Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Proper government is violating rights

Rate this topic


brian0918
 Share

Recommended Posts

In a debate today, I received the following:

Do you support public funding of [police and military], or voluntary payment? I only ask that because a lot of libertarians seem to make an exception for the military and police, under the premise that they are necessary to secure property rights. The problem is that those people are then advocating use of force and violation of rights of individuals in order to guarantee their own property rights. If you are an anarcho-capitalist, and support voluntary payment for securing your property, then no contradiction exists. Otherwise, saying that the "ends don't justify the means," while at the same time advocating a special case where they suddenly DO, comes off as hypocritical.

Here is my attempt at a quick reply. I would love to hear a critique of it, and how it can (and should) be improved.

A right is a freedom of action. If you choose to live, it is right for you to use your mind to select values and goals in keeping with your choice, and to figure out how to support those values and achieve those goals. Someone who acts irrationally is acting contrary to his life. So someone who attacks another, for example, is acting irrationally, and is no different from a dog in that respect (psychologically). The purpose of a court is to determine if and when they will be capable of [once again] choosing life - choosing to act rationally in the future.

Thanks!

Edited by brian0918
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you are an anarcho-capitalist, and support voluntary payment for securing your property, then no contradiction exists.

Package deal. Why can't proper services be voluntarily funded in a way that isn't "anarcho-capitalist"? Break apart the package - funding must be voluntary, and certain services are proper. But nothing in reality requires that the funding of those services be on a payment-for-service basis. Government can be funded, as a whole, by any voluntary system you can come up with. Then the money gets distributed to the police and military, who do their jobs instead of worrying about where the money will come from or who has or has not paid.

~Q

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is the main criticism Anarcho-capitalists have, because it's held up so well. The taxation question can be shattered simply by saying 'Voluntary means of taxation." Unfortunately, most Anarchists are very concrete bound. They may claim to be absolutists when it comes to rights, but they can't possibly believe they are objective things not to be violated if they leave up to market choice, even in a society that could be considered rational. Rights are not things to be sold. Rights don't come in blue, red or orange. Rights are rights, and every human being has them. The fundamental right is the right to life. This cannot be let up to corporations or salesmen to decide, and by it's very nature Anarchy imposes a threat upon all that says "Your rights are up to market review.".

Economic value is inherently subjective, as Austrian economists like Von Mises point out. It's quite the irony that those who claim to support Von Mises, and also objective and inalienable rights would ever leave such a matter up the market economy, which is an arena used for goods, commodities, etc. This would make humans no more different than an apple, a car or a cow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is my attempt at a quick reply. I would love to hear a critique of it, and how it can

Well your reply doesn't say anything about the original argument. That's quite a drawback.

Package deal. Why can't proper services be voluntarily funded in a way that isn't "anarcho-capitalist"?

Oh sure it can, but for the record that's not what Ayn Rand suggested.

certain services are proper

Says who ? Why ?

But nothing in reality requires that the funding of those services be on a payment-for-service basis. Government can be funded, as a whole, by any voluntary system you can come up with.

Government is a geographical monopoly on justice. Forcing people to fund something or forcing them not to provide a competing service is pretty much the same thing. Except the second is probably a worse violation of natural rights.

This is the main criticism Anarcho-capitalists have, because it's held up so well. The taxation question can be shattered simply by saying 'Voluntary means of taxation."

Most ancaps are unaware that the traditional objectivist government rests on enforcing a monopoly, not enforcing taxes. It's just as bad but it makes confusing arguments.

Unfortunately, most Anarchists are very concrete bound. They may claim to be absolutists when it comes to rights, but they can't possibly believe they are objective things not to be violated

Who is they? Name a few examples or show how this belief proceeds from being an anarcho-capitalist.

if they leave up to market choice, even in a society that could be considered rational. Rights are not things to be sold.

Of course they are. When I sell you a bunch of banana I exchange my right over the bananas (my property) for your money.

Anyway, the alternative isn't between a market of competing jurisdiction and an objectivist law descending from heaven, but between competing jurisdiction and a jurisdiction enforcing a monopoly on law. The former may not result in the protection of individual rights, but the later cannot by definition, it intrinsically violates them by preventing private arbitrage.

Rights don't come in blue, red or orange. Rights are rights, and every human being has them.

Standard technique, say something everyone agrees with to put people on your side.

The fundamental right is the right to life. This cannot be let up to corporations or salesmen to decide

Spoken like a true collectivist. Seriously, did you copy paste that from a defense of socialized healthcare ?

and by it's very nature Anarchy imposes a threat upon all that says "Your rights are up to market review.".

Anarchy is a system. Systems don't threaten people, people threaten people. Minarchy says "Your rights are up to the government review". How is that better ?

Economic value is inherently subjective, as Austrian economists like Von Mises point out. It's quite the irony that those who claim to support Von Mises, and also objective and inalienable rights would ever leave such a matter up the market economy, which is an arena used for goods, commodities, etc. This would make humans no more different than an apple, a car or a cow.

