Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Laissez-Faire Capitalism

Rate this topic


JeffS

Recommended Posts

Are laws force?

No, laws are not force. Laws are laws. Force is force. However, you probably meant to ask whether laws use force, and yes they do, by definition.

However, according to Objectivism laws should not violate individual rights. (an equivalent statement would be that "laws should never initiate the use of force")

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 87
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I'm obviously not being very clear. Please, allow me to try again.

My argument is that, in order to safeguard a laissez-faire capitalist market and economy, laws against the initiation of force must exist. But laws are an initiation of force. If you started with a blank slate, and wanted to create a society with laissez-fair capitalism, you would first have to create laws which protect that capitalism. The individuals in the society would not have initiated force in any way, yet the government's first action would be to say, in effect, "Follow the rules, or something bad will happen to you." Which is coercion.

Yes, if someone breaks a law and the government uses force against them in retaliation, that is not an initiation of force. But that's not when the force began. The force began, was initiated, when the government threatened the citizens with force if they failed to comply with the laws.

At first, I considered this to simply be an issue of consequences. You are free to break the law, but you are not free to escape the consequences of going to jail, or paying a fine. Therefore, a law is not force - it merely tells what the consequences are if action is taken; like when the doctor tells you, "Continue to smoke and you'll die in a year." This is not a threat, simply a statement of fact - cause and effect. But that argument falls apart when used in the case of a mugger and his victim. Is the mugger's demand of, "Give me your money or die" simply a statement of fact - cause and effect? Or is it force?

When thinking in terms of objective Law - at least the way I understand it - you have to think of objective laws as the social application of self-defense. You have the right to your life and your property. But this also implies the right to defend your life and property from those that would take it from you - by force.

In a civilized society (such as ours), it's unreasonable (and there is a long chain of argument to get to this assumption) to expect every citizen to have an army ranger or navy seal level of skill to defend themselves against every possible domestic threat, and logistically impossible for every citizen (individually) to protect themselves against a foreign one.

THIS is where the Government steps in to use retaliatory (not initiatory) force. Remember, Capitalism is a social-political system where "all property is privately owned" not "a system of competition". As a social system where all property is privately owned, the Government necessarily is "living" on leased or borrowed property, acting on every individual's behalf, and has the sole function of applying the right of self-defense by proxy for every individual living in the country.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

JeffS,

Good point. But this would imply laws are force. If the government is making a threat of retributive force, or any other kind of force, it's still making a threat - which would mean it's using a form of force regardless of what you do. That would be initiatory force.

The source of our disagreement may be something that softwareNerd suggested earlier: we're using "force" in different ways. People offhandedly describe an unjust law as force since it is in fact an initiation of force by the government, and they don't call proper laws force since the government isn't behaving like a mugger when it upholds proper law. However, technically speaking, all laws prescribe force (in the sense of ultimately prescribing force at the primary, physical level) in certain circumstances, and the bad ones merely prescribe force that violate individual rights instead of protecting them.

Similarly, people generally use the term "threat" in a legal context in cases like the mugger, who is giving an expression of intending to violate your rights. But if threat means "an expression of intention to inflict injury or damage", then it's true that the government is "threatening" retribution against rights violations; however, labeling such retribution as a "threat" has no bearing on the propriety of the law.

I can't give you an example. I think the proper answer to my question is: laws are never force, nor coercion, nor threats. Like laws of physics, or chemistry, laws merely describe causes and effects. They codify what is considered intolerable in society and prescribe what force will be used as punishment. Since laws are not force, or coercion, or threats, the government can never be said to be initiating force, or regulating, or interfering with the free-market for just having laws.

No law simply describes cause and effect like a physical law-- literally this would mean that the a law is a rule that carries itself out automatically. Just because the declaration by a government to use force is institutionalized, public and impersonal does not make it any less man-made and chosen by those who craft it and carry it out. The actual police officers making the arrest for murder are choosing to do so, and are using force. Conversely, by your reasoning one could just as easily say that the mugger's demand is merely his way of letting you know what will cause him to act in one way or another. The difference is the purpose behind using the force.

