of Property - The right of property is among the most important individual rights guaranteed by the Constitution and the one which, united with that of personal liberty, has contributed more to the growth of civilization than any other institution established by the human race. Government can not in any way appropriate property except when seized according to law as punishment for violation of rights. Said property once seized must be auctioned or sold in the open market.

• Right of Equality – All individuals are equal in all respects before the law and government.

Article 3: Law;

The XXX Objective Republic does hereby limit the legislative purview of government;

• Government shall pass no law except as required to protect the rights of individuals from initiation of force.

• Government shall make no legislation limiting business or other free and voluntary associations and agreements.

• Government shall raise no taxes.

• Government may only legislate punitive law where it is demonstrably justified that the action or omission by an individual, group, corporation or similar entity will violate the rights of another.

• Government may develop and institute such law as required to resolve breach of contract and civil torts.

Good work, David. I can find no problems with that one.

Zip, that os what your Constitution should be like, at least in principle and spirit.

[DavidOdden]

I think David would agree with me that the initiation of force is the important issue here, not harm.

Entirely so.

[Zip]

Fair enough. I didn't see the issue the way you have explained it. I saw a semantic difference, nothing more.

Having read your revision David I agree that it is cleaner than my original.

The spirit and the intent are unchanged, that at least is some comfort.

[DavidOdden]

The spirit and the intent are unchanged, that at least is some comfort.

This is where I think Objectivism has the potential to make real substantive contributions to jurisprudence, to put emphasis on the notion of knowledge as ever-expanding. One starts with a statement that describes the particular spirit and intent -- having to do with man's nature and the proper role of government with respect to man's survival. But it is ridiculous to demand that man be infallible and omniscient -- so when man discovers that his statements don't quite hit the mark, he refines his statements. That underlying intent is really what it's all about, and thus we revise when we become aware of such divergences. I have found that an Objectivist epistemology is particularly good as a way of approaching the problem of error in the law. Needless to say, semantic differences are never "mere", they are fundamental. (Remembering my professional grinding-axe, of course).

[fletch]

Is it a right of liberty and property or a right to liberty and property? Or doesnt it really matter?

[Zip]

Should be to across the board. Good catch