So according to your reasoning, an apple a car and a cow are the same thing because they are all sold on a market ?

I suggest the classical letter by Roy A. Childs which proves quite simply that any consistent objectivist must be an anarchist.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig4/childs1.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course they are. When I sell you a bunch of banana I exchange my right over the bananas (my property) for your money.

No. You are not selling your right to property you are selling your property. You maintain the right to property regardless... even if you have none.

Anyway, the alternative isn't between a market of competing jurisdiction and an objectivist law descending from heaven, but between competing jurisdiction and a jurisdiction enforcing a monopoly on law. The former may not result in the protection of individual rights, but the later cannot by definition, it intrinsically violates them by preventing private arbitrage.

You are arguing apples and oranges. Objectivists agree that in order to have a rights respecting society as such the individuals involved must agree that there are certain fundamental functions that must be provided by a central authority. That's it that's all.

Ancaps do not. Point blank.

So in a given territory without any established government the Objectivists would establish such a central authority. The form of this government would be arrived at through a democratic, constitutional agreement.

The Ancaps would not, they would revel in their anarchy.

These two systems would NOT occupy the same geographical location, they are incompatible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course they are. When I sell you a bunch of banana I exchange my right over the bananas (my property) for your money.

What right would that be, that is not backed by anything, and that whomever can choose to either respect or disrespect with no objective and impartial punishment. You are not understanding where the concepts "rights" and "the free market" lie in the hierarchy, as you have inverted them as all anarchocapitalists do. The free market means nothing without an objective system of law that upholds your right to make contracts, own property, and live without the threat of force. Rights itself cannot be part of the "free market", and that is a contradiction in terms.

Anyway, the alternative isn't between a market of competing jurisdiction and an objectivist law descending from heaven, but between competing jurisdiction and a jurisdiction enforcing a monopoly on law. The former may not result in the protection of individual rights, but the later cannot by definition, it intrinsically violates them by preventing private arbitrage.

Who is preventing private arbitrage? If two people both accept the private arbitrator as valid, there is nothing that prevents them from settling their disputes there.

Anarchy is a system. Systems don't threaten people, people threaten people. Minarchy says "Your rights are up to the government review". How is that better ?

If we accept that "minarchy" means an objectivist government, then that is better, as as far as it functions objectively, it will guarantee everyones rights. Your system on the other hand doesnt guarantee anyones rights, and it puts objective rights on the same level as any pseudo-rights anyone can afford to "enforce".

So according to your reasoning, an apple a car and a cow are the same thing because they are all sold on a market ?

Yes, they are all part of the same concept: goods.

Also, i wanted to ask you this:

What makes the current world differ from anarchocapitalism? Why wouldnt the current state of affairs be consistant with anarchocapitalism?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Economic value is inherently subjective, as Austrian economists like Von Mises point out. It's quite the irony that those who claim to support Von Mises, and also objective and inalienable rights would ever leave such a matter up the market economy, which is an arena used for goods, commodities, etc. This would make humans no more different than an apple, a car or a cow.

I don't want to get into another Anarchy debate, as I don't find them fruitful any longer, but I wanted to point out something that many people have trouble with that weakens your position when you are arguing against Anarchy. When you say that economic value is inherently subjective, you essentially are saying that values are subjective, since economic values are merely a sub-classification of values. The more recent proponents of the Austrian school (starting with Mises especially) openly and explicitly begin with this. The epistemological error begins much earlier, but the treating of values as subjective understandably leads to treating the principle of individual rights and the implementations for protection of said principle as disconnected, subjective ideas. My point in short is that the problem has to be addressed on a more fundamental level--not in politics or economics, but in metaphysics and especially epistemology. When you grant your opposition their faulty epistemological standpoint, talking ethics, politics or economics is ultimately pointless, as you will now see when you get picked apart on this point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. You are not selling your right to property you are selling your property. You maintain the right to property regardless... even if you have none.

There's little point in defining a "right to property". The existence of property rights imply a generic right to property. It's redundant. But that's a semantic debate. If you cannot sell your rights has you say, this is true regardless of the system. Even if a society had courts where somehow the right to property were sold, then you should simply consider that sale to be null and any enforcement of it to be criminal. Since rights are objective, they are immune to institutions. Institution do not determine right, but they shape how rights are enforced, violated, kept etc.

By their very nature, the institutions favored by Ayn Rand violate individual rights (the right to arbitrate a conflict objectively and charge for it), therefore they must be rejected.

Anarcho-capitalists institutions *may* lead to unjust laws being enforced (which would be criminal), but so does minarchist institution. But at least, anarcho-capitalism isn't intrinsically, institutionally evil.

You are arguing apples and oranges. Objectivists agree that in order to have a rights respecting society as such the individuals involved must agree that there are certain fundamental functions that must be provided by a central authority. That's it that's all.

Must ? Obligations only come from agreeing to something (signing a contract for example) or doing something bad (and repaying the victim).