If by "cause and effect" here you simply mean that laws comprise a list of actions which the government stipulates to be "initiation of force" and whose violation will result in force being taken against you, and this objective listing and carrying out process makes these laws okay, I can think of lots of improper laws that bar perfectly rightful actions in advance, for example: laws against selling marijuana.

In summary, I agree with the conclusion but disagree with the method. It is true that the existence of laws is not necessarily an initiation of force. My objection is your method of arriving at that conclusion by arguing that laws "aren't" force at all, which depending on how you want to read this is either a category error or clearly false.

Edited by Nate T.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The source of our disagreement may be something that softwareNerd suggested earlier: we're using "force" in different ways. People offhandedly describe an unjust law as force since it is in fact an initiation of force by the government, and they don't call proper laws force since the government isn't behaving like a mugger when it upholds proper law. However, technically speaking, all laws prescribe force (in the sense of ultimately prescribing force at the primary, physical level) in certain circumstances, and the bad ones merely prescribe force that violate individual rights instead of protecting them.

I'm using force in this sense: physical power, effort, or violence used against somebody or something that resists; to use superior strength, violence, or any kind of physical or mental power to make someone do something against his/her will or inclination. Rand made no distinction between actual physical force and compulsion, and I agree. The determining factor, if I understand Rand correctly, is whether one abandons their own mind for the rational, or irrational, mind of another.

Do I have it wrong?

I'm not making a distinction between just and unjust, or proper and improper. If one abandons their own mind because of law, then law is force. If it is force, then it must necessarily be initiatory force because it comes before any other force is applied.

Similarly, people generally use the term "threat" in a legal context in cases like the mugger, who is giving an expression of intending to violate your rights. But if threat means "an expression of intention to inflict injury or damage", then it's true that the government is "threatening" retribution against rights violations; however, labeling such retribution as a "threat" has no bearing on the propriety of the law.

I am using threat as "an expression of intention to inflict injury or damage," but I disagree that law is a threat of retribution against rights violations. I would never kill another human who has not initiated force against me, therefore a law against murder is no threat to me. It can't be an expression of intention to inflict injury or damage to me because it would never apply to me. If my doctor told me, "You're at risk for getting uterine cancer," I would surmise he is insane and get a new doctor. Such a statement would have no bearing on my mind, and could not cause me to abandon my mind for my doctor's, because it's completely impossible.

But what of others who might kill another human? Is the law a threat to them? Is it force? Again, I don't think so. If they actually do commit murder, then clearly they did not abandon their mind to another's. If they really want to, if their mind is to commit murder, but they don't, was it the law which really changed their mind? Again, I say no because they haven't really abandoned their mind. They didn't commit murder not because someone had better thinking on the issue; their own thinking is correct. They considered the consequences of their actions, which includes possible death for them, and chose to not commit murder. Just as the sun doesn't threaten me, doesn't express an intention to inflict injury, doesn't force me to abandon my mind, when I choose not to sit out naked all day on the beach, a knowledge of consequences can't be construed as force, or a threat.

If by "cause and effect" here you simply mean that laws comprise a list of actions which the government stipulates to be "initiation of force" and whose violation will result in force being taken against you, and this objective listing and carrying out process makes these laws okay, I can think of lots of improper laws that bar perfectly rightful actions in advance, for example: laws against selling marijuana.

The first part of your statement is what I mean, but I'm not arguing this makes these laws okay. Remember, I haven't yet arrived at what makes laws just or unjust, proper or improper. Would a law against selling marijuana be a threat, and therefore force? I don't think so, and I outlined my thinking above with the example of murder. In both cases, the law simply makes explicit what consequences might occur if a particular action is taken.

As I write, I'm beginning to feel this argument is weak, but I'm not sure why.

What I was arguing in the quote you used was that simply having laws is not force. A law is not force by virtue of simply being a law. When a law is enforced, that is when force is applied. The force would be retributive in cases where individual rights have been violated, but it would be initiatory in cases where no individual rights have been violated.

In summary, I agree with the conclusion but disagree with the method. It is true that the existence of laws is not necessarily an initiation of force. My objection is your method of arriving at that conclusion by arguing that laws "aren't" force at all, which depending on how you want to read this is either a category error or clearly false.