I do not consent to be forced to patronize the judicial system of a central government. Whose right am I violating exactly ?

So in a given territory without any established government the Objectivists would establish such a central authority. The form of this government would be arrived at through a democratic, constitutional agreement.

The Ancaps would not, they would revel in their anarchy.

These two systems would NOT occupy the same geographical location, they are incompatible.

Well that's fine with me. But everyone in the territory controlled by the government would need to surrender part of their property rights. And I mean everyone. No government whatsoever is or has been formed on the consent on all property owners of the claimed territory. If a group of property owners wish to form an objectivist government, let them do it. Hey, if they want to form a communist dictatorship, it's actually find it. Let them be.

I doubt this is what Ayn Rand had in mind though. Any quote supporting this view ?

What right would that be, that is not backed by anything

Rights and enforcement of rights are two different things. It's critical that rights be enforced, but lack of enforcement doesn't mean lack of right. The right of life of a murder victim isn't backed by anything when he dies, nevertheless, it was still his right.

and that whomever can choose to either respect or disrespect with no objective and impartial punishment.

Pretty much everyone can choose to respect or dicrespect rights. That doens't make it moral.

You are not understanding where the concepts "rights" and "the free market" lie in the hierarchy, as you have inverted them as all anarchocapitalists do.

Strawman. You're the one inverting rights and positive enforcement of rights.

The free market means nothing without an objective system of law that upholds your right to make contracts, own property, and live without the threat of force.

The free market means nothing without an objective system of food production that allows you to eat while you trade. Would you conclude foods need to be nationalized ?

Rights itself cannot be part of the "free market", and that is a contradiction in terms.

I never said it was. Right enforcement though can be part of the free market.

Who is preventing private arbitrage? If two people both accept the private arbitrator as valid, there is nothing that prevents them from settling their disputes there.

Ayn Rand. She claims arbitration should be monopolistic and use of force is legitimate against competitors.

If we accept that "minarchy" means an objectivist government, then that is better, as as far as it functions objectively, it will guarantee everyones rights.

It can't, it must take away their right to act as a private arbitor.

Your system on the other hand doesnt guarantee anyones rights

Rights cannot be fully guaranteed, you may be murdered by a lunatic tomorrow. No amount of institutions is going to prevent that. However, it is guaranteed that an objectivist government as envisionned by Ayn Rand will take away your right to become a private arbitrator or a vigilante.

and it puts objective rights on the same level as any pseudo-rights anyone can afford to "enforce".

It doens't "put" anything.

Yes, they are all part of the same concept: goods.

The market also provide services. Right enforcement is a service.

What makes the current world differ from anarchocapitalism? Why wouldnt the current state of affairs be consistant with anarchocapitalism?

What make the current world differ from a one world objectivist government, with you in charge, overwhelmed with widespread crime all over the world by politicians ?

The answer : institutions. A petty thief isn't an institution, the state is. As long as crime is a part of social institutions, we do not live in anarcho-capitalism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Must ? Obligations only come from agreeing to something (signing a contract for example) or doing something bad (and repaying the victim).

Look, I get it ok. You don't want any form of government. Well the people who would form a government based on the ideals and philosophy of Objectivism would. Should you not wish to live in such a place you should probably move somewhere where you could hire your defense, police and courts and have your own private war with your neighbour at the first disagreement.

But in O'ist land you will not be given the opportunity to buy the police, you will get the same services as everyone else. Your money will not entitle you to live apart from society.

You actually want to purchase your legal system. You, envision a system where the ability to pay for rights means that you can achieve them, those that cant are shit out of luck.

A recent variant of anarchistic theory, which is befuddling some of the younger advocates of freedom, is a weird absurdity called “competing governments.” Accepting the basic premise of the modern statists—who see no difference between the functions of government and the functions of industry, between force and production, and who advocate government ownership of business—the proponents of “competing governments” take the other side of the same coin and declare that since competition is so beneficial to business, it should also be applied to government. Instead of a single, monopolistic government, they declare, there should be a number of different governments in the same geographical area, competing for the allegiance of individual citizens, with every citizen free to “shop” and to patronize whatever government he chooses.

Remember that forcible restraint of men is the only service a government has to offer. Ask yourself what a competition in forcible restraint would have to mean.

One cannot call this theory a contradiction in terms, since it is obviously devoid of any understanding of the terms “competition” and “government.” Nor can one call it a floating abstraction, since it is devoid of any contact with or reference to reality and cannot be concretized at all, not even roughly or approximately. One illustration will be sufficient: suppose Mr. Smith, a customer of Government A, suspects that his next-door neighbor, Mr. Jones, a customer of Government B, has robbed him; a squad of Police A proceeds to Mr. Jones’ house and is met at the door by a squad of Police B, who declare that they do not accept the validity of Mr. Smith’s complaint and do not recognize the authority of Government A. What happens then? You take it from there.

“The Nature of Government,” The Virtue of Selfishness, 112

Picture a band of strangers marching down Main Street, submachine guns at the ready. When confronted by the police, the leader of the band announces: “Me and the boys are only here to see that justice is done, so you have no right to interfere with us.” According to the “libertarian” anarchists, in such a confrontation the police are morally bound to withdraw, on pain of betraying the rights of self-defense and free trade.

The Objectivist Forum Harry Binswanger “Q & A Department: Anarchism,”

The Objectivist Forum, Aug. 1981, 12

Private force is force not authorized by the government, not validated by its procedural safeguards, and not subject to its supervision. The government has to regard such private force as a threat—i.e., as a potential violation of individual rights. In barring such private force, the government is retaliating against that threat.

The Objectivist Forum Harry Binswanger “Q & A Department: Anarchism,”

The Objectivist Forum, Aug. 1981, 11.

Another thing, you obviously have no interest in Objectivism and are just using this forum as a sounding board for your AnCap ideology so I'm wondering why you are still here...

Edited by Zip
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look, I get it ok. You don't want any form of government. Well the people who would form a government based on the ideals and philosophy of Objectivism would. Should you not wish to live in such a place you should probably move somewhere where you could hire your defense, police and courts and have your own private war with your neighbour at the first disagreement.

As I said this is fine. I just happen to think this is not the stance of most objectivist. I have no qualm against government.

You actually want to purchase your legal system. You, envision a system where the ability to pay for rights means that you can achieve them, those that cant are shit out of luck.

I trust competing justice agency more than a government to preserve my individual right, that is what I would opt for. As long as I can't opt. Those who can't afford right enforcement are shit out of luck. Right enforcement isn't a right. You do not have a right to be protected because that right would be held against someone else. Put it another way, no one has a duty to protect you.

Another thing, you obviously have no interest in Objectivism and are just using this forum as a sounding board for your AnCap ideology so I'm wondering why you are still here...

I subscribe to the vast, vast majority of Objectivist principles and I also consider myself an Anarcho-Capitalist. Ayn Rand wasn't an anarchist because she was too pig-headed to hear the argument. I find it distressing that many Objectivist commit the same mistake and refuse to see the glaringly evident contradiction in front of their nose.

And no, she wasn't advocating the kind of voluntary government you describe. She would have found it perfectly moral if the US government suddenly started becoming the kind of minimal government she had in mind, although morality would require that secession rights of every land owner be respected.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't want to get into another Anarchy debate, as I don't find them fruitful any longer, but I wanted to point out something that many people have trouble with that weakens your position when you are arguing against Anarchy. When you say that economic value is inherently subjective, you essentially are saying that values are subjective, since economic values are merely a sub-classification of values. The more recent proponents of the Austrian school (starting with Mises especially) openly and explicitly begin with this. The epistemological error begins much earlier, but the treating of values as subjective understandably leads to treating the principle of individual rights and the implementations for protection of said principle as disconnected, subjective ideas. My point in short is that the problem has to be addressed on a more fundamental level--not in politics or economics, but in metaphysics and especially epistemology. When you grant your opposition their faulty epistemological standpoint, talking ethics, politics or economics is ultimately pointless, as you will now see when you get picked apart on this point.

My statement doesn't pertain to epistemology, it's economics. There is no inherent economic value in anything. This isn't to say there isn't value in anything at all, but from an economic perspective it is merely market demand that determines value. This isn't a negation of individual rights, and it doesn't lead to that. I have never heard any rational argument for objective economic value, as much of a layman as I may be. I know you're far more interested in things of this nature, so I think I may only be talking by you than completely disagreeing with you on the matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well your reply doesn't say anything about the original argument. That's quite a drawback.

Oh sure it can, but for the record that's not what Ayn Rand suggested.

Says who ? Why ?

Government is a geographical monopoly on justice. Forcing people to fund something or forcing them not to provide a competing service is pretty much the same thing. Except the second is probably a worse violation of natural rights.

Most ancaps are unaware that the traditional objectivist government rests on enforcing a monopoly, not enforcing taxes. It's just as bad but it makes confusing arguments.

Who is they? Name a few examples or show how this belief proceeds from being an anarcho-capitalist.

Of course they are. When I sell you a bunch of banana I exchange my right over the bananas (my property) for your money.

Anyway, the alternative isn't between a market of competing jurisdiction and an objectivist law descending from heaven, but between competing jurisdiction and a jurisdiction enforcing a monopoly on law. The former may not result in the protection of individual rights, but the later cannot by definition, it intrinsically violates them by preventing private arbitrage.

Standard technique, say something everyone agrees with to put people on your side.

Spoken like a true collectivist. Seriously, did you copy paste that from a defense of socialized healthcare ?

Anarchy is a system. Systems don't threaten people, people threaten people. Minarchy says "Your rights are up to the government review". How is that better ?

So according to your reasoning, an apple a car and a cow are the same thing because they are all sold on a market ?