Would you mind expounding on this a little?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You said the following things in your last reply:

(1) If it (a law) is force, then it must necessarily be initiatory force because it comes before any other force is applied.

...

(2) ... simply having laws is not force. A law is not force by virtue of simply being a law. When a law is enforced, that is when force is applied.

Which, in your view, is the case? Is the existence of a law (1) a blanket threat of force to all immediately on ratification, or (2) is force used only when the law is upheld? It's either/or. Also, I still don't know what you mean when you say "If a law is force." See my last comments below.

I am using threat as "an expression of intention to inflict injury or damage," but I disagree that law is a threat of retribution against rights violations. I would never kill another human who has not initiated force against me, therefore a law against murder is no threat to me. It can't be an expression of intention to inflict injury or damage to me because it would never apply to me. If my doctor told me, "You're at risk for getting uterine cancer," I would surmise he is insane and get a new doctor. Such a statement would have no bearing on my mind, and could not cause me to abandon my mind for my doctor's, because it's completely impossible.

I was speaking offhandedly-- literally, "a threat of retribution against rights violations" ought to read "a threat of retribution against those who violate the rights of others." Since it only directly threatens those who violate its edicts, this should answer your objection.

But now it seems you've taken the position that a law does not threaten a person unless they violate its edicts, which I thought was the crux of your dilemma in the first place. That would be in contradiction to (1) above.

But what of others who might kill another human? Is the law a threat to them? Is it force? Again, I don't think so. If they actually do commit murder, then clearly they did not abandon their mind to another's. If they really want to, if their mind is to commit murder, but they don't, was it the law which really changed their mind? Again, I say no because they haven't really abandoned their mind. They didn't commit murder not because someone had better thinking on the issue; their own thinking is correct. They considered the consequences of their actions, which includes possible death for them, and chose to not commit murder. Just as the sun doesn't threaten me, doesn't express an intention to inflict injury, doesn't force me to abandon my mind, when I choose not to sit out naked all day on the beach, a knowledge of consequences can't be construed as force, or a threat.

The sun isn't a moral agent, and a mugger is, so that analogy isn't helpful. Other than that I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. I will say that if someone comes to a conclusion that they ought to murder, this isn't "correct thinking," and is a rights violation regardless of how they rationalize it.

The first part of your statement is what I mean, but I'm not arguing this makes these laws okay. Remember, I haven't yet arrived at what makes laws just or unjust, proper or improper. Would a law against selling marijuana be a threat, and therefore force? I don't think so, and I outlined my thinking above with the example of murder. In both cases, the law simply makes explicit what consequences might occur if a particular action is taken.

As I write, I'm beginning to feel this argument is weak, but I'm not sure why.

Well, for one thing, the mugger's declaration is another such explication of consequences as well, but we agree that his ultimatum is an initiation of force, so something's wrong here.

What I was arguing in the quote you used was that simply having laws is not force. A law is not force by virtue of simply being a law. When a law is enforced, that is when force is applied. The force would be retributive in cases where individual rights have been violated, but it would be initiatory in cases where no individual rights have been violated.

Certainly: if in a society no one is breaking any laws, then the government need not use force. This emphasizes the fact that laws aren't literally force, they instead use force in certain circumstances.

Would you mind expounding on this a little?

Either you are arguing that "laws are force" in the primary literal sense, which is a category error since laws are declarations, not actual uses of force, or that the application of law does not use force, merely "states consequences" or "makes explicit cause and effect", which is false or beside the point, since we have no examples of laws that do not carry penalties ultimately reducible to physical force.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which, in your view, is the case? Is the existence of a law (1) a blanket threat of force to all immediately on ratification, or (2) is force used only when the law is upheld? It's either/or. Also, I still don't know what you mean when you say "If a law is force." See my last comments below.

Number (2). However, I began with the belief that law was force - that it was coercion; a threat. If that view is correct, if law is force, then logically it must be initiatory force.

Now, I'm of the mind that law is not force. I'm still not entirely convinced only because I can't prove it to myself.