I suggest the classical letter by Roy A. Childs which proves quite simply that any consistent objectivist must be an anarchist.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig4/childs1.html

1. Health care is not a right, so your criticism of me arguing like a collectivist is just false and preposterous. However, I assume as an Anarchist you really don't see a distinction between right to life and "right" to health care.

2. According to me, cows and apples and computers and anything else are the same in the sense that they can be traded. Human life and rights cannot be. I explained why in the first post.

3. I've read the letter from Childs. I used to be an Anarchist. It isn't significant in any way. I'd say there are in fact many better and more convincing arguments for anarchy out there than that steaming pile. Go pedal your shit somewhere else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rights and enforcement of rights are two different things. It's critical that rights be enforced, but lack of enforcement doesn't mean lack of right. The right of life of a murder victim isn't backed by anything when he dies, nevertheless, it was still his right.

You are mixing up two different things here. If someone murders me, he did not respect my right to life. If the government does not convict him, i did not have the right to life. If my right to life isnt being upheld, that means i do not have that right. I should have it, but i don't. Rights arent some intrinsic things that eveyone just automatically "haves". They have them, if they are upheld. And Objectivism advocates that they should be.

Pretty much everyone can choose to respect or dicrespect rights. That doens't make it moral.

Hence why we Objectivists support a system where the violations of these rights are condemned. Yes, everyone can choose to respect or disrespect rights, but in anarchocapitalim, the punishment varies based on whether the person has a huge private army to protect him or not.

Strawman. You're the one inverting rights and positive enforcement of rights.

First of all, stop yelling "Strawman" in cases where it clearly doesnt belong. You have clearly shown that you do not understand that the free market is conceptually reliant on people's individual rights being respected and upheld, and instead propose a system where "individual rights" is whatever a seller and buyer decide it to be in the "free market". This interpretation makes a mockery of both the concept of individual rights, and the free market.

The free market means nothing without an objective system of food production that allows you to eat while you trade. Would you conclude foods need to be nationalized ?

The free market is not conceptually reliant on people having food to eat. Most people want to eat, thus they buy it or produce it, but food is not a necessity for a free market to be a free market, in the same sense as rights are. It would be highly immoral to not eat, but a free market could exist even if for some reason no one decided to buy food. They would obviously die pretty soon, but nevertheless, food is not a necessity for a free market.

In the case of a free market without objective rights that are upheld, the situation is very different. A free market is not free, when the contracts the individuals make are not upheld. It is not that it is difficult to be in a free market with no individual rights, like in the case with food. It is impossible, as the concept of "free market" holds within it the protection and enforcement of individual rights.

I never said it was. Right enforcement though can be part of the free market.

But right enforcement is not separate from rights. Rights are irrelevant without right enforcement. You cant say that rights are not part of the free market, but that enforcement is, as whatever the enforcement will be, that will be the de facto rights. If i set up an "enforcement" agency and sell my services to Ahmed and stone his wife for filing for a divorce, that means that his wife does not actually have a right to life, if I and Ahmed arent punished for our deeds by an objective court of law. She should have the right to life, but if it is not upheld, she does not have it.

Ayn Rand. She claims arbitration should be monopolistic and use of force is legitimate against competitors.

I was referring to things where two neighbors arbitrate their dispute over dog crap on the others lawn. In that case, both parties had agreed that the arbiters decision is valid, and the validity of this contract is upheld by the government courts if one tries to dispute it.

If we "privatize" govenrment however, and allow a private agency to unilaterally go into a thiefs house and seize the stolen property, there is nothing that stops this agency from going into anyones house and steal property. It effectively makes the size of the gun the deciding factor between what goes, and what doesnt.

It can't, it must take away their right to act as a private arbitor.

There is no such right. It is anthitetical to objective individual rights, to claim that an individual should have the right to enforce whatever law he himself chooses on other people.

Rights cannot be fully guaranteed, you may be murdered by a lunatic tomorrow. No amount of institutions is going to prevent that.

Once again, you miss the difference between someone violating your rights(murder), and the government not protecting your rights(the goverment not convicting murderers). It is obvious that you chose murder as the example, as if you had chosen any other rights violation, like theft, your error would have been clear even to you. If someone steals from me, the thief has violated my rights. But the fact that the courts convict him of his crime, means that my rights are enforced. If the government doesnt convict the thief, then i do not have the right to property. I should have, but i dont.

It doens't "put" anything.

Yes it does, as whatever anyone thinks are rights, will be enforced by whomever willing to provide the service. It puts actual individual rights on the same level with whatever mystic pseudo-rights one can think of, as the violator does not get punished by an objective court of law, and instead gets or doesnt get punished by whomever who happens to take up the task.

The market also provide services. Right enforcement is a service.

Once again. Rights enforcement precedes the market, as rights are meaningless without right enforcement.

What make the current world differ from a one world objectivist government, with you in charge, overwhelmed with widespread crime all over the world by politicians ?

The fact that individual rights arent enforced by objective governments.

But overall you missed my point: What makes current states different from anarchocapitalistic institutions. If we consider that Finland Inc. owns the land in Finland, with its customers(citizens) being members of Finland Inc., what can this customer do. He has the option of leaving Finland Inc. territory, for let's say Sweden Inc., but Sweden Inc. doesnt want to give the customer full membership(citizenship) until he has vacated 5 years in Sweden Inc. territory. There is no reason to oppose the high progressive taxation in Finland Inc. or Sweden Inc., because that is their right as property owners of Finland Inc. and Sweden Inc. Their customers have the rights that they decide to grant them, and as every dot of the planet is owned by these Inc.'s there is nowhere this disgruntled customer can leave to start his own kind of Inc, because the property owners of the different Inc's wont allow it.

So how is this different from anarchocapitalism. What arguments do you have? Perhaps the one that you didnt choose to make a contract with USA Inc. or whatever country you are from, but considering the other Inc's arent allowing you to become a full blooded customer of theirs, this is a moot point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. Health care is not a right, so your criticism of me arguing like a collectivist is just false and preposterous. However, I assume as an Anarchist you really don't see a distinction between right to life and "right" to health care.

An I assume as a moron it's to complicated for you to understand a logical reduction. I never said health care was a right. From now on, read with your brain on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are mixing up two different things here. If someone murders me, he did not respect my right to life. If the government does not convict him, i did not have the right to life.

In that case why was it wrong for him to murder you ?

If my right to life isnt being upheld, that means i do not have that right. I should have it, but i don't.

No, you have the right, it should be respected, but it wasn't.

Rights arent some intrinsic things that eveyone just automatically "haves". They have them, if they are upheld. And Objectivism advocates that they should be.

No, it advocates that rights should be respected. Upholding the rights (as opposed to respecting them) implies someone's action. Your rights do not depend on other people's action.

Hence why we Objectivists support a system where the violations of these rights are condemned. Yes, everyone can choose to respect or disrespect rights, but in anarchocapitalim, the punishment varies based on whether the person has a huge private army to protect him or not.

That's true regardless of the system. If you have a huge army to protect you, you will probably not be punished for anything.

First of all, stop yelling "Strawman" in cases where it clearly doesnt belong. You have clearly shown that you do not understand that the free market is conceptually reliant on people's individual rights being respected and upheld

I do understand and I agree with that. But it is also reliant on food being provided.

, and instead propose a system where "individual rights" is whatever a seller and buyer decide it to be in the "free market"

No, I do not.

. This interpretation makes a mockery of both the concept of individual rights, and the free market.

And it is not mine. Therefore you're pulling a strawman.

The free market is not conceptually reliant on people having food to eat.

A free market cannot work when there are only corpses.

Most people want to eat, thus they buy it or produce it, but food is not a necessity for a free market to be a free market, in the same sense as rights are.

You're confusing rights and right enforcement. Right enforcement is necessary the same way food is. Rights are inherent to rational beings.

In the case of a free market without objective rights that are upheld, the situation is very different. A free market is not free, when the contracts the individuals make are not upheld.

If someone someday steals an apple, is the market free ?

If all transactions are taxed, is the market free ?

It's theft in both cases, but what makes the second market unfree is that right violation is institutionalized.

It is not that it is difficult to be in a free market with no individual rights, like in the case with food. It is impossible, as the concept of "free market" holds within it the protection and enforcement of individual rights.

The rights are always here, and the free market may provide for the enforcement of said rights. yes it requires a bootstrap, but that's hardly a problem.

But right enforcement is not separate from rights. Rights are irrelevant without right enforcement.

Rights are what should be respected. They're not irrelevant, they tell us how to act morally. Your right to own your wallet isn't irrelevant, because, even without any form of enforcement, I choose to be moral and not steal your wallet. Dude, I'm being 100% ARI kosher here, this is the Objectivist stance.

You cant say that rights are not part of the free market, but that enforcement is, as whatever the enforcement will be, that will be the de facto rights.

Ok for de facto rights.

If i set up an "enforcement" agency and sell my services to Ahmed and stone his wife for filing for a divorce, that means that his wife does not actually have a right to life

Yes she does and you just violated it.

if I and Ahmed arent punished for our deeds by an objective court of law. She should have the right to life, but if it is not upheld, she does not have it.

She does, it was not respected, and you weren't punished for your violation. Rights are natural and intrinsic to rational beings... Right as in right or wrong. It's wrong to violate someone's right, even if there's no objective cop around to objectively punish you.

I was referring to things where two neighbors arbitrate their dispute over dog crap on the others lawn. In that case, both parties had agreed that the arbiters decision is valid, and the validity of this contract is upheld by the government courts if one tries to dispute it.

And they're forced to pay the government court although they don't necessarily want to use that service.

If we "privatize" govenrment however, and allow a private agency to unilaterally go into a thiefs house and seize the stolen property, there is nothing that stops this agency from going into anyones house and steal property.