I was speaking offhandedly-- literally, "a threat of retribution against rights violations" ought to read "a threat of retribution against those who violate the rights of others." Since it only directly threatens those who violate its edicts, this should answer your objection.

Why would laws be a threat to those who would violate its edicts, but not a threat to those who would not? Don't laws apply to all, even those who would not violate them? I can see how the punishment prescribed in the law would be a threat to those who violate the law, but not those who do not, but the law itself isn't directed at those who would break it - it applies to all.

Perhaps if we broke a law into its two parts: 1) the action proscribed, and 2) the punishment if the action is taken. The first part is clearly not force, not a threat - its purpose is only to describe what activity is forbidden. The second part could be considered a threat, but I'm not sure it is. It's more like a result, or consequence, or effect. If A happens, then B happens. This can't be a threat.

My problem with labeling law as a threat for any case, even if it is just a threat to those who would violate its edicts, is that it becomes initiatory force. Logically, it could be no other kind of force. Coercion is force, threats are force, and since laws come before the crime is committed, if laws are threats to anyone then they are initiatory force.

The sun isn't a moral agent, and a mugger is, so that analogy isn't helpful. Other than that I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. I will say that if someone comes to a conclusion that they ought to murder, this isn't "correct thinking," and is a rights violation regardless of how they rationalize it.

True about the sun not being a moral agent. Perhaps the employer and the employee in the one-company town? The employer doesn't threaten the would-be employee, the consequences of working for him or not are what they are. For a would-be murderer, the consequences are what they are - he's not being threatened by the law. Just as, as others have pointed out, it's not a threat to announce my intention to protect myself to a crowd of people. I'm merely making explicit what a rational individual knows implicitly.

Just for clarification, I wasn't arguing someone is thinking correctly if they conclude they ought to murder. I was arguing the opposite: that they are thinking correctly if they conclude they ought not to murder. In my example, they want to murder, but decide against it after considering all the consequences, including possible legal punishment. Was it the law which convinced them? Perhaps. If so, can the law be said to have coerced them? Was it a threat which caused them to abandon their mind for another's, or did they use their own mind in considering the consequences?

Well, for one thing, the mugger's declaration is another such explication of consequences as well, but we agree that his ultimatum is an initiation of force, so something's wrong here.

Exactly. What makes his explication of proscribed behaviour and consequences a threat, but a law is not? Is it the limited options? Is it the fact that both of the mugger's options require the victim to abandon his own rational thinking in favor of the mugger's irrational thinking?

Either you are arguing that "laws are force" in the primary literal sense, which is a category error since laws are declarations, not actual uses of force,

Okay, this is not what I'm arguing, but for sake of argument: if laws are "a threat of retribution against those who violate the rights of others," then they are, first, threats. If they are threats, then they are force. And, since laws come before crime, they must be initiatory force.

or that the application of law does not use force, merely "states consequences" or "makes explicit cause and effect", which is false or beside the point, since we have no examples of laws that do not carry penalties ultimately reducible to physical force.

Nor am I arguing this. Clearly, laws have a component of force, but are not force in and of themselves. With proper, objective law the force would come after another initiates force. The force the government would use can only come into play if someone else initiated force, and is therefore retributive force. Law could be initiatory force, not because it's a threat - it is not, but because the government's force comes into play even though the accused did not initiate force.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ugh, too much fisking :dough: Let's see:

My problem with labeling law as a threat for any case, even if it is just a threat to those who would violate its edicts, is that it becomes initiatory force. Logically, it could be no other kind of force. Coercion is force, threats are force, and since laws come before the crime is committed, if laws are threats to anyone then they are initiatory force.

I agree with the first part of this, but not the second. If "(law) is just a threat to those who would violate its edicts", no force or even threat of force is being used until after the lawbreaker initiated force on his own, in the case of proper law. That's why distinguishing between proper and improper law is important here. That is, when a businessman receives inside information about a company and acts on it, and the SEC fines him, the government was the one who initiates force right then, since the businessman didn't actually violate anyone's rights in breaking the bad law.