Too bad. Still it does not justify forbidding private protection agencies, it does not justify FORCING HONEST protection providers to not offer their services. Your argument is the age old argument that people mustn't be free because they'll abuse their freedom. Your sacrificing innocent potential security providers because you fear some might commit crimes.

It effectively makes the size of the gun the deciding factor between what goes, and what doesnt.

That's a fact of life.

There is no such right. It is anthitetical to objective individual rights, to claim that an individual should have the right to enforce whatever law he himself chooses on other people.

I didn't say wathever law he chooses. If an arbitrator isn't respecting natural rights, he's committing a crime.

Once again, you miss the difference between someone violating your rights(murder), and the government not protecting your rights(the goverment not convicting murderers). I

Are you kidding ! You're the one failing to make the distinction between right violation and lack of enforcement of rights.

If someone steals from me, the thief has violated my rights. But the fact that the courts convict him of his crime, means that my rights are enforced. If the government doesnt convict the thief, then i do not have the right to property. I should have, but i dont.

This is arguing semantics. Boring.

Yes it does, as whatever anyone thinks are rights, will be enforced by whomever willing to provide the service. It puts actual individual rights on the same level with whatever mystic pseudo-rights one can think of, as the violator does not get punished by an objective court of law, and instead gets or doesnt get punished by whomever who happens to take up the task.

But magically the objective government will enforce not what they think are objective rights but objective rights. Oh of course you may say it will by definition. In this case your government is a floating abstraction irrelevant to a moral debate.

Once again. Rights enforcement precedes the market, as rights are meaningless without right enforcement.

And food collection also precedes the market, but then it becomes part of it.

The fact that individual rights arent enforced by objective governments.

So if the objective government fails to catch a single apple thief, it's not an objective government? Interesting.

But overall you missed my point: What makes current states different from anarchocapitalistic institutions. If we consider that Finland Inc. owns the land in Finland

No it doesn't, it occupies it in violation of millions of property owner's right. The Finish government never acquired the land through homesteading.

Well, I'm not welcome here, that'll be my last post. I hope some of you will read calmly my argument and understand that it is immoral to deny people the right to provide defense services. Cheers.

Edited by A.B.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rights cannot be fully guaranteed, you may be murdered by a lunatic tomorrow. No amount of institutions is going to prevent that. However, it is guaranteed that an Objectivist government as envisioned by Ayn Rand will take away your right to become a private arbitrator or a vigilante.

This is the crux of the anarchist argument -- you want the freedom to settle your violated rights yourself, without having to justify them to anyone. That is, you want to be able to go over to your neighbor's house, if you think he wronged your rights, and shoot him dead.

No, you don't have the right to do that -- you do not have the right to take the law into your own hands and settle disputes that way. I don't have much against private arbiters, so long as both parties agree with the arbiter, but taking up arms against someone because they wronged your rights is exactly what needs to be controlled in an objective society.

Anarchist or anarcho-capitalist seem to think that if men are left alone by government, men will quite naturally follow reason to settle their disputes; which is totally contradicted by those parts of the world that do not have a government to objectify the settling of disputes. I mean, look at Somalia! Look at how the world was before there were governments, with tribes fighting tribes. What in the world is going to make a non-tribal settling of disputes possible without a government there to enforce individual rights? I think tribal warfare is all you will be able to achieve, and no you do not have the right to set up your own tribe to settle disputes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I never understand why some people, O'ist and non-O'ist alike, seem to think that we can guarantee people that their rights won't be violated, or that no bad in life will ever come to you. :lol: There are no such guarantees!

There will be crazy people. There will be looters and moochers. There will be stupid people who never "get it." There will be murderers. There will be people and/or businesses that violate contracts. There will always be rights-violators mingling amongst free men. *

HOWEVER, by having a moral government in place (a government that is authorized to use force to protect the rights of its citizens), the aforementioned crazy idiots can be punished for violating rights.

* Although I believe that in an O'ist society, these people would be much fewer and farther between since there would be no reward for such behavior.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A.B, you're welcome but your tone has not been respectful and it's suspect that your first topic here was this one, where you chose to try and splatter anarchist writing from Childs and others.

It's perfectly fine to argue, but you come off as snide. If I were to, for example, goto the Mises board I would remember to be as respectful as I could, even if I found some people's ideas ludicrous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In that case why was it wrong for him to murder you ?

Because he initiated force against me.

No, you have the right, it should be respected, but it wasn't.

Hence, I did not actually "have" that right. Just like the north koreans dont have property rights. They should have, but they dont. Your making it seem like everyone just somehow intrinsically "has" rights. Rights are not metaphysical. The point of rights in Objectivism is not: "We all automatically "have" rights" but instead "in order for men to live free together, these rights should be respected"

No, it advocates that rights should be respected. Upholding the rights (as opposed to respecting them) implies someone's action. Your rights do not depend on other people's action.

My rights certainly depends on the fact whether they are upheld or not. The reason not to initiate force against another man is ethical, not political. The reason to advocate punishment of the initiation of force, is political. These are two very different things. The act of me murdering someone belongs in ethics, the act of punishing me for the murder belongs in politics.

That's true regardless of the system. If you have a huge army to protect you, you will probably not be punished for anything.

Hence, why Objectivist support 1) an objective government, 2) a government monopoly on the use of retaliatory force.

I do understand and I agree with that. But it is also reliant on food being provided.

Not in the same sense. Food is relevant for a man to survive, but not in any way relevant to whether a market is free or not. The enforcement of individual rights is a necessity in order for a market to be called free. If individual rights arent enforced, the market ceases to be free. If food isnt produced/purchased, then food isnt produced/purchased, byt it doesnt have any relevance on whether the market is free or not. You dont seem to understand the distinction, so i'll illustrate it to you:

A football is a necessity for the sport football to be football. If no football(the ball) exists, the game football doesnt exist, and whatever those 22 guys running around a grassy field are doing, it is not playing football. The football is a necessity for the game football to be football. This is comparable to individual rights in relation to a free market.

Now, the football players also have protective gear, skill, coaches, they exercise etc. but these arent necessities for football to be football. Even if naked, talentless, coachless seriously obese fatties are throwing a football around and adhere to the rules of the game, they are still playing football. It may not be good football, but its football, nevertheless. This is comparable to food/sustinence in relation to a free market.

No, I do not.

And it is not mine. Therefore you're pulling a strawman.

No im not, as there will be no objective arbiter to punish "private law agencies" that stone muslim women or who takes over other peoples "property"(that doesnt even really exist in anarcocapitalism) by force. That is what you are advocating.

A free market cannot work when there are only corpses.

It did "work" before they were corpses. If everyone stopped eating by choice, it would have no bearing on whether the market is free or not.

If someone someday steals an apple, is the market free ?

If all transactions are taxed, is the market free ?

It's theft in both cases, but what makes the second market unfree is that right violation is institutionalized.

No, what makes the second market unfree is that the thief isnt punished. The whole point of my argument!

The rights are always here, and the free market may provide for the enforcement of said rights. yes it requires a bootstrap, but that's hardly a problem.

Where? Where are the "rights" in North Korea?

Rights are what should be respected. They're not irrelevant, they tell us how to act morally. Your right to own your wallet isn't irrelevant, because, even without any form of enforcement, I choose to be moral and not steal your wallet. Dude, I'm being 100% ARI kosher here, this is the Objectivist stance.

Find me an Objectivist, from ARI or otherwise, that says rights enforcement is not a necessity for rights to be rights. The reason i do not steal, murder etc. is because it is unethical, making me a second hander. Rights dont exist to "make" people moral, they exist to protect the moral from the initiators of force.

---------

i just noticed that he said he was leaving the forum, so i wont adress the rest of his post. I spent some time writing this answer so i'll just post it anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hence, I did not actually "have" that right. Just like the north koreans dont have property rights. They should have, but they dont. Your making it seem like everyone just somehow intrinsically "has" rights. Rights are not metaphysical. The point of rights in Objectivism is not: "We all automatically "have" rights" but instead "in order for men to live free together, these rights should be respected"

I'm not sure I understand this. Before rights can be respected, they would have to exist first, correct? How are they brought into existence? Who creates them?

Edited by JeffS
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hence, why Objectivist support 1) an objective government, 2) a government monopoly on the use of retaliatory force.

And how about the manner in which government is funded? The wall I run into in this kind of argument is that it's "impossible" to have a voluntarily funded government, that it's somehow a contradiction in terms.

I'm not sure I understand this. Before rights can be respected, they would have to exist first, correct? How are they brought into existence? Who creates them?

They're not created but rather recognized.

I never understand why some people, O'ist and non-O'ist alike, seem to think that we can guarantee people that their rights won't be violated, or that no bad in life will ever come to you. :P There are no such guarantees!

There will be crazy people. There will be looters and moochers. There will be stupid people who never "get it." There will be murderers. There will be people and/or businesses that violate contracts. There will always be rights-violators mingling amongst free men. *

HOWEVER, by having a moral government in place (a government that is authorized to use force to protect the rights of its citizens), the aforementioned crazy idiots can be punished for violating rights.

* Although I believe that in an O'ist society, these people would be much fewer and farther between since there would be no reward for such behavior.

I agree with you, K-Mac. Well said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure I understand this. Before rights can be respected, they would have to exist first, correct? How are they brought into existence? Who creates them?

Man by his nature is the rational animal, so a man must use his reason in order to live his life. Rights are a moral concept derived from this understating of man's nature and is basically the social recognition of man's need to think for himself and to act accordingly. In other words, it places society under the auspices of the rational man, saying that society or other men do not have the moral authority to run a man's mind or life for him. So, by his nature, there are certain basic requirements of a man living his life, and being free from the initiation of force or fraud is the most basic social requirement.

See Man's rights in the Ayn Rand Lexicon.

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...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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