In my example, they want to murder, but decide against it after considering all the consequences, including possible legal punishment. Was it the law which convinced them? Perhaps. If so, can the law be said to have coerced them? Was it a threat which caused them to abandon their mind for another's, or did they use their own mind in considering the consequences?

Their personal reasons for deciding not to murder me are irrelevant to the question of whether murder is permissible in civil society. They would only be substituting their mind for another's if they used their mind in the first place to conclude that murder was warranted, which they weren't since it never is.

With proper, objective law the force would come after another initiates force. The force the government would use can only come into play if someone else initiated force, and is therefore retributive force. Law could be initiatory force, not because it's a threat - it is not, but because the government's force comes into play even though the accused did not initiate force.

Sounds good-- so what's the problem here? Is it the use of the term "threat" to describe possible negative repercussions of laws? I'd be more than happy to use this new terminology of "coming into play" if you're more comfortable with that-- the idea is essentially the same.

Edit: Thinking about what analogies to use to describe this situation about the relationship between laws and force in society, the analogy

umpire : rules : players : : government : laws : citizens

seems to be enlightening.

Edited by Nate T.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ugh, too much fisking :dough: Let's see:

Oops! Sorry. It helps me to better make my point with fewer words. I'll try to cut this post down to what I think are the essential points.

Sounds good-- so what's the problem here? Is it the use of the term "threat" to describe possible negative repercussions of laws? I'd be more than happy to use this new terminology of "coming into play" if you're more comfortable with that-- the idea is essentially the same.

I would love for that to be the case. However, if "the idea [of 'coming into play'] is essentially the same [as 'threat']," then we don't really have a conclusion. We'd be talking about the same concept, just using different words.

Edit: Thinking about what analogies to use to describe this situation about the relationship between laws and force in society, the analogy

umpire : rules : players : : government : laws : citizens

seems to be enlightening.

I'm not sure I like this analogy because the umpire's job is blatant regulation of the game. If government is meant to regulate citizens as an umpire is meant to regulate players, then we're back to the beginning again and LFC isn't possible with government.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure I like this analogy because the umpire's job is blatant regulation of the game. If government is meant to regulate citizens as an umpire is meant to regulate players, then we're back to the beginning again and LFC isn't possible with government.

LFC is about as possible without government as a pro-game of football without umpires.

It can be done, but it would be really, really messy, with very little football or voluntary business being done. (let's just say Plaxico Burress would be wise to bring his .40 along) In fact I'd rather move to the most socialist country in Western Europe than live and fight through that mess.

Just as a football game without umpires or any rules would be a gunfight rather than football, so the economy without government and laws to protect everyone's rights and property would be tribal warfare, not free trade. The key however in both cases is to not come up with rights such as "the quarterback's right to not have his pretty haircut messed up during the tackle", as they do now. :dough:

On key difference is that in football rules can be utilitarian (whatever generates the most revenue for the league), but in the economy they ought to be right instead (whatever generates individual freedom).

Edited by Jake_Ellison
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oops! Sorry. It helps me to better make my point with fewer words. I'll try to cut this post down to what I think are the essential points.

I mean to include myself in that, too!

In any case, since the term is starting I'm going to have to bow out from significant contribution here. If I could make a suggestion, I think the sticking point here is really understanding the term "threat of force" as applying to law, since it seems to be what's causing the difficulty. I suspect the use of the term "threat" in this context may just be confusing things.

In any case, I hope you resolve this dilemma; it's been fruitful for me to think about these issues, so thanks!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I mean to include myself in that, too!

In any case, since the term is starting I'm going to have to bow out from significant contribution here. If I could make a suggestion, I think the sticking point here is really understanding the term "threat of force" as applying to law, since it seems to be what's causing the difficulty. I suspect the use of the term "threat" in this context may just be confusing things.

In any case, I hope you resolve this dilemma; it's been fruitful for me to think about these issues, so thanks!

Thank you, Nate. I needed someone to talk this through with and I appreciate you sticking through it even when I was making no sense at all. The sticking point is "threat," and I'm comfortable with the conclusions we reached. Enjoy the new term, and happy studying!

Thanks to everyone else who contributed as well. Finding rational people is getting extremely difficult in this world. Glad I found this place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...